EPA 910/9-76-024
An Evaluation of the Status
of Hazardous Waste
Management in Region X
by
Michael W. Stradley
Gaynor W. Dawson
Bruce W. Cone
December 1975
Prepared for
Solid Waste Branch, Region X
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contract 68-01-2943
Batteiie
Pacific Northwest Laboratories
-------
EPA 910/9-76-024
AN EVALUATION OF THE STATUS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT IN REGION X
by
Michael W. Stradley
Gaynor W. Dawson
Bruce W. Cone
CONTRACT 68-01-2943
Project Officer
Tobias Hegdahl
DECEMBER 1975
Prepared for
SOLID WASTE BRANCH, REGION X
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98901
PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORIES
a division of
BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE
P. 0. Box 999
Richland, Washington 99352
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 1
ABSTRACT 3
I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
SUMMARY 5
Agricultural Hazardous Wastes 5
Industrial Hazardous Wastes 6
Hazardous Wastes From State and
Federal Agencies 6
Waste Handling, Processing,
and Disposal 7
State and Federal Regulatory Agencies .... 8
CONCLUSIONS 8
The Regional Study Approach 8
Agricultural Wastes 9
Industrial Wastes 9
State and Federal Agencies 10
Public and Private Utilities 11
Waste Processors 11
Hazardous Waste Management Systems 11
II INTRODUCTION 13
III APPROACH 15
CATEGORIZATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES 15
Distinction of Regulatory Groupings 15
Working Definition of Hazardous
Wastes 17
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 19
Industrial Operations 20
Agricultural Operations 21
State and Federal Agencies 21
Waste Processing and Disposal
Companies 22
DETERMINATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
QUANTITIES AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 22
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
Paqe
IV HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM THE
AGRICULTURAL SECTOR 27
INTRODUCTION 27
PESTICIDE USAGE IN REGION X 27
CONTAINER ESTIMATE 28
DISPOSAL PRACTICES . . . 52
V HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM THE
INDUSTRIAL SECTOR 53
INTRODUCTION 53
POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTES
BY INDUSTRY GROUPS 53
REGIONAL SUMMARY OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 73
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF
POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTES 73
RECOMMENDED WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 83
Heavy Metal Sludges and Solutions 83
Solvents and Oils 84
Caustic and Acid 85
Inorganic Chemical Wastes 86
Organic Chemical Waste 88
Pesticide Wastes 89
Paint Wastes 90
Explosive Wastes 91
VI POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM
STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES 93
INTRODUCTION 93
SPENT PESTICIDE CONTAINERS FROM
STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES 93
INDUSTRIAL WASTES FROM STATE
AND FEDERAL AGENCIES 95
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
Pacre
ELECTRIC UTILITIES AND PUBLIC
UTILITY DISTRICTS 95
VII WASTE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL COMPANIES 109
WESTERN PROCESSING COMPANY
(WASTE PROCESSOR) 109
Background and Organization 109
Waste Streams and Products 110
Waste Handling and Processing 112
Evaluation 114
Financial Condition 114
Management Problems 115
CHEMICAL PROCESSORS, INC.
(WASTE PROCESSOR) 115
Background and Organization 115
Waste Streams and Products 116
Economics 117
WES CON, INC. (WASTE DISPOSAL) 117
Background and Organization 117
Waste Streams 118
Handling and Processing 118
Economics 120
Evaluation and Future Trends 120
RESOURCE RECOVERY, INC.
(WASTE DISPOSAL) 120
Background and Organization 120
Waste Streams and Products 121
Waste Handling and Processing 122
Economics 122
Evaluation and Future Trends 122
CROSBY AND OVERTON (WASTE REMOVAL) 123
LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL COMPANY
(WASTE REMOVAL) 123
OTHER WASTE REMOVAL COMPANIES 124
ill
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
Page
VIII HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 127
INTRODUCTION 127
STATE GOVERNMENT 127
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 129
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL 130
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 136
COOPERATIVE CONCEPTS .... 143
REFERENCES 145
APPENDIX A
DESIGNATION OF AND DETERMINATION OF
REMOVABILITY FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 155
APPENDIX B
THE HAZARDOUS WASTE DECISION MODEL .... 163
Radioactivity 165
Bioconcentration 167
Flairanability 168
Reactivity 169
Oral Toxicity 171
Inhalation Toxicity 171
Dermal Penetration 173
Dermal Irritation 174
Aquatic Toxicity 174
Phytotoxicity 175
Genetic Effects , 176
REFERENCES 179
APPENDIX C
POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
PRODUCING HAZARDOUS WASTES 183
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
III-l RELATION OF VARIOUS HAZARDOUS AND
TOXIC MATERIALS DEFINED BY LEGISLATION. ... 17
IV-1 DISTRIBUTION OF SPENT PESTICIDE
CONTAINERS IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON .... 49
IV-2 DISTRIBUTION OF SPENT PESTICIDE
CONTAINERS IN THE STATE OF OREGON 50
IV-3 DISTRIBUTION OF SPENT PESTICIDE
CONTAINERS IN THE STATE OF IDAHO 51
V-l LOCATION OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS
INDUSTRIAL WASTE GENERATING
ACTIVITIES IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON .... 79
V-2 LOCATION OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS
INDUSTRIAL WASTE GENERATING
ACTIVITIES IN THE STATE OF OREGON 80
V-3 LOCATION OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS
INDUSTRIAL WASTE GENERATING
ACTIVITIES IN THE STATE OF IDAHO 81
V-4 LOCATION OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS
INDUSTRIAL WASTE GENERATING
ACTIVITIES IN THE STATE OF ALASKA 82
VIII-1 OPTIMUM ECONOMIC ZONE FOR LOCATION OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITES 125
VIII-2 PROCEDURES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES TRIP
TICKET (SCHEMATIC) 138
VIII-3 LOGIC DIAGRAM FOR REGULATORY
CLASSIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES 142
B-l GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE DECISION MODEL 166
V
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
IV-1 ESTIMATED APPLICATION RATES FOR
WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN OUNCES OF
PESTICIDE (AS FORMULATED) PER ACRE 29
IV-2 ESTIMATED APPLICATION RATES FOR
OREGON COUNTIES IN OUNCES OF
PESTICIDE (AS FORMULATED) PER ACRE 31
IV-3 ESTIMATED APPLICATION RATES FOR
IDAHO COUNTIES IN OUNCES OF
PESTICIDE (AS FORMULATED) PER ACRE 33
IV-4 ESTIMATED TOTAL USE OF PESTICIDES
IN TONS AS FORMULATED AND COUNTY
DENSITY IN TONS PER SQUARE MILE,
WASHINGTON, 1969 35
IV-5 ESTIMATED TOTAL USE OF PESTICIDES
IN TONS AS FORMULATED AND COUNTY
DENSITY IN TONS PER SQUARE MILE,
OREGON, 1969 37
IV-6 ESTIMATED TOTAL USE OF PESTICIDES
IN TONS AS FORMUALTED AND COUNTY
DESNITY IN TONS PER SQUARE MILE,
IDAHO, 1969 39
IV-7 CONTAINER SIZE DISTRIBUTION IDENTIFIED
IN CALIFORNIA 41
IV-8 ESTIMATED CONTAINERS IN WASHINGTON
COUNTIES 42
IV-9 ESTIMATED CONTAINERS IN OREGON
COUNTIES 44
IV-10 ESTIMATED CONTAINERS IN IDAHO
COUNTIES 46
IV-11 TOTAL CONTAINERS/STATE 48
V-l INDUSTRIAL SOURCES OF POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS WASTES IN REGION X 54
VI1
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.)
Number Page
V-2 REGIONAL SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTE AND
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 74
V-3 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF
POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL
WASTE 76
VI-1 ESTIMATE OF SPENT PESTICIDE CONTAINERS
FROM STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES 98
VI-2 ESTIMATE OF HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM
STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES 101
VI-3 INDUSTRIAL WASTES FROM STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES 108
VII-1 HAZARDOUS WASTES RECEIVED BY WESTERN
PROCESSING COMPANY, APRIL 1974 TO
APRIL 1975 Ill
VII-2 WASTES RECEIVED AT WES CON FOR THE
PERIOD APRIL 1974 THROUGH AUGUST 1975 .... 119
VII-3 DELIVERIES TO WESTERN PROCESSING FROM
LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL COMPANY (MAY 1974 -
APRIL 1975) 124
VIII-1 ACCEPTABLE HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
SITE LOCATIONS 131
B-l LIMITING DOSAGES DIFFERENTIATING TOXIC
AND NONTOXID SUBSTANCES ACCORDING TO
ROUTE OF ADMINISTRATION TO EXPERIMENTAL
ANIMALS OF MAXIMUM SINGLE (ACUTE) DOSE
CAUSTIC DEATH 172
C-l POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES PRODUCING
HAZARDOUS WASTES 185
Vlll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This report was prepared by Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, for the Solid Waste Branch, Region X,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-01-2943,
Mr. G. W. Dawson served as overall project director for this study
while Mr. M. W. Stradley performed the dual roles of technical
director and principle investigator. Other Battelle staff
participating in the program included T. J. McLaughlin,
B. W. Mercer, J. A. McNeese, and S. I. Thoreson. Dr. B. W. Cone
directed the agricultural survey of spent pesticide containers.
The secretarial efforts of Ms. Nancy Painter and Betty Thomas
are gratefully acknowledged.
Special thanks must go to the staff of the Region X, Solid Waste
Management Program, Mr. Tobias Hegdahl and Mr. Stan Jorgensen
who provided helpful guidance throughout the program. The
cooperation of the EPA Office of Solid Waste Management Program,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, is also acknowledged.
Appreciation is also extended to the numerous state and municipal
officials who provided valuable inputs to the study and the
hundreds of industries in Region X without whose cooperation
the study would not have been possible.
-------
ABSTRACT
Hazardous waste types, quantities, locations, and management
practices for industrial, agricultural, and public operations
in EPA Region X were surveyed during the research program. The
objective of the study was to obtain a high resolution assess-
ment of hazardous waste management in the states of Alaska,
Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The survey revealed that
hazardous waste management practices in the region ranged from
the environmentally unacceptable to the commendable. The lattor
situation is due in no small part to the existance of waste
processing firms which collect and process hazardous wastes
into marketable products and efforts by industries to recycle
wastes through secondary markets.
Problems associated with the definition of hazardous wastes
lead to the adoption of a dual system for determining whether
or not a particular waste should be classified as being
hazardous. A criteria approach using a waste decision model,
developed by Battelle-Northwest, was used in conjunction with
a listing approach based on the EPA proposed list of non-
removable hazardous substances. Wastes that qualify as being
hazardous under either of these approaches are designated poten-
tially hazardous and are reported as such. Use of this con-
servative approach may lead to an over estimation the actual
quantity of hazardous waste generated in the region may well be
somewhat less than the 130 thousand metric tons reported herein.
The report also documents the activities of hazardous waste
handling, processing, and disposal companies within the region
and the roles of state and federal agencies in the overall
management of hazardous wastes. The need for additional
hazardous waste disposal sites in the region is explored and
recommendations for the location of such a site are offered.
Recommendations for state management programs and interstate
cooperation in the area of hazardous waste management are also
made.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No, 68-
01-2943 under the sponsorship of the Solid Waste Management
Program, Region X, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
Disposal practices associated with these containers were not
estimated directly, but can be inferred from previous studies
by state and federal agencies. The general conclusion is that
most of these containers are not receiving triple rinses before
disposal and that many are being dumped in public landfills or
on private land.
Industrial Hazardous Wastes
Regional industries with the potential to generate hazardous
waste were initially identified by crossing state manufacturing
directories with a previously generated listing of industry
types which, by the nature of their operation, could produce
hazardous wastes. This crossing was done on the basis of
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and resulted in a list
of approximately 2,500 industries. This list was augmented by
inputs from state and local agencies. The end product,
representing the universe of potential industrial hazardous
waste generators, was then crossed with a variety of information
sources such as state hazardous waste surveys, NPDES permits,
national hazardous waste studies, municipal records, reports
from waste processing companies and the technical literature in
order to segregate "potentials" into actual, questionable, and
non-hazardous waste generators. Those operations identified as
actual or questionable generators were contacted by phone and/or
letter in order to determine as precisely as possible the types
and quantities of hazardous wastes associated with their oper-
ation and the management practices employed. Cooperation from
industry within the region was quite good. Less than one per-
cent of the firms contacted declined to discuss their hazardous
wastes.
Hazardous Wastes From State
and Federal Agencies
State and federal agencies in the region were surveyed by
direct telephone and mail correspondance. Agencies reporting
hazardous wastes included the following:
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
Bureau of Land Management
U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration
U. S. Forest Service
U. S. Air Force
U. S. Navy
-------
I. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY
The study represents an attempt to identify, locate, and quantify
hazardous wastes generated in EPA Region X which encompasses the
States of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. In the absence
of a universally accepted and technically adequate definition,
hazardous wastes are defined in two ways in order to insure
comprehensive coverage. When sufficient data on individual
wastes are available, the Battelle waste decision model, des-
cribed in Appendix B, is used to determine whether or not the
waste is potentially hazardous. In the absence of sufficient
data on the waste constituency and concentration, any waste
known to contain a designated hazardous substance is also included,
Designated hazardous substances are listed in Appendix A.
Aside from the above objectives, the study is also concerned
with the management practices associated with the identified
wastes. This concern includes not only the management practices
at the waste generating facilities, but also those of regional
operations engaged in the handling, processing, and disposal of
hazardous wastes. The assessment of hazardous waste management
also includes a discussion of the roles of state and federal
regulatory agencies within the region.
Efforts to locate additional hazardous waste disposal sites are
reviewed and recommendations on the need for such additional
sites are offered. The possibility of interstate cooperation
in siting hazardous waste sites is explored along with other
cooperative concepts applicable to more effective management
of hazardous wastes within the region.
Agricultural Hazardous Wastes
Agricultural hazardous wastes in the form of spent pesticide
containers were estimated for the States of Idaho, Oregon,
and Washington. No data were available for a similar effort in
Alaska.
-------
State Highway Departments
State Health Departments (Mosquito Control)
State Forestry and Public Land Departments
Hazardous wastes reported by these agencies were, for the most
part, spent pesticide containers. An estimated 13,000 unrinsed
containers are generated by these activities annually. As in
the agricultural sector, these containers are buried either on
government or private property or in public landfills.
The other waste generated by state and federal agencies was
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). This waste identified by the
BPA and the public and private utilities in the region was, in
most instances, being disposed of at the Wes Con, Inc. site
near Grandview, Idaho, or through return to the manufacturer.
Some of the public utility districts contacted had disposed of
PCB wastes through application for road oiling or dumping.
Others were storing it on site until a proper disposal method
could be identified.
Waste Handling, Processing, and Disposal
Presently one secured hazardous waste disposal site is in oper-
ation within the region. This site, operated by Wes Con, Inc.,
is located on an abandoned missile base near Grandview, Idaho.
The empty missile silos and tunnels are presently receiving
wastes at a rate of 40 tons per week.
Two major industrial waste processing companies are presently
operating in the Region. Chem Pro, Inc. operates an oil recovery
plant and a solvent recovery plant in Seattle. Western Processing,
Inc. also operates a solvent recovery facility at its Kent,
Washington facility. In addition, this company reclaims a
variety of industrial inorganic chemical wastes through a series
of blending, mixing, and drying operations which convert these
wastes into resaleable products.
A number of small waste handling companies also operate within
the region. The latter are typically tank cleaning and septic
tank companies which, on occassion, receive hazardous wastes.
Two of the larger companies, Crosby and Overton, and Liquid
Waste Disposal, are known to use the services of Chem Pro and
Western Processing. Similar practices by many of the other
identified and unidentified companies noted during the industrial
waste survey cannot be assured. Hence, some waste handlers may
be discharging residuals in an unacceptable manner.
-------
State and Federal Regulatory Agencies
State agencies in all four states are actively involved in hazard-
ous waste management and planning. Four separate pieces of
hazardous waste legislation have been enacted in Oregon, and
Washington is presently exploring the need for similar legis-
lation. Oregon, Washington, and Idaho have all conducted hazard-
ous waste surveys of one form or another. Alaska has planned a
similar survey to be conducted in the near future. Agencies in
the four states are engaged in siting hazardous waste disposal
landfills. To date, only Idaho has succeeded.
CONCLUSIONS
As a result of the study reported herein/ many conclusions have
been drawn with respect to hazardous waste management in Region
X. Some of these are directed to observations about the present
status of management. Others are directed to requirements in
the future. Specific comments are grouped below to correspond
with the order of presentation in the report itself.
The Regional Study Approach
Inherent in any inventory study of hazardous wastes is
the need to derive a precise definition of those wastes.
No common approach to this problem has been widely accepted.
A regional study of this nature is valuable only if it
can be taken to a fine level of resolution. When this
is achieved, the final product can be expected to give
a clear picture of the total hazardous waste management
cycle both technically and spatially.
In the final analysis, the degree of resolution desired
for this type of study necessitates the use of direct
contact with waste generators, transporters, and pro-
cessors. The latter cannot be accomplished with form
letters, but requires personal interaction with allow-
ance for active feedback.
State survey efforts are of real value and should be
encouraged. If these are conducted in a comprehensive
manner, they will form the basis of any regional assess-
ment effort.
Best survey response is obtained when interviews are
preceeded by an analysis of the processes and equipment
employed by the industry. This allows the researcher to
probe specific areas and touch on subjects which, for
one reason or another, may not otherwise come to the
surface. Simply asking what a firms hazardous wastes
are will be of little value.
-------
Agricultural Wastes
Based on a good correlation with data for spent pesticide
containers in Oregon state and Grant County, Washington,
the extrapolation approach taken here is considered a
viable one which can produce some meaningful data on the
quantity and location of pesticide containers.
If a similar effort is conducted on a national level or
greater detail is desired, an attempt should be made to
interpret Frear Codes used in the USDA survey such that
results can be categorized by pesticide type, e.g.,
organophosphate, carbamate, etc.
Random Surveys of applicators and farmers should be
made to complement the data base with information on
actual disposal practices.
A large amount of spent pesticide containers are
generated in Region X each year, but data are insuf-
ficient to measure the associated environmental impact.
There is a real need for suitable means of recycle and
reuse of the large number of metal drums disposed of
annually.
States should endorse a standard procedure for decon-
taminating and disposing of pesticide containers, as
well as designate specific sites for receiving
residuals.
Industrial Wastes
Industrial wastes and their sources require the major
share of effort and resources in a study of this type.
Gaps in data with respect to waste constituents, con-
centrations, and properties preclude application of the
Battelle Waste Decision Model to industrial wastes in
many cases.
Nonferrous metals operations, and organic and inorganic
chemical manufacturers produce a large volume of poten-
tially hazardous wastes which constitute a major con-
tribution to total hazardous waste volume. Further
study is required to clearly define the properties of
these^specific wastes and hence allow better deter-
mination of their hazardous nature.
Wastes with a particularly high potential for damage
to human health or the environment are discharged by
electroplating job shops, industries with captive
electroplating activities and pesticide manu'facturina
operations.
9
-------
Recycling and reprocessing are an active and vital part
of Region X hazardous waste management.
A study of this nature is valuable for identifying waste
sources, but the adequacy of disposal practices cannot
be assessed without specific site visits to on-going
operations.
The information presented here becomes dated rapidly.
This underscroes the need for a mechanism to require
reporting by waste generators. Mandatory reporting will
also increase the integrity of the data obtained.
Approximately 14 percent of the hazardous waste gener-
ated in Region X is buried on private land or in public
landfills. Some of this activity is indiscriminate
and difficult to trace because of the small tank
cleaners and haulers involved. Less than one percent
of the total waste volume went to the approved hazard-
ous waste disposal site in Owyhee County, Idaho in 1975.
Large quantities of hazardous wastes are being stored
in anticipation of the opening of a new disposal site
or some other economic disposal option. When combined
with hazardous wastes presently being lagooned, the
total constitutes 61 percent of all industrial hazard-
ous wastes identified in this study.
Effluent analyses indicate that hazardous waste volume
may increase as effluent requirements become stricter
in 1977 and 1983. This will largely be due to heavy
metals present in process waters. This tendency to
greater waste volumes will be countered by trends in
product substitution, internal recycle, and further
waste concentration. The net effect is likely to be
growth at a rate commensurate with the growth of the
regional economy.
State and Federal Agencies
Wastes eminating from state and federal agencies include
spent pesticide containers and wastes from industrial-
like operations at military installations.
Federal and some state agencies report that they are
following EPA guidelines for handling and disposal of
spent pesticide containers. States should, however,
develop tighter controls for disposal of pesticide
containers used by agency personnel.
-------
Public and Private Utilities
PCB contaminated oils constitute the major hazardous
waste generated by utilities.
Some utilities are not well informed about the disposal
options available for these materials.
Waste Processors
Region X is fortunate to have two firms actively repro-
cessing and recycling hazardous wastes. Additional
strain may be placed on disposal capabilities if Western
Processing should fail to solve its present financial
and managerial difficulties.
Waste processors are a second source of hazardous
wastes. It cannot be assumed that delivery of wastes
to these firms constitutes proper disposition. Indeed,
a permit or facility certification process is desirable
to both identify all the actors involved and to allow
generators to better assess the quality of treatment
their residuals will receive.
"Occasional" drums cause a problem for waste processors.
Central collection facilities and transport to disposal
sites may be a safer and more cost effective alternative,
Hazardous Waste Management Systems
At least one more hazardous waste disposal site is
needed to serve Region X. The existing Wes Con site
is large enough for present demands, but transportation
costs from major generation sites are prohibitive.
A site in Benton, Franklin, Grant, or Adams County,
Washington or Sherman or Gilliam County, Oregon, would
satisfy many current and future needs.
Transportation considerations must be a major con-
sideration in site selection as well as local accep-
tance. The latter is the obstacle to current siting
efforts.
* The transportation aspects of hazardous waste manage-
ment have not been thoroughly studied, they appear to
constitute a major weakness in the management cycle
from a safety and regulatory standpoint.
11
-------
States should be encouraged to develop similar or com-
patible approaches to regulations, permits, definitions,
transportation, and manifests. This will facilitate
interstate cooperation and the development of a viable
regional waste handling industry.
State regulatory programs need to consider a wide
variety of issues including mandatory reporting, trans-
portation manifests, eminent domain for siting, and
disposal site operating permits.
A waste exchange and information center should be
established in Region X to facilitate waste reuse and
communications on disposal options. Many small and
large waste generators are simply not aware of the
options open to them.
12
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
The need to address the problem of Hazardous Waste Management
was recognized in the Resource Recovery Act of 1970. Sub-
sequent efforts led to a series of research studies1"3 which
attempted to identify and quantify hazardous wastes within
the United States. All were conducted on a national scale
and have been valuable in providing order of magnitude
estimates of the national hazardous wastes problem and as
aids in formulating national policies on hazardous waste
management. Nevertheless, the scale or level of resoultion
of these studies is such that their applicability to local,
state, and even regional planning for hazardous waste
management is limited. Detailed information relating to
waste types and quantities, disposal practices, and spacial
distribution of sources (all of which is required to accurately
assess the status quo of hazardous waste management within
a particular geographic area) is not evident in these studies.
The collection and evaluation of such detailed information is
an essential precursor to meaningful and effective action by
federal, regional and state environmental protection agencies.
Recognizing the need for such detailed information, the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X Office, initiated
a study with the following goals:
Identification and location of hazardous waste being
generated in the states of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
and Washington;
* Estimation of the types and quantities of these wastes;
Determination of the waste management and disposal practices
associated with these wastes;
Identification of existing and potential hazardous waste
disposal sites;
^attelle Memorial Institute. "Program for the Management of
Hazardous Wastes," Environmental Protection Agency, Contract
No. 68-01-0762, July 1973.
2Ottinger, R. S., et al. "Recommended Methods of Reduction
Neutralization, Recovery, and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes,"
TRW Systems for Environmental Protection Agency, February
1973.
3Booz-Allen Applied Research, Inc. "A Study of Hazardous
Waste Materials, Hazardous Effects, and Disposal Methods,"
Environmental Protection Agency, June 30, 1972.
13
-------
Projection of future waste generation patterns;
Evaluation of current hazardous waste management practices;
Development of cooperative concepts which could enhance
hazardous waste management within the region.
The study was carried out by Battelle-Northwest Laboratories
with the valuable assistance of federal, state and municipal
offices and the cooperation of literally hundreds of industries
within the four state region.
The results of this one year study are presented in the follow-
ing report. Chapter III describes the approaches, special
considerations, definitions, and limits applied to the study.
Chapters IV, V, and VI represent the major effort of the study
depicting findings relating to hazardous waste generation and
management in the agricultural, industrial, and public sectors
respectively. Chapter VII deals with those operations within
the region which provide special services for hazardous waste
disposal, detoxification, and recycling. Finally, in Chapter
VIII, the activities of state and federal agencies in the area
of hazardous waste management are described. This chapter
also explores the needs for future efforts within the region
to ensure the continuation and improvement of hazardous waste
management practices.
14
-------
III. APPROACH
CATEGORIZATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
Distinction of Regulatory Groupings
The determination of what constitutes a hazardous waste is a
difficult and, to date, an unresolved problem. Definitions
abound and many times a certain degree of confusion with other
regulatory groupings arises. The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Ammendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) defines two groups of
materials which are often confused with hazardous wastes:
1) toxic pollutants, and 2) hazardous substances. Toxic pollu-
tants to be designated as a result of Section 307 of that Act
are materials considered to threaten sufficient harm to human
health or the environment to warrant specific effluent limita-
tions. These are clearly defined as pure compounds and are
designated only in the context of discharges to water. Therefore,
these materials themselves do not constitute hazardous wastes;
however, the sludges produced in removing them from liquid
streams may be hazardous wastes. To date, 12 substances have
been designated as toxic pollutants:
Aldrin
Benzidine
Cadmium
* Cyanide
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
PCB's
Toxaphene
Hazardous substances are defined in Section 311 of PL 92-500
as:
15
-------
"...such elements and compounds which, when discharged
in any quantity into or upon the navigable waters of
the United States or adjoining shorelines or the waters
of the contiguous zone, present an imminent and sub-
stantial danger to the public health or welfare, includ-
ing, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and
beaches."
Once again, materials so designated are pure substances and
not wastes per se. However, spillage of otherwise designated
hazardous wastes may also constitute spillage of hazardous
substances based on the pure compounds included in the waste.
In other words, hazardous wastes may include hazardous materials
as components. Indeed, off-spec or waste batches of hazardous
substances also qualify as hazardous wastes. Conversely,
recovered materials after spillage of hazardous substances are
likely to constitute hazardous wastes. To date, some 350-400
elements and compounds have been proposed for designation as
hazardous substances. A complete listing of these can be
found in the Federal Register. "*
A third group of materials which may be confused with hazard-
ous wastes includes toxic substances as defined in pending
Toxic Substance legislation. While a final version of this
proposed act is not yet available, it would appear that this
grouping will include all chemicals and mixtures of commerce
which may pose a threat to man or his environment as a result
of their distribution, sale, or use. In this context, these
materials are products and will become wastes only if dis-
carded.
Figure III-l is provided to summarize the interrelations of
the aformentioned groups as defined by existing and proposed
law. Given these distinctions, confusion may still occur as
a result of the tendency for people to use the terms toxic and
hazardous interchangeably. The words are not synonomous. The
former refers to intrinsic characteristics, the latter to
extrinsic ones. This distinction has been expressed succinctly
by the Food Protection Committee of the National Academy of
Sciences:5
Toxicity is the capacity of the substance to produce
injury including effects such as teratogem'city,
mutagenicity, and carcinogen!city.
^U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Designation and
Determination of Removability of Hazardous Substances from
Water," Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 164, Part IV,
August 22, 1974.
5Report of the Food Protection Committee, National Academy
of Science, 1970.
16
-------
Operation
Produce
or ^
Employ
Toxic
Substances
Present at Hazardous ^
Levels in Wasted Materials'"
Hazardous
Waste
Hazardous
Substances
(350-400
designated)
FIGURE III-l.
RELATION OF VARIOUS HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC
MATERIALS DEFINED BY LEGISLATION
Hazard is the probability that injury will result from
use of (or contact with) a substance in a given quantity
or manner.
Working Definition of Hazardous Waste
Having segregated hazardous wastes from other material groups
created by legislative action, and having clarified the des-
tinction between toxic and hazardous, it is now necessary
to establish the specific criteria used in this study to
determine whether or not a particular waste is considered
hazardous. Typically, hazardous wastes, at the regulatory
level, are defined in one of two ways: 1) hazardous wastes
are listed, or 2) hazardous wastes are defined by specific,
numerical criteria. Both of these approaches offer advantages
and disadvantages with the distinction between the two usually
occurring between level of resolution and ease of utiliza-
tion. The former definition (listing) allows relatively easy
recognition and classification of wastes once the constituents
of the waste are known. It is not necessary to analyze the
waste as a new and single entity; rather, the mere presence
of a listed or designated hazardous constituent is sufficient
for designation of the waste as hazardous. On the other hand,
17
-------
this approach does not consider the possibility of synergistic
or antagonistic effects that may be operating in complex
wastes nor does it allow for the fact that the hazardous
constituents of the waste may not be present in sufficient
quantities or concentration to create a hazard. The latter
definition (numerical criteria) affords a more flexible
approach. Once criteria are established, they need not be
changed as new materials arise. Under this type of approach,
synergistic and antagonistic effects can be considered since
the waste is analyzed as a single entity. Nevertheless, this
approach requires more information on the hazardous properties
of the waste before a determination of hazardous or non-
hazardous can be made.
For this study, both types of definitions were used. This
portion represents a decision to take a conservative approach
to insure that all potentially hazardous wastes were identified,
This approach was also dictated by the fact that most wastes
identified in the study were not available for analysis and
in many instances the levels of hazardous constituents were
unknown. All wastes identified in the study which contained
materials listed in the EPA proposed list of non-removable
hazardous substances'* were reported as potentially hazardous
wastes. A list of these materials is contained in Appendix
A. While this list was generated for a different purpose,
the criteria employed were similar to those recommended for
use in identifying hazardous wastes.l A waste decision model
developed by Battelle-Northwest in a previous study1 was
then applied to those identified wastes for which sufficient
data for evaluation under this model was available. This
model is discussed in detail in Appendix B. Thus, those
materials which qualified as hazardous under the waste
decision model formed a subset of the potentially hazardous
wastes identified through the listing approach. Additionally,
some exceptions were made to insure that highly flammable,
reactive, bioconcentrative, or genetically active substances
not included in the EPA listing were still considered for
designation as hazardous. It should be re-emphasized that
lacking formally promulgated state or federal regulations
and procedures to determine the hazardous or non-hazardous
nature of a particular waste, it was not possible to assign
the classification of "definitely hazardous" to any of the
wastes identified in the study.
A few additional caveats deserve mention. Due to the almost
universal utilization of oil lubricants by industrial and
commercial operations, this material was not specifically
included in the study. This decision was made for reasons of
economy and on the basis of preliminary indications that most
13
-------
bulk users were recycling their waste oil. When available,
these oil recycling practices were documented for those
operations included in the study on the basis of other hazard-
ous wastes.
Hospital and university wastes were also excluded from the
study.
In some instances, it is difficult to determine whether or
not a particular material is a waste or merely an input to
another process. An example of this arose in the case of
acetylene production. Those operations which produce acety-
lene via the carbide process also generate large quantities
of calcium hydroxide. Some producers are able to sell this
"waste" hydroxide to aluminum plants while others, unable to
find a market, are forced to stockpile or dispose of this
material. In this situation, a conservative approach was
taken. All the potential wastes, even those recycled through
secondary markets, were treated as wastes. Current recycling
practices were documented in each industry group. Such an
approach assured complete coverage and a quantification of
potential wastes should secondary markets for these materials
decline.
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
As indicated previously, hazardous wastes may be generated in
a variety of ways. The approach used in this study to identify
sources of hazardous waste began with a categorization of the
general types of activities which had the potential to produce
hazardous wastes. These potential sources were initially
grouped under three major headings:
* Industrial Operations - which produce a hazardous
residual as part of their process or handle hazard-
ous materials, a portion of which is wasted.
* State and Federal Activities - which handle hazard-
ous materials. Also included under this heading
are utilities and public utility districts.
* Agricultural Operations - which handle large quantities
of pesticides.
This breakdown of potential sources not only facilitated the
management and direction of the study, but more importantly,
due to the rather unique characteristics of the wastes and
the organizations producing the wastes, allowed the use of
the most appropriate techniques of ascertaining waste
19
-------
quantities and management practices for each category. For
example, determination of waste quantities from centralized
state and federal agencies was most easily determined by
directly approaching the agencies, while the diverse nature
of agricultural pesticide usage required an indirect and less
precise approach. Specific survey approaches are discussed
more fully in the next section. Before proceeding, brief
mention of another potential source of hazardous wastes is
in order.
Region X has a number of private companies whose business it
is to dispose of and/or process hazardous wastes. These
companies are a potential source of hazardous wastes which
could arise from reprocessing residuals and improper disposal.
The assumption that assignment of hazardous wastes to these
companies constituted proper management of the wastes could
not be made automatically. Hence, inclusion of these com-
panies was dictated not only by the need to document their
role in the management of hazardous wastes, but also to
insure that new wastes from a variety of primary sources
were not merely being consolidated and passed on to the
environment.
Industrial Operations
The survey of industries began with the compilation of a list
of industries in the region with the potential to generate
hazardous wastes. Industries were selected on the base of
their Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)6. Appendix C
contains a complete listing of the SIC's of industries which,
based on their product, were considered as potential hazard-
ous waste generators. This list was selected on the basis
of work performed on a national level for EPA.1 The SIC
list contained in Appendix C was then cross referenced with
the Manufacturing Directories7"10 of the states of Alaska,
Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. This cross referencing
resulted in a list of industries within the four states
which due to the nature of their business had the potential
6U. S. Office of Management and Budget. "Standard Industrial
Classification Manual," U. S. GPO, Washington, D. C., 1972.
7Alaska Department of Economic Development. "Directory of
Alaska Commercial Establishments," Juneau, July 1974.
8Idaho Department of Commerce and Development. "Manufacturing
Directory of Idaho," Boise, 1973.
90regon Department of Economic Development. "Directory of
Oregon Manufacturers," Salem, 1974.
1ฐWashington Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
"Directory of Washington Manufacturers," Olympia, 1974.
20
-------
to generate hazardous wastes. For the most part, this list
proved to be quite comprehensive although some additional
waste sources (primarily new operations) were identified
during the course of the study as a result of contacts with
various federal, state, and local regulatory authorities;
industrial representatives; and waste processors.
Agricultural Operations
Virtually all agricultural operations utilize pesticides for
vegetation and insect control. These pesticides are handled
not only by licensed applicators, but also by individual
farmers. A direct survey of individual pesticide disposal
practices was beyond the initial scope of the study; however,
during the early stages of the program, meetings with state
solid waste management representatives from Idaho, Oregon,
and Washington revealed a unanimous consensus that spent
pesticide containers represented a significant question mark
in the area of hazardous waste management and that some
quantification of the magnitude of this problem was needed.
Subsequent discussions with EPA Regional representatives and
the National Office of Solid Waste Management Programs staff
resulted in an expansion of the original scope of the study
to include a section dealing with agricultural pesticide
usage in the Region (excluding Alaska).
The procedure used to estimate regional agricultural pesticide
usage and the number of containers resulting from this usage
was a statistical one based on data generated during the 1969
Census of Agriculture11 and the 1971 Farm Production Expendi-
ture Survey12 conducted by the U. S. Department of Agriculture.
The statistical approach is detailed in Chapter IV.
State and Federal Agencies
Hazardous wastes resulting from the activities of various
state and federal agencies were identified through direct
contact with the individual agencies. The list of state
agencies was compiled from previous state solid and hazardous
1JBureau of Census, U. S. Department of Commerce. "1969 Census
of Agriculture," Washington, Part 46, Oregon, Part 47,
and Idaho, Part 39, Vol, I, Area Reports, Washington, D. C.,
1972.
12Statistical Reporting Service, U. S. Department of Agricul-
ture. "1971 Farm Production Expenditure Survey," Inter-
viewers Manual, Washington, D. C., 1971.
21
-------
waste surveys13 15 and individual communications from the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Washington Depart-
ment of Ecology, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, and
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Federal
agencies were identified through the Federal Regional Task
Force on Hazardous Wastes. Also included under this heading
was a direct survey of 157 utilities and public utility
districts for the specific purpose of ascertaining waste
management practices for polychlorinated biphenyl's (PCB's)
found in transformer and capacitor oils.
Waste Processing and Disposal Companies
Commercial waste processing and disposal companies were identi-
fied through state and federal regulatory agencies. Other
activities such as tank cleaning and septic tank companies,
which do not process wastes or operate disposal sites, were
not identified systematically. Rather, the main source of
identification for these types of operation were the industries
who were using or had used their services. Because no system-
atic approach was used to identify these operations and because
the industries contacted were not always able to identify these
companies by name, coverage of these operations was not complete.
This issue is discussed more fully in Chapter VII.
DETERMINATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
QUANTITIES AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Hazardous waste quantities and management practices by state
and federal agencies were determined through direct contact
with the individual agencies. The results of this portion
of the survey are presented in Chapter VI of this report. Hazard-
ous wastes in the form of spent pesticide containers from the
agricultural sector were determined indirectly using the
statistical approach described in Chapter iv. This procedure
yielded an estimate of total annual pesticide usage by county
in the states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. From this
data, extrapolations to total number of spent pesticide con-
tainers were possible; however, the data did not allow detailed
determination of waste management practices.
13Idaho Department of Environmental and Community Services.
"Idaho Solid Waste Management Industrial Survey Report,"
June 1973.
1''Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. "Hazardous
Waste Management Planning 1972-73," March 1974.
1 Washington Department of Ecology. A Report on Industrial
and Hazardous Wastes, December 1974.
22
-------
Hazardous wastes and management practices associated with waste
processors and disposal companies are discussed in Chapter
VII. Information contained in this chapter was obtained from
state and federal regulatory agencies and to a large extent
through direct contact with the individual companies.
The survey of industrial sources used a combination of direct
and indirect procedures to ascertain hazardous waste types and
management practices. As indicated previously, the first step
in this procedure was the compilation of a list of industries
in the region with the potential to generate hazardous wastes.
Given this list of potential industrial hazardous waste
generators a number of indirect sources were tapped in order
to pare down the list of potential industrial hazardous waste
efforts toward those specific industries which showed the
highest probability of generating a hazardous waste. To this
end, each of the industries identified as a potential generator
of hazardous waste was considered individually, using inputs
from the following data sources:
State Manufacturing Directories - Aside from identifying
individual firms in a category, these directories typically
give brief descriptions of the size of the operation,
basic products, and in some instances, the type of process.
State Surveys - The states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
had previously conducted industrial solid and hazardous
waste studies13"15 of varying scope and depth in their
respective states. Data on Hazardous waste quantities
and disposal practices from the Oregon and Washington
studies were made available and proved quite helpful
to this program. Specific data from the Idaho study
could not be released; however, the Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare assisted the study team by subdividing
the list of potential hazardous waste generators into
those known to be hazardous waste generators, those known
not to be hazardous waste generators, and those for
which they had no information. The state of Alaska
had not conducted a survey of industrial hazardous
waste generation; however, they were able to comment
on the list of industries provided to them by the study
team on the basis of their working experience.
Permits - The list of potential industrial hazard-
ous waste generators was cross-referenced with the NPDES
files maintained at the EPA Regional Office in Seattle.
Although the information contained in these files is
oriented toward water quality and effluent characteristics,
these files proved quite helpful in identifying specific
23
-------
manufacturing and waste treatment procedures used by
individual companies. Information contained in field
"trip reports" often included discussions of airborne
and solid waste management. Data on plant effluent
characteristics were also a useful indication of the
existance of a hazardous solid waste.
National Industrial Surveys - Data were extracted from
completed and on-going industrial hazardous waste
studies sponsored by the EPA Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs. These studies proved helpful
in two ways: 1) providing general background infor-
mation on hazardous wastes produced by selected
industries, and 2) providing specific information on
some of the Pacific Northwest hazardous waste
sources where site visits were conducted. Collec-
tion of the latter data required direct contact
with the individual contractors who conducted the
various studies since the final reports submitted
to the EPA did not characterize hazardous wastes
from individual industrial operations.
Municipalities - Some of the larger municipalities in
the Pacific Northwest maintain industrial effluent
monitoring programs. Data collected from these
municipalities proved helpful in identifying hazard-
ous effluent constituents and in determining which
industrial operations within the municipal juris-
diction were practicing effluent pretreatment.
Waste Processors - Records maintained by some of
the waste processing companies within the region
were used to identify and quantify the wastes
from a number of industrial sources.
The Literature - Various reports and publications
listed in the reference section of Chapter V
were used to provide background material and
operating characteristics for various industries.
The data collected from the aforementioned sources allowed the
candidate industries to be divided into four basic groups:
1. Known Hazardous Waste Generators
2. Suspected Hazardous Waste Generators
3. Industries for which Little was Known
4. Industries Known not to Generate Hazardous Wastes
24
-------
At this point it was necessary to shift from an indirect to
a direct survey mode in order to realize the level of resolu-
tion desired.* The survey was accomplished through direct
contact with the industries in order to fill in gaps in the
data collected from other sources, verify waste quantities
and disposal practices, and survey industries for which no
information (other than SIC and products) was available. All
firms in Group 1 were contacted. No firms in Group 4 were
contacted. Spot contacts with individual firms in Groups
2 and 3 were made. If these indicated hazardous waste genera-
tion potential for a SIC Category, all firms in that indus-
trial category were contacted. Industries were approached
by phone or letter and asked to provide information relating
to:
Type of Operation
Number of Employees
Products and Production Capacity
Hazardous Wastes Generated
Hazardous Waste Disposal Practices
Effluent Characteristics Including Treatment Practices
After the initial telephone or letter contact, a "profile" on
the company was prepared. This profile contained a summary
of pertinent information derived from the aforementioned
sources and the telephone survey. Copies of these profiles
were sent to each industry for inspection and comment as to
accuracy and completeness. Cooperation by the industries
during the initial contact period was excellent. The most
common downfall was a failure to respond to the profile.
Few firms refused to answer the initial inquiry.
*Indirect estimates were made where possible as a check
against the inherent bias in direct information collection,
but the estimates derived in this manner were largely
found to be too high because they did not reflect
the degree of process modification and recycling being
practiced by industry.
-------
IV. HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM THE
AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
INTRODUCTION
Spent pesticide containers comprise the major hazardous waste
from the agricultural sector. At the same time, they pose
one of the most vexing hazardous waste management problems.
The disperse nature of their use patterns leads to ubiquitous
dissemination rather than collection at discreet sources.
Hence, they are somewhat analogous to nonpoint sources of
pollution. Further, the user is often untrained and
financially constrained from providing proper rinsing and
treatment on-site. Consequently, spent containers are often
abandoned when emptied or taken to the nearest county land-
fill for disposal with no precautions taken to prevent
leaching of residuals.
In order to design and implement an effective pesticide con-
tainer treatment program, it is necessary to determine the
volume of combustible and noncombustible packages used
annually in each county. Unfortunately, there is no good
data base at the present time from which such volumes can
be estimated. Indeed, during the conduct of the present
study, officials in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington confirmed
that spent pesticide containers were a major concern to
them because they had no feeling for the magnitude involved.
This is not uncommon. Similar observations have been made
by officials in other agriculturally oriented states such
as Minnesota16 and Florida.17
A direct survey of agricultural pesticide usage and disposal
practices was beyond the scope of this study; therefore,
an indirect estimating procedure was used to ascertain the
spatial distribution and intensity of pesticide usage in
the states of Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Results of
this estimation were then divided into categories based on
a previous pesticide container study to indicate the
quantities of combustible and noncombustible containers
discarded annually in each county.
PESTICIDE USAGE IN REGION X
In order to estimate total pesticide usage in Idaho, Oregon
and Washington, it was necessary first to determine typical
application rates for various crops in the region. Figures
for application rates are not presently published. They
differ from year to year, region to region, and among
farmers within a region. Consequently, an approximate
27
-------
average rate must be selected if final estimates are to be
spared distortion from use of a single, potentially
anomalous figure. The average rates employed in the work
reported here are given by county for each of the three
states in Tables IV-1 through IV-3. These estimated rates
were derived by the research team as a result of their
experience and through use of whatever data could be located.
The average application rates presented in Tables IV-1
through IV-3 were then used to estimate the total tonnage
and formulated pesticide desity for each county. The latter
was done by taking the product of the application rates and
the acreage for each crop as reported in the 1969 Census
of Agriculture.18 Results of these extensions are given
in Tables IV-4 through IV-6.
CONTAINER ESTIMATE
Estimates of the number of spent containers generated in
each county were made from the tonnage figures given in
Tables IV-4 through IV-6. Total pesticide use was first
divided between combustible and noncombustible packaging
based on a review of common practices by applicators and
randomly selected farmers in Region X.
Pesticides in combustible packages were assumed to have been
shipped in 50 pound bags. Hence, bag quantity estimates
were derived by multiplying county combustible tonnage data
by 40. The portion of pesticides purchased in noncombustible
packages were assumed to have been delivered in liquid form
in containers of various sizes corresponding to the distri-
bution reported by investigators in California.18 That
distribution is detailed in Table IV-7. The fraction of
total volume represented by each category in Table IV-7
was used to estimate the volume of materials purchased in
each size container in Region X. These estimates of total
volume were then divided by container size to yield an
estimate of the number of containers. A 1 gallon size was
employed for all glass and plastic bottles, since many
states, including Washington, do not allow pesticides to
be sold to farmers in smaller containers. Contact with
a major applicator20 confirmed that this would be relatively
accurate. Some materials such as malathion are sold in
small containers, but these are typically for household use.
Estimates for liquid pesticides were transformed to volume
estimates assuming an average density of 8 pounds per gallon.
Container estimates for individual counties in Washington,
Oregon and Idaho are shown in Tables IV-8 through IV-10.
Table IV-11 summarizes this data by state and container type.
Figures IV-1 through IV-3 depict spatial distribution of
waste containers in the three states.
28
-------
TABLE IV-1
ESTIMATED APPLICATION RATES FOR WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN OUNCES
OF PESTICIDE (AS FORMULATED) PER ACRE
County
Adams
Asotin
Benton
Chelan
Clallum
Clark
Columbia
Cowlitz
Douglas
Ferry
Franklin
Garf ield
Grant
Grays Harbor
Island
Jefferson
King
Kitsap
Kittitas
Lewis
Lincoln
Mason
Okanogan
Pacific
Pend Oreille
Pierce
San Juan
Skagit
Skamania
Snohomish
Corn
286
749
272
337
337
749
286
272
272
272
388
272
331
337
272
272
388
272
388
749
388
Alfalfa/
Hay
266
117
14
266
162
117
162
266
277
14
117
266
162
162
162
426
162
14
162
277
162
162
277
426
162
426
14
426
Vegetables
588
94
530
1677
94
1677
94
588
530
530
530
577
530
465
1677
530
530
577
530
577
94
577
Berries
271
16
16
271
271
271
2380
271
16
271
271
2380
271
2380
2380
Small Grain
70
237
224
237
359
115
185
224
237
70
426
359
359
185
185
426
426
224
426
Orchards
1985
670
1985
900
670
900
1651
1985
670
1985
995
1760
1651
900
1651
995
995
1985
995
Wheat
261
267
224
115
268
359
115
166
224
268
261
359
359
166
115
166
224
Potatoes Other Crc
8872 306
670
8872 544C
864
694
653
670
653
864
190
8872 544
670
8872 306b
694
694
577 1496
694
544
653
190
694
864
694
190
577 1496
694
577 1496
8872 544
577 1496
-------
TABLE IV-1 (Cont'd.)
Alfalfa/
Berries Small Grain Orchards Wheat Potatoes Other Crops
county
Spokane
Stevens
Thurston
Wahkiakum
Walla Walla
Whatcom
Whitman
Yakima
\^\JL 11
272
272
749
388
331
nay
277
277
162
162
14
117
670
530 271
530 271
94
577 380
465
185
185
224
426
237
1651
1985
995
1760
166
224 8872
268
359
670
190
694
694
544
1496
670a
1620
U)
o
a - peas and lentils
b - field beans, peas, and sugar beets
c - peppermint, sugar beets, and hops
-------
TABLE IV-2
ESTIMATED APPLICATION RATES FOR OREGON COUNTIES IN OUNCES
OF PESTICIDE (AS FORMULATED) PER ACRE
U)
County
Baker
Benton
Clackamus
Clatsop
Columbia
Coos
Crook
Curry
Deschutes
Douglas
Gilliara
Grant
Barney
Hood River
Jackson
Jefferson
Josephine
Klamath
Lake
Lane
Lincoln
Linn
Malhevr
Marion
Morrow
Multnomah
Polk
Sherman
Tillamook
Umatilla
Union
Corn
183
387
132
564
564
183
250
564
132
387
132
250
132
749
564
387
387
749
183
Wheat
234
287
282
263
263
288
288
321
288
234
185
263
321
288
321
321
321
282
287
282
185
282
224
263
287
288
287
224
234
Small Grain
248
275
254
234
234
342
342
217
342
248
352
234
217
342
217
217
217
254
275
254
352
254
224
234
275
342
275
224
248
Potatoes
523
523
523
6503
523
502
6503
523
6503
6503
6503
523
523
502
8872
1376
523
8872
502
Vegetables
1151
3847
1376
1376
725
1376
3847
1151
3847
725
3847
94
1376
1151
1151
94
725
Orchards
2051
3485
12522
12522
1122
1122
1122
850
12522
1122
1122
3485
2051
3485
850
3485
1985
12522
2051
2051
1985
850
Hay
667
711
835
881
881
261
363
261
363
261
363
667
415
881
261
363
261
261
261
835
711
835
415
835
14
881
711
363
711
14
667
Berries Other Cr
322
1181 958
1126 640
2716 554
2716 554
1370
617
1370
617
1880
617
322
812
2716 554
1880
617
1880
1880
1880
1126 640
1181 958
1126 640
812
1126 640
544
2716 554
1181 958
617
1181 958
544
322
-------
TABLE IV-2 (Cont'd.)
County Corn wheat Small Grain Potatoes Vegetables Orchards Hay Berries Other Crops
Wallowa 183 234 248 667 322
Wasco 288 342 523 363 617
Washington 564 263 234 1376 12522 881 2716 554
Wheeler 288 342 523 ' 363 617
Vamhill 387 287 275 1151 2051 711 1181 958
U>
NJ
-------
TABLE IV-3
ESTIMATED APPLICATION RATES FOR IDAHO COUNTIES IN OUNCES
OF PESTICIDE (AS FORMULATED) PER ACRE
Wheat Small Grain
CO
U>
264
264
408
551
210
408
264
264
210
408
210
188
264
264
551
255
188
210
188
264
551
188
264
375
210
188
375
210
210
188
210
83
83
358
336
156
358
83
83
156
358
156
98
83
83
336
255
98
156
98
83
336
98
83
340
156
98
340
156
156
98
156
Corn
463
463
198
704
198
463
463
198
463
463
704
218
463
704
463
330
330
Hay
449
449
113
800
113
449
449
117
113
117
449
449
800
675
449
800
449
675
117
675
117
117
117
Potatoes
1606
1606
300
300
1606
1606
300
1606
1606
3021
3021
1606
3021
1606
1444
1444
Vegetables
426
426
426
426
426
1015
426
426
426
426
426
426
426
Other Crops
951
951
408
570
251
408
951
951
251
408
251
1682
951
951
570
675
1682
251
1682
951
570
1682
951
555
251
1682
555
251
251
1682
251
Orchards
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
-------
TABLE IV-3 (Cont'd.)
u>
County
Lincoln
Madison
Minidoka
Nez Perce
Oneida
Owyhee
Payette
Power
Shoshone
Teton
Twin Falls
Valley
Washington
Wheat
375
188
375
210
255
264
264
255
210
188
255
234
264
Small Grain
340
98
340
156
255
83
83
255
156
98
255
248
83
Corn
330
330
218
463
463
218
218
183
463
Hay
675
675
117
675
449
449
675
675
667
449
Potatoes
1444
1444
3021
1606
1606
3021
3021
1606
1606
Vegetables
426
426
426
426
426
426
426
426
Other Crops
555
1682
555
251
675
951
951
675
251
1682
675
951
Orchards
850
850
850
-------
TABLE IV-4
ESTIMATED TOTAL USE OF PESTICIDES IN TONS
AS FORMULATED AND COUNTY DENSITY IN
TONS PER SQUARE MILE, WASHINGTON, 1969
County
Adams
Asotin
Benton
Chelan
Clallum
Clark
Columbia
Cowlitz
Douglas
Ferry
Franklin
Garfield
Grant
Grays Harbor
Island
Jefferson
King
Kitsap
Kittitas
Klickitat
Lewis
Lincoln
Mason
Okanogan
Pacific
Pend Oreille
Pierce
San Juan
Tons
5648
300
2803
741
55
370
851
57
1230
115
5213
853
10723
80
53
11
146
9
205
942
211
2244
135
955
39
157
183
15
Metric
Tons
5123
272
2542
672
49
335
779
51
1115
104
4728
773
9728
72
48
9.9
132
8
185
854
191
2035
122
866
35
142
165
13
Tons/
Mi 2
2.98
0.47
1.63
0.25
0.03
0.59
1.00
0.05
0.67
0.05
4.16
1.20
4.00
0.04
0.25
0.006
0.07
0.03
0.004
0.49
0.09
0.97
0.01
0.18
0.06
0.11
0.11
0.08
Metric Tons
km2
1.04
0.16
0.57
0.09
0.01
0.21
0.35
0.02
0.23
0.02
1.46
0.40
1.40
0.01
0.09
<0.01
0.02
0.01
<0.01
0.17
0.03
0.34
<0.01
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.03
35
-------
TABLE IV-4 (Cont'd.)
County
Skagit
Skamania
Snohomish
Spokane
Stevens
Thurston
Wahkiakum
Walla Walla
Whatcom
Whitman
Yakima
Tons
937
34
308
2961
690
66
21
1197
593
6996
5091
Metric
Tons
849
30
279
2685
625
59
79
1085
537
6345
4617
Tons/
Mi2
0.54
0.02
0.15
1.68
0.28
0.09
0.08
0.95
0.28
3.20
1.19
Metric Tons/
km2
0.19
0.01
0.05
0.59
0.10
0.03
0.03
0.33
0.10
1.10
0.42
36
-------
TABLE IV-5
ESTIMATED TOTAL USE OF PESTICIDES IN TONS
AS FORMULATED AND COUNTY DENSITY IN
TONS PER SQUARE MILE, OREGON, 1969
County
Baker
Benton
Clackamas
Clatsop
Columbia
Coos
Crook
Curry
Deschutes
Douglas
Gilliam
Grant
Harney
Hood River
Jackson
Jefferson
Josephine
Klamath
Lake
Lane
Lincoln
Linn
Malheur
Marion
Morrow
Multnomah
Polk
Sherman
Tillamook
Tons
1478
1291
1990
92
7345
303
605
24
327
401
1104
1023
1621
5774
671
915
153
3529
809
3028
764
4989
2784
6628
1270
897
2255
1233
358
Metric
Tons
1340
1170
1804
83
6661
274
548
21
296
363
1004
927
1470
5237
608
829
138
3200
733
2746
692
4525
2525
6011
1151
813
2045
1118
324
Tons/
Mi2
0.48
1.93
1.06
0.11
11.48
0.18
2.03
0.01
0.11
0.08
0.91
0.23
0.16
11.03
0.24
0.51
0.09
0.59
0.10
0.67
0.77
2.18
0.28
5.69
0.62
2.12
3.07
1.49
0.32
Metric Tons/
km2
0.17
0.68
0.37
0.04
4.02
0.06
0.71
<0.01
0.04
0.03
0.32
0.08
0.06
3.86
0.08
0.17
0.03
0.21
0.04
0.23
0.27
0.76
0.10
1.99
0.22
0.74
1.07
0.52
0.11
37
-------
TABLE IV-5 (Cont'd.)
County
Umatilla
Union
WaiIowa
Wasco
Washington
Wheeler
Yamhill
Tons
2520
1404
904
665
7791
174
2339
Metric
Tons
2285
1273
819
603
7066
157
2121
Tons/
Mi2
0.78
0.69
0.28
0.21
10.88
0.10
3.29
Metric Tons/
km2
0.27
0.24
0.10
0.07
3.81
0.04
1.15
38
-------
TABLE IV-6
ESTIMATED TOTAL USE OF PESTICIDES IN
TONS AS FORMULATED AND COUNTY DENSITY IN
TONS PER SQUARE MILE, IDAHO, 1969
County
Ada
Adams
Bannock
Bear Lake
Benewah
Bingham
Elaine
Boise
Bonne r
Bonneville
Boundary
Butte
Camas
Canyon
Caribou
Cassia
Clark
Clearwater
Custer
Elmore
Franklin
Fremont
Gem
Gooding
Idaho
Jefferson
Jerome
Kootani
Tons
1153
210
1505
1664
298
2028
463
82
105
1933
181
2283
834
3868
2492
3253
119
132
270
1159
1589
1442
523
905
856
1768
1865
1336
Metric
Tons
1045
190
1365
1509
270
1839
419
74
95
1753
164
2070
756
3508
2260
2950
107
119
244
1051
1441
1307
474
820
776
1603
1697
1221
Tons/
Mi2
1.11
0.15
1.34
1.69
0.38
0.97
0.17
0.04
0.06
1.05
0.14
8.35
0.79
6.69
1.43
1.28
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.38
2.39
0.77
0.94
1.26
0.10
1.61
3.14
1.07
Metric Tons/
km2
0.39
0.05
0.47
0.59
0.13
0.34
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.37
0.05
2.92
0.28
2.34
0.50
0.45
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.13
0.84
0.21
0.33
0.44
0.04
0.56
1.05
0.36
39
-------
TABLE IV-6 (Cont'd.)
County
Latah
Lemhi
Lewis
Lincoln
Madison
Minidoka
Nez Perce
Owyhee
Payette
Power
Shoshone
Teton
Twin Falls
Valley
Washington
Tons
1122
360
750
556
1735
2470
832
1513
541
2885
6
448
3980
208
812
Metric
Tons
1017
326
680
504
1573
2240
754
1372
490
2616
5
406
3609
188
736
Tons/
Mi2
1.03
0.08
1.58
0.46
3.67
3.29
0.99
0.20
1.35
2.04
0.0004
0.98
2.04
0.06
0.55
Metric Tons/
km2
0.36
0.03
0.55
0.16
1.28
1.15
0.35
0.07
0.47
0.71
<0.01
0.34
0.71
0.02
0.19
40
-------
TABLE IV-7
CONTAINER SIZE DISTRIBUTION IDENTIFIED IN CALIFORNIA19
Volume Represented Fraction of Total
Container
55 Gallon Drum
30 Gallon Drum
5 Gallon Pail
Glass Bottle (1 Gallon)
Plastic Bottle
(1 Gallon)
Quantity
8,000
98,000
346,000
91,000
81,000
(Gallons)
440,000
2,940,000
1,730,000
91,000
81,000
Volume
.083
.557
.328
.017
.015
TOTAL 5,282,000 1.000
-------
TABLE IV-8
ESTIMATED CONTAINERS IN WASHINGTON COUNTIES
Non-Combustible
County
Adams
Asotin
Benton
Chelan
Clallum
Clark
Columbia
Cowlitz
Douglas
Ferry
Franklin
Garfield
Grant
Grays Harbor
Island
Jefferson
King
Kitsap
Kittitas
Klickitat
Lewis
Lincoln
Mason
Okanoqan
Pacific
Pend Oreille
50 Ib Bags
6,320
3,160
8,920
19,080
1,880
7,640
24,360
1,280
43,360
3,360
11,840
7,880
20,080
2,640
1,600
440
1,040
320
2,920
1,400
4,600
11,520
1,960
25,200
1,360
4,880
55 Gallon
2,073
83
974
100
3
68
91
9
55
12
1,857
248
3,860
5
5
45
0(.38)
50
343
36
739
32
123
2
13
Drums
30 Gallon
25,473
1,025
11,971
1,225
37
831
1,123
116
677
144
22,814
3,044
47,424
65
60
557
5
612
4,208
445
9,075
399
1,508
23
162
5 Gallon Pail
90,036
3,624
42,312
4,330
131
2,936
3,969
410
2,394
508
80,639
10,758
167,624
230
213
1,968
16
2,165
14,875
1,574
32,078
1,410
5,330
82
574
1 Gallon
Glass
23,333
939
10,965
1,122
34
761
1,029
106
621
132
20,897
2,788
43,439
60
55
510
4
561
3,855
408
8,313
366
1,381
21
149
Bottles
Plastic
20,588
329
9,675
990
30
671
908
94
548
116
18,439
2,460
38,329
53
49
450
4
495
3,401
360
7,335
323
1,219
19
131
Total
Non-Combustible
161,503
6,500
75,897
7,767
235
5,267
7,120
735
4,295
912
144,646
19,298
300,676
413
382
3,530
29
3,883
22,474
2,823
57,540
2,530
9,561
147
1,029
-------
TABLE IV-8 (Cont'd.)
TOTAL
Combustible
Non-Combustible
County
Pierce
San Juan
Skagit
Skamania
Snohomish
Spokane
Stevens
Thurston
Wahkiakum
Walla Walla
What com
Whitman
Yakima
50 Ib Bags
1,040
600
7,120
280
2,880
38,080
18,480
2,120
840
8,840
5,480
57,200
56,880
55 Gallon
59
285
10
89
759
86
5
369
172
2,102
1,386
Drums
30 Gallon
728
3,498
125
1,095
9,321
1,058
60
4,528
2,116
25,825
17,023
5 Gallon Pail
2,575
12,366
443
3,870
32,948
3,739
213
16,006
7,478
91,282
60,172
1 Gallon
Glass
667
3,205
115
1,003
8,538
969
55
4,1 8
1,938
23,656
15,593
Bottles
Plastic
589
2,928
101
885
7,534
855
49
3,660
1,710
20,873
13,759
Non-Combustible
4,618
22,182
794
6,942
66,042
6,707
382
28,711
13,414
163,738
107,933
419,080
16,148
198,400
701,278
181,736
160,359
1,260,655
-------
hfc.
TABLE IV-9
ESTIMATED CONTAINERS IN OREGON COUNTIES
Combustible
Non-Combustible
County
Baker
Ben ton
Clackamas
Clatsap
Columbia
Coos
Crook
Curry
Deschutes
Douglas
Gilliam
Grant
Harney
Hood River
Jackson
Jefferson
Josephine
Klamath
Lake
Lane
Lincoln
Linn
Malheur
Marion
Morrow
Multnomah
Polk
50 Ib Bags
30,240
23,760
2,960
180,400
9,440
1,800
760
400
4,320
3,040
23,240
146,720
12,600
13,640
840
10,360
4,440
34,920
10,680
56,440
32,080
72,080
200
20,280
31,440
55 Gallon
558
202
527
7
1,071
25
211
2
120
111
388
386
393
795
134
217
50
1,229
264
814
188
1,351
749
1,823
478
147
555
Drums
30 Gallon
6,858
2,482
6,477
84
7,185
311
2,598
23
1,471
1,359
4,770
4,747
4,825
9,771
1,652
2,663
612
15.126
3,239
9,999
2,306
16,601
9,196
22,392
4,869
1,810
6,816
5 Gallon Pail
24,239
8,774
22,894
295
46,494
1,099
9,184
82
5,199
4,805
16,859
16,777
17,056
34,538
5,838
9,414
2,165
53,445
11,447
35,342
8,151
58,679
32,505
79,146
20,746
6,396
24,092
1 Gallon
Glass
6,282
2,275
5,933
77
12,049
285
2,380
21
1,347
1,245
4,369
4,348
4,420
8,951
1,513
2,440
561
13,850
2,967
9,159
2,112
15,207
8,424
20,511
5,376
1,658
6,243
Bottles
Plastic
5,543
2,006
5,235
68
10,631
251
2,100
19
1,189
1,099
3,855
3,836
3,900
7,898
1,335
2,153
495
12,220
2,618
0,081
1,864
13,418
7,434
18,098
4,744
1,463
5,509
Total
Non-Combustible
43,480
15,739
41,739
531
77,430
1,971
16,473
147
9,326
8,619
30,241
30,094
30,594
61,953
10,472
16,887
3,883
95,870
20,535
63,395
14,621
105,256
58,308
141,970
37,213
11,474
43,215
-------
TABLE IV-9 (Cont'd.)
Combustible
Non-Combustible
County
Sherman
Tillamook
Umatilla
Onion
Wai Iowa
Wasco
Washington
Wheeler
Yamhill
TOTAL
SO Ib Bags
3,160
1,280
10,960
1,160
196,960
160
67,200
1,007,960
55 Gallon
436
123
848
530
341
240
1,083
64
249
16,715
Drums
30 Gallon
5,354
1,513
10,421
6,514
4,194
2,951
13,302
789
3,058
199,384
5 Gallon Pail
13,926
5,346
36,834
23,026
14,826
10,430
47,019
2,788
10,808
725,847
1 Gallon
Glass
4,905
1,386
9,546
5,267
3,842
2,703
12,185
700
2,801
188,086
Bottles
Plastic
4,328
1,223
8,423
5,265
3,390
2,385
10,751
638
2,471
177,979
Non-Combustible
33,949
9,591
66,072
41,302
26,593
18,709
84,340
4,979
19,387
1,296,011
Ul
-------
TABLE IV-10
ESTIMATED CONTAINERS IN IDAHO COUNTIES
Combustible
Non-Combustible
County
Ada
Adams
Bannock
Bear Lake
Benewah
Bingham
Blaine
Boise
Bonner
Bonne vi lie
Boundary
Butte
Camas
Canyon
Caribou
Cassia
Clark
Clearwater
Custer
Elmo re
Franklin
Fremont
Gem
Gooding
Idaho
Jefferson
50 Ib Bags
9,590
2,200
8,280
1,200
1,440
10,880
2,360
360
2,680
6,600
2,400
160
2,280
51,400
14,800
71,160
2,760
1,520
8,840
19,000
3,040
41,760
4,020
4,840
8,600
56,080
55 Gallon
345
59
490
623
99
663
115
29
14
668
46
861
293
975
801
557
19
34
19
258
571
21
158
2
242
138
Drums
30 Gallon
4,241
719
6,022
7,651
1,216
8,148
1,411
353
176
8,203
561
10,574
3,605
11,985
9,846
6,839
232
418
227
3,174
7,020
1,847
1,939
19
2,974
1,698
1 Gallon Bottles
5 Gallon Pail
14,990
2,542
21,287
27,044
4,297
28,798
4,986
1,246
623
28,995
1,984
37,376
12,743
42,361
34,801
24,174
820
1,476
804
11,218
24,813
6,527
6,855
66
10,512
6,002
Glass
3,885
659
5,517
7,008
1,114
7,463
1,292
323
162
7,514
514
9,686
3,302
10,978
9,019
6,265
213
383
208
2,907
6,430
1,692
1,777
17
2,724
1,556
Plastic
3,428
581
4,868
6,184
983
6,585
1,140
285
143
6,630
454
8,546
2,914
9,686
7,958
5,527
188
338
184
2,565
5,674
1,493
1,568
15
2,404
1,373
Total
Non-Combustible
26,889
4,560
38,184
48,510
7,709
51,657
8,944
2,236
1,118
52 ,-,110
3,559
67,043
22,857
75,985
62,425
43,362
1,472
2,649
1,442
20,122
44,508
11,580
12,297
119
18,856
10,767
-------
TABLE IV-10 (Cont'd.)
Combustible
Non-Combustible
County
Jerome
Kootnai
Latah
Lemhi
Lewis
Lincoln
Madison
Minidoka
Nez Perce
Oneida
Owyhee
Payette
Power
Shoshone
Teton
Twin Falls
Valley
Washington
TOTAL
50 Ib Bags
19,800
11,320
8,560
12,480
4,880
4,880
51,760
32,080
5,440
1,400
16,320
5,680
65,320
200
9,680
72,960
680
8,920
670,610
55 Gallon
517
398
343
18
237
164
167
630
260
374
417
151
473
0(
78
814
72
222
13,438
Drums
30 Gallon
6,357
4,886
4,213
223
2,914
2,014
2,046
7,739
3,200
4,598
5,127
1,851
5,809
.38) 5
956
10,003
886
2,733
166,687
1 Gallon Bottles
5 Gallon Pail
22,468
17,269
14,891
787
10,299
7,118
7,232
27,355
11,305
16,252
18,122
6,544
20,533
16
3,378
35,358
3,132
9,660
589,168
Glass
5,823
4,475
3,859
204
2,669
1,845
1,874
7,089
2,930
4,212
4,696
1,696
5,321
4
876
9,163
812
2,503
152,687
Plastic
5,138
3,949
3,405
180
2,355
1,628
1,654
6,255
2,585
3,716
4,144
1,496
4,695
4
773
8,085
716
2,209
134,726
Total
Non-Combustible
40,303
30,977
26,711
1,412
18,474
12,769
12,973
49,068
20,280
29,152
32,506
11,738
36,831
29
6,061
63,423
5,618
17,327
1,056,706
-------
TABLE IV-11
TOTAL CONTAINERS/STATE
Washington Oregon Idaho
50 Ib Bags 419,080 1,007,960 670,610
55 Gallon Drums 16,148 16,715 13,438
30 Gallon Drums 198,400 199,384 166,687
5 Gallon Pail 701,278 725,847 589,168
1 Gallon Glass Bottles 181,736 188,086 152,687
1 Gallon Plastic Bottles 160,359 177,979 134,726
Total Non-Combustible 1,260,655 1,296,011 1,056,706
Total Containers 1,679,735 2,303,971 1,727,316
48
-------
VD
THOUSANDS
OF PESTICIDE CONTAINERS
0 -5
3 5- 10
10-20
20-50
50- 100
> 100
FIGURE IV-1. DISTRIBUTION OF SPENT PESTICIDE CONTAINERS
IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
-------
THOUSANDS
OF PESTICIDE CONTAIMERS
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 20
20- 50
50- 100
100
FIGURE IV-2. DISTRIBUTION OF SPENT PESTICIDE CONTAINERS
IN THE STATE OF OREGON
-------
THOUSANDS
OF PESTICIDE CONTAINERS
FIGURE IV-3. DISTRIBUTION OF SPENT PESTICIDE CONTAINERS
IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
51
-------
DISPOSAL PRACTICES
A direct and quantified determination of pesticide container dis-
posal practices in the agricultural sector was not made. Such an
effort was beyond the scope of the study. Although Oregon had
no sites approved for pesticide container disposal at the time
of the study, a 1973 survey of pesticide applicators by the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality14 revealed that 63 percent
of the spent containers generated by the samples applicators were
going to landfill and another 24 percent was being buried on pri-
vate property. Nine percent were returned to suppliers, 3 per-
cent were sold or reused, and 1 percent was burned. Triple
rinsing of noncombustible containers was not the general prac-
tice. Subsequent to construction of this report, but prior to
its printing, a site has been established near Arlington.
It is expected that similar practices exist in Washington and
Idaho. In Washington local health districts hcive jurisdiction
over approval of landfills for pesticide container disposal.
Although the DOE is usually consulted or advised of decisions
relating to approval/disapproval of applications for pesticide
container disposal in local landfills, no specific authority
presently exists to grant permits in this area. The Wes Con
site near Grandview, Idaho has been approved by the Idaho Depart-
ment of Health and Welfare for pesticide container disposal.
Additionally, the department is presently developing a list of
sanitary landfills throughout the state for disposal of triple
rinsed containers. However, in both states actual disposal and
rinsing practices remain undetermined. In the absence of strong
disposal regulations, accompanied by enforcement or economic
incentive to recycle metal drums, it can be reasonably assumed
that a substantial portion of the spent pesticide containers
from the agricultural sector are being randomly dumped in
public landfills and on private property throughout the states
of Washington and Idaho. This appears to be in contrast with
those practices reported by state and Federal agencies which
employ pesticides.
-------
V. HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM THE
INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
INTRODUCTION
Potentially hazardous wastes from the industrial sector are
reported in this chapter. This section represents a major
portion of the study which included consideration of approxi-
mately 2,500 industrial operations and direct contact with
four to five hundred of these industries. This effort
resulted in the indentification of 231 industrial sources
of potentially hazardous wastes. The basic procedures used
to identify sources of potentially hazardous industrial wastes
are described in Chapter III.
Findings are reported from three different perspectives in the
following sections. Table V-l reports wastes by industry
group, waste type, quantity and management/disposal practices.
Also included in the footnotes to this table are qualitative
projections of future waste generation patterns as a function
of changes in air and water quality standards. Table V-2
presents our regional overview of waste management practices
on the basis of eight generic waste types. Table V-3 in
conjunction with Figures V-l thru V-4 depicts the spacial
distribution (by counties) of potentially hazardous waste
sources in the Region and describes current waste management
practices associated with each waste type in each county for
which potentially hazardous waste sources were identified.
The concluding section of this chapter discusses available
options for the management of wastes identified in the region.
POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTES
BY INDUSTRY GROUPS
Potentially hazardous industrial wastes for the Region are
reported in Table V-l by industrial groups. Industries shown
in Column I of this table were grouped on the basis of their
primary Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) with the
exception of the last group in the table (Miscellaneous Manu-
facturers) . Inclusion of this category was necessary to
protect industrial sources in the region with a unique SIC.
Reference to reports and other documents describing the waste
generation characteristics of various industries are also pro-
vided in the column for the interested reader. Column II
indicates the number of sources with each industrial group.
Where necessary, this number is footnoted to indicate the
specific breakdown of industries within the group. In Column
III waste types shown in Column IV are grouped into one of
eight waste categories as follows:
53
-------
TABLE V-l
INDUSTRIAL SOURCES OF POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS WASTES IN REGION X
Industry
Wood Treating1'2'2'
(SIC 2491)
Number of Waste
Operations Category
22 VI
(Ji
VI
Newspaper Publishing1'2
III
II
Waste Type
Pentachlorophenol
and creosote con-
Quantity Per
Year [metric Management/Disposal
tons (tons) 1
Practices
taminated sludge
(a)
83.3
(91.8)
105.8
(33.1)
45.5
(50.2)
28 metal
drums & 4700
paper sacks
100 paper
sacks
Unknown
quantity
(8 opera-
tions)
Nitric acid etch 0.5
solution contamina- (0.5)
ted with zinc(9)
Nitric acid etch 140.3
solution contamina- (154.7)
ted with magnesium ^
Waste solvent and 14.3(1)
ink (15.8)
Stored on company
property
(c)
Waste disposal con-
tractor (destination
unknown)
Buried on company
property
Public landfill
Unknown
(e)
Projection
Future Waste of
Generation Patterns
See note d
Public landfill
Buried on company
property
5 companies send
containers to public
landfill
2 companies send con-
tainers to refuse
incinerator
1 company is storing
the containers on-
site
Dumped to on-property
drywell
Neutralized and dumped
to sewer
Public landfill via
waste disposal com-
pany
See note h
-------
TABLE V-l (Cont'd.)
Industry
inorganic1'2'21"27
Chemicals (SIC
2812, 2819)
Number of Waste
Operations Category
Waste Type
Organic chemi-
calsl,2,,!-23,28-31
(SIC 2818, 2821, 286,
2869, 2891, 2892)
18
II
IV
IV
II
Incinerator residue
(0.5-0.8 ppm Hg)
Solvents oils and
grease
Inorganic chemical
sludge
Fluorides
Chlorinated hydro-
carbons
Solvents
Creosote and tar
saturated earth
Tank washings (com-
plex mixture of
organic chemicals)
Oxazolodine
Benzoic acid
sludge (9)
Quantity Per
Year [metric
tons(tons)]
(13.5)
635.0
(700.0)
32.7
(36.0)
90.7
(100.0)
160.2
(176.6)
4.5
(5.0)
(1-4)
20.4(i)
(22.5)
21.9(1)
(23.5)
31.7
(35.0)
33.1
(36.5)
463.7
(511.2)
22.7
(25.0)
Projection
Future Waste of
Generation Patterns
See note f
Management/Disposal
Practices
Public landfill
Buried on company
property
Reclaimed
Landfill
Discharge to evapora-
tive holding pond
Stored on company
property
Waste disposal company See note z
(destination unknown)
Stored on company
property
Used for road oiling
Stored on company
property'3)
Waste disposal company
(destination unknown)
Public landfill
(under permit)
Designated hazardous waste
disposal site
-------
TABLE V-l (Cont'd.)
Quantity Per
Number of Waste Yaar [metric
Industry Operations Category Waste Type tons (tons)]
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Thiodiphenol sludge
Catechal sludge
Vanallin black liquor
solids (1-2% copper)
Vanallin still
bottom
Miscellaneous still
bottoms
Phenol contaminated
wastewater
Calcium carbonate
sludge contaminated
with phenol and
formaldehyde
Phenol- formalde-
hyde resin waste-
water treatment
sludge '*'
68.0
(75.0)
45.4
(50.0)
15,240.7
(16,800.0)
299.4
(330.0)
299.4
(330.0)
1.9
(2.1)
22.7
(25.0)
850.5
(937.5)
373_7(m,n)
(411.9)
Projection
Management/Disposal Future Waste of
Practices Generation Patterns
Stored on company
property
Future waste (1977)
disposition not
determined
Private landfill
Private landfill
Recycled
Stored on-property
Reclaimed
Waste processor
Stored on company
property d'
76.9
(m,n)
Phenol contaminated
activated carbon
(84.7)
(16.2)
113.0
(124.5)
4.5
(5.0)
Buried on company
property
Retained in waste-
water treatment
lagoon
Recycled internally
Stored on company
property
-------
TABLE V-l (Cont'd.)
Industry
Number of Waste
Operations Category
Waste Type
Quantity Per
Year [metric Management/Disposal
tons(tons)] Practices
Projection
Future Waste of
Generation Patterns
Industrial Gas- 6
Acetylene via
Carbide Pro-
cess"2'2"23'2*
(SIC 2813)
Paints and Allied Pro- 31
ducts2'21'82 (SIC 2851)
III Calcium hydroxide
(wet lime) <9>
II Solvents and sol-
vent sludges^)
VII Pigment bags'3'
VII Wastewater treat-
ment sludge
(primarily latex
washings)
VII Dust from air
pollution con-
trol equipment
VII Spoiled batches
3719.3
(4099.8)
326.2
(359.6)
544.3
(600.0)
259.9(i)
(286.5)
16.8(l)
(18.5)
30. 7'1'
(33.8)
17.7(i)
(19.5)
260.5(t'U)
(287.1)
61.8(V'W)
(68.1)
12.7(W)
(14.0)
small (< 1
MT)
small (<2
MT)
Sold commercially - See note o
recycle
Stored in holding
pond'P'
Public landfill
(under permit)
Reclaimed through See note r
waste processor
Waste disposal
company (destina-
tion unknown)
Public landfill
Stored on company
property
Public landfill
Public landfill
Waste disposal com-
pany (destiantion
unknown)
Public landfill
Public landfill
-------
TABLE V-l (Cont'd.)
oo
Industry
Pesticide Manufactur-
ing1'2'21'28'33'3"
(SIC 2879)
*
Explosives &
Munitions1 '2 ' 28
(SIC 2891, 2892, 3482)
Number of Waste
Operations Category Waste Type
fx)
7V ' VI Waste pesticide off-
spec pesticides,
and pesticide manu-
facturing waste'?)
VI Pesticide containers
VI Plastic liners and
combustable pesticide
containers
6 VIII Waste explosive or
explosive contamina-
ted waste paper'9)
VIII Explosives packaging
VIII Explosives contamina-
ted brass
III Sulfuric acid(g'
III Soda ash
III Acid and caustic
solutions
Quantity Per
Year [metric
tons (tons) ]
645.7(y)
(711.8)
20,000 con-
tainers
5,970 con-
tainers
1,040 con-
tainers
(metal)
0.5
(0.6)
17.7
(19.5)
18.0
(19.8)
9.1
(10.0)
13,607.7
(15,000.0)
2.7
(3.0)
small quant-
ity (<3.0 MT)
0.8
(0.9)
Management/Disposal
Practices
Approved hazardous
waste disposal site
Approved hazardous
waste disposal site
Landfill
Salvage
Burned on company
property
Controlled burning
Landfill
Controlled burning -
brass recycled
Resold as lower grade
acid
On-property sump
Waste processor
Neutralized and buriei
on company property
Projection
Future Waste of
Generation Patterns
See note z
II
Solvents
7.9 Reclaimed internally
(8.8) through a waste
processor
See note aa
-------
TABLE V-l (Cont'd.)
Industry
Printing Ink Manufac-
turing1'2 (SIC 2893)
Petroleum Refin-
ingl,2,21,35,36
(SIC 2911)
Number of Waste
Operations Category
II
6 V
Ul
IV
IV
Waste Type
Quantity Per
Year [metric
tons(tons)]
I Metal bearing sludge 113.6(bb'cc)
(Pb, Zn, Ni, Cu) (125.2)
Waste solvents
Solvent and wash-
water sludge
Heavy hydrocarbon
contaminated
sludge
Acid petroleum
sludge
Leaded gasoline
storage tank
bottoms
"Solutizer" sludge
(^ 2% zinc)
Lead contaminated
catalyst
Activated alumnium
silicate (fluoride
contaminated)
4.2
(i)
(4.7)
3.0
(3.4)
62.0
(68.4)
426.0
(469.6)
473.2
(521.6)
128.1
(141.2)
1.1
(1.3)
50.8
(56.0)
130.6
(144.0)
45.4
(50.0)
"Poly catalyst" (60 49.0
% phosphoric acid) <9> (54.0)
Phenolic caustic
(25% phenol, 5%
NaOH) W
1017.3
(1121.4)
Management/Disposal
Practices
Storage on-property/
no ultimate disposal
option selected to
date
Landfill
Waste disposal company
(destination unknown)
Private landfill
Land farming
Road oiling
Land farming
Stored on company
property
Sent to waste pro-
cessor for lead
recovery
Land farming
Stored on company
property
Land farming
Sold to petrochemical
industry - recycle
Projection
Future Waste of
Generation Patterns
See note z
See note ee
-------
TABLE V-l (Cont'd.)
Industry
*
Leather Tanning1 ' 2 ' 3 7
(SIC 3111)
Primary and Secondary
Non-ferrous
Metals1'4'21'38-"2
(SIC 333, 334, 335)
Number of Waste
Operations Category Waste Type
3 I Chromic hydroxide
sludge
16 'g9' IV Spent potliner
(contains cyanide)
IV Spent potlining
processing residue
(contains cyanide)
IV "Black Mud" (kk)
(contains cyanide)
IV Wastewater treat-
ment sludge
(primarily calcium
fluoride)
IV Inorganic chemical
sludge (calcium
fluoride and
zirconium oxide)
IV Wastewater treatment
sludge (30% zinc)
IV Inorganic chemical
sludge (calcium
fluoride)
III Caustic sludge
III 15% Sulfuric acid
I Lead and Tin con-
taminated sludge
I Chromic hydroxide
sludge (filter
Quantity Per
Year [metric
tons (tons) ]
204.1
(225.0)
28,841.2(nn)
(31,792.0)
2,612.7
(2,880.0)
27,215.5
(30,000.0)
12,316.4
(13,576.0)
90.7
(100.0)
5,715.3
(6,300.0)
118.1
(130.2)
2.3
(2.5)
762.0
(840.0)
0.5
(0.5)
426.7
(470.4)
Projection
Management/Disposal Future Waste of
Practices Generation Patterns
Public landfill See note ff
Stored on-proper ty(ll) See note jj
Stored on-property
On-property holding
lagoons (HJ
On-property holding
lagoons (mt1'
On-property holding
lagoon* nn>
Stored on company
property
Public landfill
Public landfill
Discharged to hold-
ing pond
Recycled to lead
smelter
Public landfill
cake)
-------
TABLE V-l (Cont'd.)
Industry
Electroplat-
ing1'2'*3-"5
(SIC 3471)
Galvanizing1 ' 2
(SIC 3479)
Electrical and
Electronic Pro-
ducts1 ' z '* 3-* s
(SIC 35,36)
Number of Waste
Operations Category
49 I
I
I
I
I
4 I
17 I
I
Waste Type
Nickel and copper
plating bath filter
solids
Wastewater treatment
sludge (contains
heavy metal e.g. ,
Cr, Zn, Cd, Cu, Ni)
Exhausted ion-
exchange resin
Concentrated plat-
ing and etching
solutions 19)
Rinse water
Dross and flux
from galvanizing
pots (zinc)
Concentrated
plating and
etching solu-
tions (9)
Ion exchange
regeneration brine
Year [metric
tons (tons)]
5.4
(5.9)
156.7(PP)
(142.3)
2,293.2
(2,527.8)
75.9(PP)
(83.7)
2-1(pp)
(2.3)
0.1
(0.1)
40.0(b)
(44.1)
1.9
(2.1)
9.1
(10.1)
5.6
(6.2)
617.7(b)
(680.9)
74.9(b)
(82.6)
499.7(b)
(550.8)
Quantity Per
Management/Disp
Practices
Public landfill
Stored on company
property
Buried on company
property
Public landfill
Waste processor
Waste processor
Waste processor
Stored on company
property
Stored on company
property
Recycle through
smelters
Waste processor
Water Disposal Company
(destination unknown)
Storing on company
property
Projection
Future Waste of
Generation Patterns
See note qq
See note z
See note tt
-------
TABLE V-l (Cont'd.)
Industry
Number of Waste
Operations Category
NJ
Lead-Acid
Batteries1'2'21'"6
(SIC 3691)
11
Quantity Per
Year [metric Management/Disposal
Waste Type tons (tons)] Practices
Recycled
Public landfill
Reclaimed through
waste processor
Public landfill
Designated hazard-
ous waste disposal
site
Public landfill
Public landfill
Neutralized and dump-
ed to sewer
Designated hazardous
waste disposal site
I
I
I
II
II
III
III
III
VII
I
Exhausted ion-
exchange resin
Waste solder
Copper and nickel
plating bath filter
solids
Solvents
Solvent recovery
residue
Caustic sludge
(lime)
Sulfuric acid
Acid and caustic
Waste paint and
paint sludges
Lead bearing
sludge (waste-
water treatment)
small quant-
ity (<1.0 MT
8.1(SS)
(8.9)
1.7
(1.9)
(3.7)
20.4(1)
(22.5)
(2.8)
io.o(b)
(11.0)
113.6(bb)
(125.2)
2.6(W)
(2.9)
26.5(W)
(29.2)
63.6(w)
(66.6)
64.2(W)
(70.7)
151.2
(166.6)
154.9
(170.8)
Projection
Future Waste of
Generation Patterns
Waste disposal company
(destination unknown)
Recycled through
smelter
Recycled internally
See note z
-------
TABLE V-l (Cont'd.)
U)
Number of Waste
Industry Operations Category Waste Type
H Dross (lead oxide)
Miscellaneous Manufac- 20 I Heavy metal sludges
turers1'2'"7 (SIC 22,
33, 34, 35, 37) (uu>
I Concentrated heavy
metal plating and, .
etching solutions 9
I Dillute chromic acid
solution
I Copper and nickel
plating bath filter
solids
II Waste oil and sol-
vents mixture
II Waste solvent
III Waste acid'9'
III Waste caustic <9>
IV Concentrated cyanide
solutions '9)
IV Dillute cyanide sol-
ution
VII Paint stripping
sludge
Quantity Per
Year [metric
tons (tons) ]
80.6
(88.9)
758.1(PP)
(835.6)
6.8
(7.5)
2,086.1(b)
(2,299.5)
7.6
(8.3)
39.6(PP)
(43.7)
563.8(i)
(621.4)
65.1(i)
(71.8)
58.2(i)
(64.2)
775.0(W)
(854.3)
l,650.6(bb)
(1,819.5)
80.7
(88.9)
0.9
(1.0)
532.7(W)
(587.3)
Projection
Management/Disposal Future Waste of
Practices Generation Patterns
Recycled internally
Waste processor See note vv
Public landfill
Waste processor
Dumped to municipal
sewer
Reprocessed for metal
recovery
Waste processor
Waste disposal company
(destination unknown)
Waste processor
Waste processor
Waste processor
Waste processor
Drumed - sent to
public landfill
Waste processor
-------
NOTES TO TABLE V-l
a. Few of the companies contacted were able to provide direct
estimates of sludge volumes. Waste generation factors
were derived from these figures and applied to the pro-
duction levels of seven of the wood treating operations
which reported a sludge waste. The waste generation factors
used for these estimates are as follows:
1) 6.3 gal of sludge
103 ft3 of treated wood
2) 125 gal of sludge
103 poles treated
The standard deviation for waste generation factor 1) is
3.8 (n=4). Waste generation factor 2) is based on a
single data point. The remaining 14 companies reported
no significant sludge accumulation to date.
b. Wastes reported in volume units were converted to mass
units using a specific gravity of 1.1.
c. Accumulated storage, in addition to annual generation
includes 94,635 liters (25,000 gal) of copper arsenate
contaminated sludge, 37,854 liters (10,000 gal) of creo-
sote contaminated sludge, and 94,635 liters (25,000 gal)
of pentachlorophenol contaminated sludge.
d. Future waste generation patterns for the Region X wood
treating industry should remain relatively constant. As
inidcated previously, there is reason to believe that some
of the PCP and creosote sludges from this industry are
not receiving proper disposal. Closer monitoring by
state and federal agencies may result in increased usage
of waste processing companies by this industry. One
wood treating operation indicated that they were using
a chemical additive, "Stabiliteฉ-" (Reichold Chemical) ,
which has the effect of causing much of the potential
waste sludge material to adhere to the pole. Greater use
of this material could result in a reduction in sludge
volume from this process.
e. The company(s) generating this waste would not indicate
their current disposal practices.
f. Survey of this industry was limited to the daily metro-
politan newspapers. One of the companies contacted de-
clined to participate in the study.
64
-------
g. This waste qualifies as hazardous under the Waste Decision
Model (Appendix B).
h. The newspaper publishing and printing industry has already
undergone a substantial reduction in hazardous waste vol-
ume as a result of the shifts to photo offset printing,
magnesium printing plates, and water based inks. Comparison
of the figures in Table V-l and those reported in earlier
state surveys * **' 1 s show a substantial reduction in zinc
contaminated etching solutions, lead contaminated wastes
and to a lesser extent, solvent and ink wastes. Waste
levels reported in Table V-l are expected to remain rela-
tively constant although some additional reduction in the
volume of waste solvents may be experienced as the use of
water based inks becomes more widespread.
i. Wastes reported in volume units were converted to mass
units based on an assumed specific gravity of 0.9.
j. Accumulated storage-r in addition to annual generation is
estimated to be 90.7 metric tons (100.0 tons).
k. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality14 has
shown that sludge of this nature, when thoroughly dried,
has a very low potential for phenol release.
1. Accumulated storage, in addition to annual generation rate
is estimated to be 2,268.0 metric tons (2,500.0 tons).
m. Wastes reported in volume units were converted to mass
units based on a specific gravity of 1.5.
n. A waste production factor of 9.9 ft of sludge/10 Ibs of
product was used to estimate quantities for those opera-
tions reporting this waste but unable to specify the amount.
o. Lime produced from acetylene manufacturing in the region
should remain relativel constant. A report from one of
the companies that they were unable to sell all of their
product is indicative of the limited demand for this pro-
duct in the region. Presently an estimated 81 percent of
the lime is being sold. The aluminum industry is a major
buyer of this product for use in the treatment of scrubber
water. Some of the aluminum companies are expected to
replace their wet scrubbing systems with dry scrubbing
systems some time before 1983. Should this occur, the
demand for lime may decline from its present level thus
forcing a larger percentage of this marketable material
into the waste category.
65
-------
p. Accumulated storage, in addition ot annual generation is
7,257.5 metric tons (8,000 tons).
q. Twelve of the reporting paint manufacturers were able to
quantify solvent wastes. Waste quantities from other opera-
tions reporting solvent wastes were estimated using a waste
production factor of 10.4 ฃ of waste solvent/103 a of oil
based paint produced.
r. Potentially hazardous wastes in the form of wastewater
treatment sludges may increase as a result of more stringent
effluent standards. Effluent management practices for the
facilities reported in this study can be characterized
as follows:
Practice Number of Companies
Solids settling with 1
supernatent recycle
Landfill or land spreading 3
Recycle to process 9
Septic tank 1
Non-overflowing holding 3
pond
Discharge to sewer after 6
pretreatment (floculation/
clarification)
Discharge to sewer - no 3+3 partial
pretreatment* discharge
Unknown* 5
*Future potential for generation of wastewater treat-
ment sludges.
A slight reduction in solvent waste is expected as a result
of the slow trend toward water-based paints32. No changes
in the quantity of pigment bags are expected although
increased pressure to find suitable substitutes for the
more toxic pigments may result in a reduced percentage of
hazardous constituents.
66
-------
s. A waste production factor of 23 bags/10 liters of paint
produced (87 bags/103 gal) was used to estimate bag waste
for those operations reporting this waste but unable to
quantify the amount.
t. Average bag weight = 0.34 kg.1*9
u. Approximately 5.8 percent of the reported bag wastes is
contaminated with potentially hazardous pigments.32
v. A waste production factor of 5.0 I of sludge/10 liters
of paint produced was used to estimate sludge volume for
those operations reporting this waste but unable to
quantify the amount.
w. Wastes reported in volume units were converted to mass
units using an assumed specific gravity of 1.4.
x. This group includes two pesticide manufacturers and five
of the larger pesticide formulators in the region. It
is likely that there are other formulators in the region
in addition to those reported herein. Routine wastes
from the formulation operations are in the form of empty
containers. Occasional wastes include excess or otherwise
unusable pesticides.
y. Not reported in the annual generation rate is the 25,000
55 gallon drums of 2-4-D and MCP pesticide manufacturing
waste and 100 tons of metalic chloride wastes existing at
the Alkali-Lake Disposal Site in Lake County, Oregon.1*
z. No significant changes in the waste generation patterns of
this industry are anticipated.
aa. Data for the explosives industry may be incomplete. The
single source for identification of operations in the
U. S. is the Internal Revenue Service which considers loca-
tions of plants as confidential. Hence, some firms may
not have been identified. Indeed, one of the explosives
manufacturers identified had an unlisted phone number and
did not respond to a letter inquiry.
Solid waste from the explosives manufacturing industry may
increase as tighter air pollution controls are instituted.
Similar increases from the munitions manufacturers may be
expected with tighter effluent limitations.
bb. Wastes reported in volume units were converted to mass
units using an assumed specific gravity of 1.2.
67
-------
cc. The figure represents an estimated volume of a wastewater
treatment sludge expected to come on line in January 1976.
dd. This group includes four crude oil refineries and two oil
re-refining operations.
ee. No significant charges in solid wastes as a result of
tighter air and water pollution control standards are
anticipated for this industrial group.
ff. Future solid hazardous waste generation patterns for the
leather tanning industry in Region X should remain rela-
tively constant or decline. The largest of the three
tanneries indicated that they were considering a shift to
closed loop operation which would include recovery and
recycle of the present chromium waste. Depending on the
process chosen to achieve this goal, hazardous waste
volumes from this operation may well decline.
gg. The 15 plants under this general heading include the
following:
Seven primary aluminum plants (SIC 3334)
One aluminum alloying plant (SIC 3334)
One tin and steel reclaimer (SIC 3341)
Two secondary lead and zinc smelters (SIC 3356)
One copper smelter (SIC 3331)
One primary lead and zinc smelter (SIC 3333)
One primary producer of exotic metals (SIC 3339)
hh. A waste production factor of 53.0 kg of spent potliner per
metric ton of aluminum produced1*8 was used to estimate the
quantity of this waste from aluminum plants otherwise unable
to estimate thier annual waste production rate.
ii. An estimate 117.0 to 136.1 thousand metric tons (130 to
150 thousand tons) of this reclaimable waste is presently
being stored by a number of the aluminum companies in
Region X.
jj. Potentially hazardous solid wastes from the aluminum industry
in Region X are expected to diminish. Two of the aluminum
plants in Region X have shifted to dry scrubbing systems.
Two other plants in the region inidcated plans to shift to
68
-------
this type of system which affords close to 100 percent re-
cycle of fluoride. The fluorides when removed by wet
scrubbing systems often produce a calcium fluoride sludge.
A similar reduction in the volume of spent potliner is
expected as a result of technological advances relating
to improved physical properties of the carbon potliners.
National projections*8 show an increase in the quantities
of land disposed sludges from air and water pollution
control in the non-ferrous metals industry. This study
concurs with this projection (with the exception of
aluminum reduction as noted above); however, their magni-
tude in Region X should be less since a number of the
non-ferrous metal plants in the Region have already
installed air and water pollution control equipment as
witnessed by the residual sludges reported in Table V-l.
kk. This waste from a primary aluminum plant is a composite of
scrubber tower sludge, spent potlining residue, and spent
lime. Potentially hazardous constituents include calcium
fluoride and cyandies (both free and complexed).
11. Accumulated storage of this waste, in addition to annual
production is estimated to be 136.1 to 181.4 thousand
metric tons (150 to 200 thousand tons).
mm. Accumulated storage, in addition to annual production is
estimated to be 113.4 to 136.1 thousand metric tons (125
to 150 thousand tons).
nn. Accumulated storage, in addition to annual production is
estimated to be 272.6 to 453.6 metric tons (300 to 500
tons).
oo. Accumulated storage, in addition to annual production is
estimated to be 7,257.5 to 1,0886.2 metric tons (8,000
to 12,000 tons).
pp. Wastes reported in volume units were converted to mass
units using an assumed specific gravity of 2.0.
qq. Potentially hazardous solid wastes from the electroplating
industry are expected to increase. Only six of the opera-
tions identified in the study had pretreatment to remove
heavy metals from their effluent. Five operations accomp-
lished this through precipitation (lime addition) and
one through reverse osmosis. Water conservation practices
such as counter current and over-the tank rinsing were
identified in all operations contacted. Such conditions
indicate that the limits of internal wastewater volume
reduction are being approached and that tighter effluent
limitations may well dictate the installation of industrial
wastewater pretreatment by many of the electroplaters.
69
-------
rr. Industries categorized under this grouping include:
Printing Press Machinery (SIC 3555)
Automatic Control Equipment (SIC 3679)
Printed Electronic Circuit Boards (SIC 3679)
Computer Peripherals (SIC 3573)
Electronic Components (SIC 3629)
Lighting Equipment (SIC 3649)
Electromechanical Assemblies (SIC 3629)
ss. Wastes reported in volume units were converted to mass
units using a specific gravity of 8.9.
tt. Future waste generation patterns for this industrial
group are difficult to predict. Eight of the industries
with known industrial discharges had no wastewater treat-
ment. One of these is planning installation of a treatment
plant for heavy metals removal. Similar moves by the
remaining seven may be necessary to meet tighter effluent
standards. Such installations may result in moderate
volumes of metal bearing sludges and brines requiring special
disposal.
uu. Industries covered under this heading include the following:
Mirror Manfuacturing (SIC 3231)
Steel pipe and tube manufacturing (SIC 3317)
Copper drawing, rolling, and extrusion (SIC 3351)
Aluminum rolling and drawing NEC (SIC 3355)
* Aluminum foundries (SIC 3361)
Metal heat treating (SIC 3398)
Cutlery, hand tools, and general hardware manufacturing
(SIC 342)
Heating equipment (SIC 3433)
Fabricated plate work (SIC 3443)
-------
Construction machinery and equipment (SIC 3531)
Aircraft and parts (SIC 372)
Knitted outerware (SIC 2253)
vv. Future waste generation patterns in this diverse group
are difficult to predict. Ten of the 21 operations sur-
veyed showed effluent concentrations of toxic metals (Cd,
Cr, Zn, Cu) in the 1-10 ppm range. Four of these facilities
have installed treatment equipment to remove these materials,
More stringent effluent standards may dictate the installa-
tion of similar or more extensive equipment at the other
facilities. Such a move would most likely increase the
volume of metal bearing sludge requiring disposal.
21Ralph Stone Company, Inc. "Forecasts of the Effect of Air and
Water Pollution Controls on Solid Waste Generation," EPA Con-
tract No. 68-03-0244, August 1974.
22Holcombe, J. K., P. W. Kalika, The Research Corporation of
New England. "Solid Waste Management in the Industrial Chem-
ical Industry," EPA Contract No. CPE 69-5.
23Saxon, J. C. and M. Kramer. "Industrial Chemicals Solid Waste
Generation, the Significance of Process Change, Resource Recovery,
and Improved Disposal," International Research and Technology
Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-03-0138, June 1974.
24Datagraphics, Inc. "Inorganic Chemicals Industry Profile,"
Updated for EPA Program 12020, July 1971.
2 Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Phosphorus Derived
Chemicals Segment of the Phosphate Manufacturing Point Source
Category, EPA, Jamiary, 1974.
2 Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Basic Fertilizer
Chemicals Segment of the Fertilizer Manufacturing Point Source
Category, March 1974.
27Versar, Inc. "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Inorganic Chemical Industry," Draft Final Report, EPA Contract
No. 68-01-2246, October 1974.
28Gruber, G. I. and M. Ghassemi. "Assessment of Industrial
Hazardous Waste Practices, Organic Chemicals, Pesticide and
Explosives Industries," TRW Systems and Energy Draft Final
Report, EPA Contract No. 68-01-2919, April 1975.
29Datagraphics, Inc. "Projected Wastewater Treatment Costs in
the Organic Chemicals Industry," Updated for EPA Program/2020
GND.
30Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Major Organic Pro-
ducts Segment of the Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Point
Source Category, EPA, April 1973.
3 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. "Hazardous Waste
Management Planning, 1972-73," March 1974.
71
-------
32WAPORA, Inc. "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Prac-
tices," Paint and Coating Manufacture, Solvent Reclaiming, and
Factory Applied Coatings Operations, Draft Final Report, EPA
Contract No. 68-01-0762, July.
33Putnam, R. C., F. Ellison, R. Protzman, J. Hilvosky, Foskr D.
Snell, Inc. "Organic Pesticides and Pesticide Containers
A Study of Their Decontamination and Combustion," Environmental
Health Service Contract No. CPA 69-140.
3 **Atkins, P. R. "The Pesticide Manufacturing Industry Current
Waste Treatment and Disposal Practices," Water Pollution Control
Research Series, 12020 FYE 01/72 USEPA, January 1972.
35Jacobs Engineering. "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices, Petroleum Refining," Draft Final Report, EPA Con-
tract No. 68-01-2288, January 1975.
36Ernest, F. G., et al. "Petrochemical Effluents Treatment
Practices," Engineering Science Incorporated, February 1970.
Federal Water Quality Contract (Administration Contract
14-12-461).
37Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Leather Tanning and
Finishing Point Soruce Category, EPA-440/l-74-016-a, March 1974.
3 Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Secondary Aluminum
Smelting Subcategory of the Aluminum Segment of the Non-
Ferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source Category, EPA-440/
1-74-019-e, March 1974.
3 Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Copper, Nickel,
Chromium and Zinc Segment of the Electroplating Point Source
Category, EPA-440/l-74-003-a, March 1974.
11 "Development Docuemnt for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Primary Aluminum
Smelting Segment of the Non-Ferrous Metals Manufacturing
Point Source Category, EPA-440/l-74-019-d, March 1974.
"^Sittig, M. Pollution Removal Handbook, Noyes Data Corporation,
Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1973.
"*2Charles River Associates. "The Effects of Pollution Control on
the Non-Ferrous Metals Industry," for Council on Environmental
Quality, December 1971.
"43Martin, J. J. "Chemical Treatment of Plating Waste for Removal
of Heavy Metals," Environmental Protection Technology Series,
EPA-R2-73-044, May 1973.
l+1'Battelle Memorial Institute Columbus Laboratories. "A State of
the Art Review of Metal Finishing Waste Treatment," Water Pol-
lution Control Research Series 12010 ElE, November 1968.
"5"Assessment of Industrial Waste Practices Electroplating
and Metal Finishing Industry," Executive Summary, Draft Final
Report, EPA, June 1975.
"*6Versar, Inc. "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices, Storage and Primary Batteries Industries," Final
Report, EPA Contract No. 68-01-2276.
47Berkowitz, J. B., G. R. Schimie, and V. R. Valeri. "Water
Pollution Potential of Manufactured Products Catalog Section
III Chemical Ingredient Listing," Environmental Protection
Technology Series, EPA R2-73-179, April 1973.
72
-------
Category I Heavy metal solutions and sludges
Category II Organic solvents and oils
Category III Caustic and acid solutions
Category IV Inorganic chemical solutions and sludges
Category V Organic chemical solutions and sludges
Category VI Pesticide wastes
Category VII Paint wastes
Category VIII Explosive wastes
These waste categories are used in the regional summary (Table
V-2) and for purposes of depicting the spacial distribution of
wastes (Table V-3).
Columns IV and V depict waste types and quantities generated
per year respectively. This information was derived through
a combination of direct and indirect methods as described in
Chapter III. Amplifying footnotes are provided to indicate
the specific estimation and commission procedures used to
derive the figure shown in Column V. Those wastes which
qualify as hazardous under the Waste Decision Model (Appendix
B) are so indicated by footnote. Column VI reports current
management and/or disposal practices for the wastes shown in
Column V. Estimates of total accumulated storage for those
operations using this option are reported in the footnotes
under this column. Footnotes in Column VII present a qualita-
tive estimate of future waste generation patterns for each of
the industrial groups shown in the table.
REGIONAL SUMMARY OF WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Waste management practices for the eight industrial waste
categories described in the previous sections are shown for
the entire region in Table V-2.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS WASTES
Table V-3 in conjunction with Figures V-l thru V-4 depict the
geographical distribution of potentially hazardous wastes
from industrial sources on a county basis. The shaded areas
73
-------
TABLE V-2
REGIONAL SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTE
AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Waste Discharge Buried On Recycled Or Waste Disposal Stored On Septic Or
Waste Type Processor Landfill To Sewer Property Sold As Product Company* Property Holding Tank
I. Metal Sludces
and Solutions 3,555.9 720.6 7.6 2,928.2 440.5 74.9 782.1 0.5
II. Solvents and
Oils 885.2 91.9 40.6 86.1 38.1
III. Caustics and
Acids 2,428.6 660.2 142.9 0.8 17,327.0 2.7
IV. Inorganic
Chemicals 80.7 209.7 37,214.6
V. Organic
Chemicals 850.5 16,065.8 76.9 1,452.4 33.1 484.3
VI. Pesticide
Wastes 30.0 17.0 105.8 83.3
VII. Paint Wastes 532.7 335.7 76,0
VIII. Explosives 18.0
TOTAL (METRIC TONS) 8,333.6 18,181.9 150.5 3,022.9 19,260.5 376.0 38,602.4 3.2
TOTAL (TONS) 9,186.2 20,042.1 165.9 3,332.2 21,231.1 415.5 42,551.9 3.5
Ultimate destination of waste unknown.
-------
TABLE V-2 (Cont'd.)
Secured Road Storage Lagoon Total
Waste Typo Landfill Oiling Burning Or Holding Pond Land Farming Unknown [metric tons (tons)
I .
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII .
'III.
Metal Sludges 128.1
and Solutions
Solvents and
Oils 2.6 21.9
Caustics and
Acids 26.5 1,088.2
Inorganic
Chemicals 39,782.8 179.6
Organic
Chemicals 22.7 473.2 14.7 426.0 45.5
Pesticide
Wastes 645.7 0.5 45.5
Paint Wastes
Explosives 26.8
8,
(9,
1,
(1,
21,
(23,
77,
(85,
19,
(21,
(1,
<1,
638
522
166
285
676
894
467
393
945
085
927
022
995
097
44
(49
.4
.2)
.4
.7)
. i
.7)
.4
.2)
.1
.7)
.8
.7)
.3
-1)
.8
.">
TOTAL (METRIC TONS) 697.5 495.1 27.3
40,885.7
733.7
91.0
130,862.1
TOTAL (TONS
768.9 545.3 30.1
45,068.8
808.8
100.3
,250.1
-------
TABLE V-3
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTE
WASTE CATEGORY
WASHINGTON
County or District
(Total Metric Tons) Category I
Benton
(160.7)
Chelan
(9,259.4)
Clark
>3,064 . 7)
Cowlitz
;27,244.4)
King
(24, 391. 9)
Klickitat
(12,110.9)
Pierce
(13,942.2)
Skaait
(1,731.2)
Snohomish
(74.2)
Spokane
(1,935.1)
What com
(12,208.7)
Yakima
10.9)
SP:
RC:
WP :
RC:
ST:
LF:
RC:
BP:
LF:
FL:
SP:
WP:
LF:
LF:
RC:
BP:
FL:
WP:
0.5
0.7
3,216.7
1.9
144.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.1
64.6
1.1
0.1
9.2
428.5
104.1
635.0
63.5
50.8
Cate
WD:
ST:
LF:
WP:
WD:
LF:
RC:
RC:
WP:
LF:
WP:
LF:
WP:
WD:
sqory II Category III Category IV Category V Category VI Cateaory VII Category VIII
LG: 160.2
ST: 6,350.3
LG: 2,791.0
LF: 118.1
0.7 ST: 2,880.1 WD : 30.3 WD: 58.3 LF : 4.3
20.4 ST: 69.9
1.8 LG: 27,215.5 SL: 22.7 LF : 4.4
650.7 WP: 1,607.9 WP : 73.3 RC: 299.4 WD: 5.2 WP : 532.7
18.7 RC: 1,284.6 LF: 1.0 LF: 15,540.1 ST: 22.9 LF: 72.6
4.7 SW: 108.9 BP : 34.4 WD: 0.6
6.8 LG: 762.0
LF: 2.3
LG: 4,762.7
ST: 7,348.2
32.7 RC: 13,607.8 LF : 90.7 LF : 66.6 UK: 26.8 LF:30.0 BU: 17.7
13.1 SP: 2.7 BP: 42.5
14.3
65.3 LF: 179.6 RC : 1,017.3
FL: 403.3
SW: 42.0 ST: 22.9
11.1 RC: 1,291.6 LF: 30.0 LF : 69.3
BU: 0.5
29.4 ST: 11,377.9 FL: 22.7 ST : 12.5
15.7 LF: 1.2
LF: 10.9
-------
TABLE V-3 (Cont'd.)
0 R E G O II
County or District
(Total Metric Tons) Category I Category II Category III Category IV Category V Category VI Category VII Category VIII
Clackamas
(99.3)
Des chutes
(1.1)
Jackson
(416.3)
Josephine
(66.2)
Lane
(492.2)
Linn
(95.2)
Marion
(480.7)
Multnomah
(4, 386.7)
Union
(51.0)
Wasco
(8.572.9)
Washington
(2,497.3)
Yamhill
(499.7)
RC:
SW:
SL:
BP:
WD:
RC:
LF:
ST:
LF:
RC:
RC:
LF:
BP:
WP:
ST:
RC:
BP:
LF:
ST:
37.1 WD:47.7
7.6
6.9
1.1
75.0 ST: 326.6 LG: 14.7
*
SW: 2.6 WD: 63.6
1.0 WD: 1.4 LG: 322.7 ST: 25.0 LF: 9.7
1.4 RC: 113.0 WD: 17.3
0.7
4.5 LG: 90.7
330.4 WP: 40.9 LF : 89.0
LF: 20.4
64.4 WP: 43.0 RC : 1,143.1 WP : 873.2 SL: 645.7 LF: 92.9
83.5 LF: 19.3 WP : 817.6 ST : 31.7 WD: 25.0 WD: 12.7
4.3 ST: 17.7 WD: 1.9
2.1 RO: 21.3 RO: 473.2
9.1
ST: 51.0
LG: 4.762.7
ST: 3,810.2
1 . 9 WP : 8 . 5 LF : 1 . 5
2,292.6
192.8
499.7
-------
TABLE V-3 (Cont'd.)
IDAHO
County or District
(Total Metric Tons) Category I Category II Category III Category IV Category V Category VI Category VII Category VII
Ada
(35.3)
LF: 0.3 SL: 2.6 SL: 26.5
LF: 5.9
Bannock
(134.1)
LF: 0.1 LF: 20.4 LF: 113.6
Bonner
(35.8)
BP: 17.1
UK: 18.7
Nez Perce
(140.7)
UK: 113.6
BU: 9.1
LF- 18.0
Shoshone
(5,715.3)
ST: 5.715.3
00
ALASKA
Anchorage
District
(1,008.6)
RC: 0.6
LF: 544.3
LF: 463.7
KEY:
BP = Buried On-Property
BU = Burned
FL = Land Farming
LF = Public Landfill
LG = Lagoon or Holding Pond
RO = Road Oiling
RC = Recycled or Sold
SL = Secured Landfill
SP = Septic Tank
ST = Storage On-Property
SW = Neutralized and Dumped to Sewer
UK = Waste Disposal Practice Not Indicated
WD = Waste Disposal Company
(Ultimate Disposition Unknown)
WP = Waste Processor
-------
METRIC TONS OF POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS WASTE
NONE
1-50
EZ3 50-100
CUD 100-1000
I1 1000-5000
EHD 5000-10,000
> 10,000
FIGURE V-l. LOCATION OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTE
GENERATING ACTIVITIES IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
-------
00
o
WETRIC TONS Of POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS WASTE
NONE
100-1000
1000-5000
2 5000-10,000
>io,ooo
V-:-v-V'ซaRf ON A^"~" " r
wmmimmmmmmtm
;
V?K$ JACKSON_;X|
FIGURE V-2.
-------
KOOTEMI
W*:-^
c"""'-": &;&.%.
&>$:>;*ฃ x
r--&9ฃ*a&:iฃ
" .T '-.iiซv' >JVป ,ป" - -ป
^Sf5*^A->
BHVEraH fX"> SHOSH01VE =,'.;:
METRIC TONS OF POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS WASTE
- - p-i?S>a;2ป:l':i^S:^^
LATAtl 1 ^x
1 ^^A
, CLEARWATER J-~^\
*~7. "I ^ - - \
---"':( , - -' J
^H. .-.VJVEZ i_ ,- - f
K*
^
. PERCE >t *- x > /
:->.I^ ^ i ~^ f 1
! ::il LEWIS \ ""* ~ f
:M r -" *" r
S * )
1 1 NONE
l^TTTI 1-50
R?^ 50-100
r~i loo-iooo
1 1 1000-5000
L3ZD 5000-10,000
> 10, 000
REEWOW3
/- - ^i'
Jฃ1'7'ฃR6(W ' MADISON ' g
SBANNOCKi
CARIBou
POHER ^
FIGURE V-3. LOCATION OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL
WASTE GENERATING ACTIVITIES IN THE STATE OF
IDAHO
81
-------
METRIC TONS OF POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS WASTE
FIGURE V-4.
LOCATION OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS
INDUSTRIAL WASTE GENERATING
ACTIVITIES IN THE STATE OF ALASKA
82
-------
of the maps (Figures V-l thru V-4) indicate the intensity of
total potential industrial hazardous waste generation in the
respective counties. Table V-3 gives a further breakdown of
the management/disposal practices associated with each waste
type in each of the counties for which potentially hazardous
industrial waste was identified.
RECOMMENDED WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Heavy Metal Sludges and Solutions
Heavy metal sludges and waste solutions arise from electroplating,
anodizing, and etching operations. In Region X, these operations
were identified in the newspaper publishing, electronic components,
electroplating (job shop), and a miscellaneous manufacturing
industries reported in Table V-l. The wastes from these operations
contain a variety of metals including cadmium, chrome, zinc, copper,
and nickel in the form of waste water treatment sludges (precip-
itated metal salts and hydroxides) and spent or contaminated solu-
tions with the metals in the ionic form. Additionally, exhausted
ion exchange resin and electroplating bath filter solids are two
potentially hazardous wastewater treatment residuals associated
with some electroplating operations.
Other industries in the region producing heavy metal bearing
wastes include leather tanning (chromic hydroxide sludges), petro-
leum refining (leaded gasoline tank bottoms) and lead-acid bat-
tery manufacturing (lead oxide wastewater treatment sludge).
Recovery of the metals, either in the elemental form or as a
marketable salt should be practiced where it is economically
feasible to do so. This may be accomplished prior to conversion
of the waste to a sludge as in the case of chromate recovery from
plating waste through ion exchange.50 Recovery of metals from
sludges can be undertaken by acid leaching processes.1 The
resultant salts may be of commercial value without further pro-
cessing or may be purified or treated to recover the metal.
Incorporation of waste heavy metal salts and solutions into
saleable products is an alternative to recovery. Western Pro-
cessing Company (see Chapter VII) located in Kent, Washington,
has developed a number of processes utilizing this concept.
These include the following:
50Dvorin, R. "Water and Waste Treatment A Review of Methods
for the Metal Finishing Industry," Chemcial Engineering Pro-
gress, No. 2, 1970.
83
-------
A fertilizer additive produced from waste sulfuric acid
and steel mill flue dust.
Liquid zinc sulfate produced from waste sulfuric acid,
flue dust, zinc ash and galvanizing skimmings.
Fire retardant produced from waste zinc oxide and
chromic-sulfuric acid.
Ferric chloride suitable as an asphalt conditioner
which is produced from flue dust and waste muriatic
acid.
Lead chromate from chrome contaminated rinse water
and lead wastes from battery manufacturing plants.
The suitability of a heavy metal bearing waste to reprocessing
and/or recovery depends on a variety of economic and technical
factors such as marketability of the product, waste volume and
composition, and source reliability. The decision to reprocess
or recover must be made on a case by case basis.
The recommended disposal method for non-reprocessable heavy metal
sludges is discharge to a secured landfill perferably in an arid
region where leaching action is negligible.1 Discharge to a wet
region secured landfill will require assurance that the sludge
is in a form which will not be subject to significant leaching
(low solubility oxides, hydroxides or sulfides) of the heavy
metals contained therein. Fixation of the metals in the sludge
can be accomplished by incorporating the sludge in a suitable
matrix such as asphalt.51
At the present time, forty-six percent of the 8,638.4 metric tons
of heavy metal waste identified in the regions is being repro-
cessed by the generators or a waste processing company.
Solvents and Oils
Solvent and oil* wastes are common to a number of industries in
Region X. Industries producing these wastes include newspaper
*The reader should recall from Chapter III that oil wastes were
excluded from the study; however, in some instances reporting
industries were unable to differentiate between the two.
5 Blanco, R. E., H. W. Godbee, and E. J. Fredrick. "Incorpor-
ating Industrial Wastes in Insoluble Media," Chemical Engin-
eiering Progress, No. 2, 1970.
84
-------
publishing, organic and inorganic chemicals, paint and allied
products, explosives and munitions, printing inks, electrical
and electronic products, plus a variety of miscellaneous manu-
facturers .
Recovery of waste solvents and oils for reuse is commonly prac-
tices throughout the country. Fractional distillation is typically
employed to recovery waste solvents1 while chemical treatment
and distillation is used to recover waste oil.52 Waste oil is
also frequently re-used as fuel or as a dust preventative (e.g.,
road oiling). Solvent recovery residues should be incinerated.
Incineration is the recommended disposal alternative for waste
solvents and oils where recovery is not feasible.2 Waste solvents
containing chlorinated hydrocarbons require specially design
incinerators to cope with the hydrochloric acid evolved.53 The
hydrochloric acid may be recovered for re-use54 but is most fre-
quently scrubbed from the incinerator off-gas and neutralized.
The resultant salt, e.g., (CaCl2), may be of value for appli-
cation to icy roadways.
Of the 1,166.4 metric tons of solvent and oil waste identified
in Region X, 79 percent is presently reported as being recycled
internally or through a waste processor.
Caustic and Acid
Like solvents and oils, caustic and acid wastes are common to
many industries in Region X. Wastes of this nature were identi-
fied in the newspaper publishing industry, the industrial gas
(acetylene) industry, the explosives and munitions industry, the
primary and secondary non-ferrous metals industry, the electrical
and electronics industry, and in a variety of miscellaneous manu-
facturing industries.
Recycle or re-use of waste caustic and acid is the most desirable
form of waste management. In some instances, such as high grade
acid used for Dehydration and purification purposes, the effluent
from one process can be resold as a lower grade product for re-
use in another process.
52Weinstein, H. J. "Waste Oil Recycling and Disposal," Environ-
mental Protection Agency Report, EPA-670/2-74-052, August 1974.
53Santoleri, J. J. "Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Waste Disposal and
Recovery Systems,11 Chemical Engineering Progress, No. 69,
pp. 68-74, July 1973.
5l|Hulswitt, C. "Hoi Recovered from Chlorinated Organic Waste,"
Chemical Engineering, pp. 80-81, May 15, 1972.
85
-------
In other instances, caustic produced as a by-product (as in
acetylene production), can be used for wastewater treatment.
More exotic uses of waste caustic and acid such as those practiced
by Western Processing Company (see Chapter VII) are also avail-
able. Waste acids may also be of value as a leaching agent for
metal sludges for which recovery of valuable metals is intended.
Neutralization of waste acid and caustic should be employed in
those instances where re-use of recycle is not feasible. Waste
processors are in an excellent position to effect this form of
treatment due to their access to supplies of both caustic and
acid wastes. Neutralization for discharge to receiving waters
requires careful control to assure that the pH of the resulting
solution is within acceptable limits.
Of the 21,676.9 metric tons of waste acid and caustic identified
in Region X, 80 percent was being recycled or sold as a lower
grade product and 11 percent was being handled by a waste pro-
cessor.
Inorganic Chemical Wastes
For the purposes of this report, inorganic chemical wastes are
defined as a variety of sludges and solutions whose potentially
hazardous constituents are primarily inorganic chemicals which
have not been classified generically as heavy metal sludges,
acids, caustic, or paint wastes. For Region X these wastes
include the following:
Non-heavy metal salts from inorganic chemical plants
(fluorides, sulfides, etc.).
Catalysts from petroleum refineries.
Spent potliner and potliner processing residues from
aluminum reduction plants.
Wastewater treatment sludges from non-ferrous metal
smelting plants.
Cyanide solutions from metal fabrication and heat
treating plants.
Inorganic chemical wastes represent a diverse group of materials
to which no one treatment or disposal scheme may be optimal in
a given situation. Recovery of valuable materials may be pos-
sible under certain conditions (e.g., high concentrations).
For example, wastes containing sufficient cyanide can be treated
with acid to volatilize the cyanide or hydrogen cyanide gas
which is subsequently captured in a sodium hydroxide solution
86
-------
to form relatively pure sodium cyanide. Wastes containing low
concentrations of cyanide may require much larger amounts of
acid to release the hydrogen cyanide gas, therefore, making
the recovery process uneconomical.
Treatment of potentially hazardous inorganic wastes will generally
involve oxidation, reduction, neutralization, and/or precipitation
to render harmless the toxic agents contained in the wastes.
Cyanides, for example should be chemically oxidized55 (e.g., by
chlorine) or biochemically oxidized56 (e.g., secondary treatment)
to harmless substances. Fluorides should be precipitated with
lime or other calcium compounds to form calcium fluoride57 thus
reducing the availability of the toxic fluoride ion. The avail-
ability of the fluoride ion can be further reduced by precipi-
tating apatite type substances such as calcium fluoro apatite58
by the following reaction:
3HP04~2 + 5Ca+2 + 30H~ + F~ -> Ca^PO^F + 3H20
As indicated in Table V-I, relatively large quantities of poten-
tially hazardous cyanide and fluoride bearing solid wastes are
generated by the aluminum industry. These wastes require further
characterization to determine the availability of the toxic
agents contained therein. It is possible that lagooning of these
wastes may accomplish destruction of the relatively low concen-
trations of cyanide through biochemical or photochemical oxidation.
Aluminum plants located in arid regions can make use of secured
landfills to dispose of cyanide and fluoride bearing wastes;
however, this option would probably not be economically feasible
for plants located in regions of high precipitation. Recovery
of cryolite, NasAlFg, is practiced by one plant which serves
to recycle much of the waste fluoride back to the reduction
process; nevertheless, the resulting residue still contains
fluorides and cyanides. This plant processes its own potlining
55Battelle Memorial Institute. "An Investigation of Techniques
for Removal of Cyanide from Electroplating Wastes," Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 12010 EIE, November 1971.
56Howe, R. H. L. "Recent Advance in Cyanide Waste Reduction
Practice," 18th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue Univer-
sity, 1963.
57Rohrer, K. L. "Lime, CaCl2 Beat Fluoride Wastewater," Water
and Wastes Engineering, pp. 66-68, November 1974.
58Skripach, T., et al. "Removal of Fluorine and Arsenic from
the Wastewater of the Rare-Earth Industry," Proceedings of the
5th International Water Pollution Research Conference, III
34/1 - 34/7, July - August 1970.
87
-------
and scrubber waste for cryolite recovery and accepts some off-
site wastes but lacks sufficient capability to process all of
the spent potlining generated in Region X.
In Region X, inorganic chemical wastes represented 59 percent of
the regional total report in Table V-l. Of this 59 percent
(77,467 metric tons), 51 percent is being sent to on-prooerty
holding lagoons and 48 percent is being stored on company pro-
perty. Less than 1 percent of the inorganic chemical waste is
being recycled or processed by a waste processor.
Organic Chemical Waste
A variety of potentially hazardous wastes identified in Region X
have been reported under this heading. Those identified wastes
whose potentially hazardous contituents are organic chemicals
and which do not qualify as pesticides, explosives, or solvents
have been assigned to this category. Inspection of Table V-I
shows that wastes in this category include phenolic sludges and
residues, chlorinated hydrocarbons, oxazolodine, benzoic acid,
and miscellaneous tank washings originating primarily in the
petroleum refining and organic chemicals industry.
Although a wide variety of potentially hazardous organic wastes
have been identified, this type of waste can be rendered harmless
by one process incineration.2 This can be readily accomplished
in a properly designed incinerator which subjects the organic
waste to a temperature sufficient to complete the combustion pro-
cess. Scrubber systems must also be included to remove sub-
stances such as hydrochloric acid from the off-gas of the incin-
erator. The incinerators can be designed to accept different
types of waste packages including metal drums.
Alternative treatment methods include biological degradation by
either secondary treatment (e.g., aerated lagoon) or by land
spreading. Monitoring would be required in this instance to
assure adequate degradation of the hazardous substances.
Chemical or physical alterations of the organic hazardous wastes
may also be possible to render the material harmless for dis-
charge or landfilling. An example is phenolic resin manufacturing
sludge which becomes quite impervious to water leaching of
phenol after drying.1"1
Treatment by activated carbon sorption is an acceptable alter-
native for use in treating wastewater containing hazardous
organics.59 The organics sorbed by the carbon are subsequently
59Erskine, D. B. and W. G. Schuliger. "Activated Carbon Pro-
cesses for Liquids," Chemical Engineering Processes, Volume
67, No. 11, November 1971.
88
-------
destroyed during the thermal carbon regeneration process.
In Region X, 27 percent of the organic chemical wastes are being
recycled or processed by a waste processing company. None of
the industrial organic chemical wastes identified in the study
are being incinerated.
Pesticide Wastes
Pesticide wastes from industrial operations in Region X arise
from pesticide manufacturing and wood treating. The former
operation produces wastes in the form of manufacturing residues,
and off-spec batches while the wood treating industry generates
a waste sludge composed of debris contaminated with pentachloro-
phenol (PCP) and creosote. Contaminated packaging and containers
constitute another potentially hazardous waste from both of
these industries.
Incineration is the recommended method of disposal for pesticide
wastes.l This is one of the few available treatment methods
which effects almost complete destruction of the environmentally
persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon and organophosphate pesticides,
No facility for the incineration of pesticide wastes presently
exists in Region X. Other less suitable methods for the detox-
ification of pesticide waste include treatment in oxidation ponds
and soil degredation. Oxidation ponds have been shown to degrade
2,4-d and 2,4,5-T with retention times on the order of several
days.60 Other studies have shown effective degradation of the
same phenoxy herbicides by soil organisms when these wastes were
applied to the soil surface in a controlled manner. Times
required to achieve degradation of the herbicides were on the
order of several months.61'62 An attempt to apply this type of
treatment of a full-scale basis should be preceeded by pilot
studies and carefull consideration of local environmental con-
ditions to assure that release of applied pesticide to surface
waters (through runoff) or groundwater (through infilteration)
will not occur.
6"Atkins, P. R. "The Pesticide Manufacturing Industry Current
Waste Treatment and Disposal Practices," EPA Water Pollution
Control Research Series 12020 FYE, 1972.
6 Morris, L. A. "Chemical Brush Control: Assessing the Hazard,"
Journal of Forestry, Vol. 69, p. 715, 1971.
62Young, A. L., et al. "Bioassay Studies of Soil Cores from
Test Area C-52A, Elgen Air Force Base," Abstracts (No. 72)
of the National Meeting of the Weed Science Society of
America, St. Louis, Missouri, 1972.
89
-------
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PSB's) constitute a special class of
chlorinated hydrocarbons since they require extremely high tem-
perature for thermal destruction. The best available disposal
practice for these materials is shipment to the Monsanto facility
in St. Louis or a facility with similar residence time-temperature
capabilities.
Seventy percent (645.7 metric tons) of the annual industrial
pesticide waste generated in Region X is being dumped at the
Wes Con Site in Owhyee County, Idaho (see Chapter VII). "Land-
filling" of persistent pesticide wastes is not usually destroyed
or rendered non-toxic in an anaerobic environment. No significant
degradation of the wastes dumped at the Wes Con Site is expected;
however, local environmental conditions in combination with the
physical characteristics of the site should preclude the release
of the wastes for the foreseeable future.
Paint Wastes
Paint wastes as reported herein refer to wastewater treatment
sludges from paint manufacturing plants and paint stripping
sludges and solutions from some of the miscellaneous manufacturers.
Pigment bags from paint manufacturing plants have been classified
as potentially hazardous wastes and are included under the heading
of "Paint Wastes".
The degree of hazard associated with paint wastes is primarily
a function of the pigment material. A recent study32 indicates
that approximately 5.8 percent of the pigments currently used
in paint manufacturing are potentially hazardous. Recovery of
these hazardous constituents from complex sludges is not always
feasible; however, recycle of tank washings (the origin of most
paint sludges) to subsequent batches is an effective means of
controlling waste volume. A number of instances of this practice
were identified in Region X. Those potentially hazardous sludges
which cannot be recycled should be landfilled using the same
guidelines as those outlined for heavy metal sludges earlier in
this section. Bagging material contaminated with potentially
hazardous pigments should be segregated from non-hazardous
bagging and either incinerated (with proper control to prevent
release of airborne heavy metal) or landfill along with the
potentially hazardous sludges.
In Region X, 33 percent of the 995 metric tons of paint waste is
going to landfill. The remaining 67 percent is being handled by
waste processors or waste disposal companies (destination unknown).
90
-------
Explosive Wastes
The volume of explosive wastes generated in Region X is relatively
small (<50 metric tons per year) and arises only in the explosives
and munitions industry as shown in Table V-l. Controlled burning
or detonation of explosive waste is the most acceptable means of
disposal.2 In Region X, 60 percent of the 44.8 metric tons of
identified explosive waste is handled in this manner. The
remaining 40 percent, comprised entirely of packaging, is land-
filled. This method of disposal is adequate for packaging if it
can be shown that residual explosives are not present in sufficient
quantities so as to present an explosion hazard.
91
-------
VI. POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTES
FROM STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
INTRODUCTION
The information presented below describes potentially hazardous
wastes generated by state and federal agencies in Region X.
This data was collected through direct contacts with the
individual agencies.
Wastes identified from these agencies have been grouped into
two categories as follows:
Spent Pesticide Containers
Industrial Wastes
In addition to these wastes, a special section reporting direct
survey results for electric utilities and public utility dis-
tricts is included. The latter was conducted for the specific
purpose of identifying management practices associated with
waste polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) from these operations.
Radioactive wastes associated with the Energy Research and
Development Administration (ERDA) facilities at Hanford
(Benton County, Washington) and Idaho Falls (Bingham and
Bonneville Counties, Idaho) are not covered in detail. Ade-
quate treatment of this complex subject was beyond the scope
of this report. Extensive information on radioactive waste
volumes and management practices is available in the waste
management environmental statements63"65 for these two facili-
ties and the EPA National Hazardous Waste Management Study.1
The interested reader is referred to these documents.
SPENT PESTICIDE CONTAINERS FROM
STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
Spent pesticide containers constitute a potentially hazardous
waste issuing from state and federal agencies. Federal
agencies within the region are presently operating under
recently promulgated Federal regulations on pesticide container
U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration. "Env-
ironmental Statement, Waste Management Operations, National
Reactor Testing Station, Idaho."
6ltU. S. Energy Research and Development Administration. "Environ-
mental Statement, Waste Management Operations, Hanford Reserva-
tion," Richland, Washington.
65U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. "NRTS Waste Management Plan
for FY 1975," Idaho Falls, Idaho, July 1974.
93
-------
disposal.66 These regulations recommend the following disposal
procedrues for the three major groups of pesticide containers.67
Group I Containers - Combustible containers which formerly
contained organic or metallo-organic pesticides, except
organic mercury, lead, cadmium, or arsenic compounds,
should be disposed of in a pesticide incinerator, or
buried in a specially designated landfill, as noted in
ง 165.8(a); except that small quantities of such con-
tainers may be burned in open fields by the user of
the pesticide when such open burning is permitted by
State and local regulations, or buried singly by the
user in open fields with due regard for protection of
surface and sub-surface water.
Group II Containers - Non-combustible containers which
formerly contained organic or metallo-organic pesticides,
except organic mercury, lead, cadmium, or arsenic
compounds, should first be triple-rinsed. Containers
in good condition may then be returned to the pesticide
manufacturer or formulator, or drum reconditioner
for reuse with the same chemical class of pesticide
previously contained providing such reuse is legal
under currently applicable U. S. Department of Trans-
portation regulations including those set forth
in 49 CFR 173.28. Other rinsed metal containers
should be punctured to facilitate drainage prior
to transport to a facility for recycle as scrap
metal or for disposal. All rinsed containers may
be crushed and disposed of by burial in a sanitary
landfill, in conformance with State and local
standards or buried in the field by the user of
the pesticide. Unrinsed containers should be dis-
posed of in a specially designated landfill, or
subjected to incineration in a pesticide incinera-
tor.
Group III Containers - Containers (both combustible
and noncombustible) which formerly contained organic
mercury, lead, cadmium, or arsenic or inorganic
pesticides and which have been triple-rinsed and
punctured to facilitate drainage, may be disposed
of in a sanitary landfill. Such containers which
are not rinsed should be encapsulated and buried
in a specially designated landfill.
66"Pesticide and Pesticide Containers Regulations for
Acceptance and Recommended Procedures for Disposal and
Storage," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40CFRK5.
67Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Part 165.9.
94
-------
Residue Disposal - Residues and rinse liquids should
be added to spray mixtures in the field. If not,
they should be disposed of in the manner prescribed
for each specific type of pesticide as set forth
in ง 165.8.
None of the four states within the Region have promulgated
regulations on pesticide container disposal. The status of
State regulations regarding hazardous waste management and
disposal is discussed in Chapter VIII.
Table VI-1 summarizes pesticide usage rates provided by state
and federal agencies in Region X. In all cases, the agencies
contacted were unable to provide information on the precise
denomination of the containers in which these pesticides
were received; however, in most instances they were able to
determine whether the pesticide was received in dry or liquid
form. Given this information it was possible to apply the
distribution of pesticide containers18 used in Chapter IV
(Agriucltural) to obtain an estimate of the types and quantity
of waste containers. Table VI-1 also reports current waste
management and disposal practices for each of the agencies.
INDUSTRIAL WASTES FROM STATE
AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
Wastes of an industrial nature are associated with most of
the military installations in Region X. The Bonneville Power
Administration also generates approximately 568 liters (150
gallons) of waste PCB' s per year.81* Additionally, the
General Services Administration expects to start receiving
waste transformer oil contaminated with askarel (PCB's)
within the next five years. The estimated quantity of this
material is 5,678 liters (1,500 gallons) per year.85 These
and other industrial wastes from state and federal agencies
are summarized in Table VI-2. Wastes shown in this Table are
assigned to waste categories (I-VIII) identical to those used
in Chapter V. Table VI-3 summarized potentially hazardous
industrial wastes from state and federal agencies on the basis
of waste type and management practice.
ELECTRIC UTILITIES AND PUBLIC
UTILITY DISTRICTS
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) used as an insulating medium
in electric power transformers and capacitor cells can become
8 Personal communication, Portland Office Bonneville Power Admin-
istration, October 1974.
8SPersonal communication, Mr. Lester R. Myers, Jr., Regional
Commissioner, Region X, General Services Administration,
Auburn, Washington 98002.
95
-------
a very hazardous waste when these pieces of equipment fail and
are removed from service. In order to determine management
practices associated with this particular waste 157 utilities
and public utility districts (PUD's) in the four state region
were contacted by letter and asked to indicate if they handled
this material. Utilities and PUD's in Region X were asked to
estimate how much of the material required disposal per year
and what procedures were used to dispose of the material.
Seventy-three responses were received. These responses can be
summarized as follows:
45 indicated that to date no disposal of PCB's had been
required or they did not handle PCB's.
9 indicated no disposal to date but:
a. 5 would return to manufacturer
b. 1 would put in sanitary landfill
c. 1 would sell to junk dealer (entire cell)
d. 1 would turn it over to Resource Recovery, Inc.
19 responded that they had experienced the need to dis-
pose of PCB's and have acted by:
7 Personal communication, Mr. David A. Graham, Director, Insect
and Disease Control, U. S. Forest Service, Region VI, November
13, 1974.
76Personal communication, Mr. Roy W. Jump, Maintenance Super-
visor, Division of Highways, State of Idaho Transportation
Department, April 24, 1975.
77Personal communication, Mr. Wayne Heiskari, Idaho Public
Health Department, May 13, 1975.
7"Personal communication, Mr. Al Atchison, Idaho Department of
Public Lands, April 28, 1975.
79Personal communication, Mr. John N. Hams, Operations Director,
Forest Management Division, Oregon State Forestry Department,
September 26, 1974.
80Personal communication, Mr. Joe Hay, Agronomist, Oregon State
Highway Division, September 26, 1974.
8 Personal communication, Mr. Allen Erikson, Washington State
Department of Natural Resources, April 21, 1975.
82Personal communication, Mr. Robert L. Beoger, Landscape
Artchitect for Maintenance, Washington State Highways,
April 28, 1975, (letter), January 8, 1975.
8 Personal communication, Mr. Roy Russel, Washington Department
of Social and Health Services, January 8, 1975.
96
-------
a. Storing the material 5 utilities ^ 189 1 (50 gal)
in storage
b. Shipping the material back to the manufacturer
3 responses, 1,173 1 (310 gal)/year
c. Sending it to Wes Con, Inc. for disposal 1
response, 265 1 (70 gal)/year
d. Using it for road oiling -- 2 responses, 549 1 (145
gal)/year
e. Selling to junk dealer 3 responses, < 57 1
(15 gal)/year .
f. Burying or landfilling it 3 responses, < 95 1
(25 gal)/year
g. Shipping out of state (ambiguous) 2 responses,
1,136 1 + (300 gal)/year
These responses, although representing only half of the electric
utilities and PUD's in the region indicate that proper disposal
of PCB's is not universal. PCB's should either be returned to
the manufacturer (Monsanto) or disposed of in a specially
approved site such as Wes Con. Road oiling, public landfills,
and junk dealers are not considered proper disposal routes for
this material.
97
-------
TABLE VI-1
ESTIMATE OF SPENT PESTICIDE CONTAINERS
FROM STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
Agency
CO
Bonneville Power
Administration6 e'6 9
Bureau of Land
Management7 ฐ~7 3
(see note a)
U. S. Army Corp of
Engineers *
U. S. Forest Service7:
(Region X), (see note
b)
Idaho Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways7'
Idaho Public Health
Department7 7
(Mosquito Control)
Idaho Department of
Public Lands79
Oregon Department of
Forestry7
Annual Pesticide Usage
Dry Units Liquid Units
(tons/yr)* (1Q3 gal/yr)**
Estimated Number of
Pesticide Containers
119.S
18.1
4.1
No significant pesticide
usage.
4.8
3. 5
1.0
9.6
3.2
4.2
No significant pesticide
usage.
Quantities not available.
4,792
2,473
192
140
40
55 gal
drums
27
14
30 gal
drums
336
76
5 gal
Pails
1,187
269
1 gal
Bottles
272
62
178
59
78
630
210
276
144
48
63
Current Management/
Disposal Practices
Containers are triple-
rinsed and landfilled.
Containers are triple-
rinsed and landfilled.
Containers are triple-
rinsed and landfilled.
In Oregon they are
buried on Forest Service
Land.
Landfill triple-
rinsing not required.
Landfill triple-
rinsing not required.
Metal outcoming returned
to manufacturer.
Metal containers are
triple-rinsed prior to
land disposal. Some
recycle of metal con-
tainers is also prac-
ticed. Combustible con-
tainers are usually
burned at the applica-
tion site.
*1.0 tons = 0.91 metric tons
**1,000.0 gallons = 3,785.4 liters
-------
TABLE VI-1 (Cont'd.)
Agency
Oregon State Highway
Division8 ฐ
Annual Pesticide Usage
Dry Units Liquid Units
(tons/yr)* (103 gal/yr)**
78.4
7.6
3,137
Estimated Number of
Pesticide Containers
50 Ibs 55 gal 30 gal 5 gal
bags drums drums Pails
11
141
499
1 gal
Bottles
114
Current Management/
Disposal Practices
Landfill or burning.
Triple-rinsing recommend-
ed, but not required by
formal directive.
VD
Oregon Mosquito
Control (see note c)
Washington Department
of Natural Resources81
Washington State High-
way Commission -- Depart-
ment of Highways82
Washington Department of
Local and Health Services
(Mosquito Control)83
(see note d)
Total
57.0
4.5
343.7
7.9
7.9
13.9
7.9
84.4
180
336
2,278
180
13,748
12
12
21
12
126
146
146
258
146
518
518
912
518
119
119
209
119
Not determined.
Containers are triple-
rinsed and landfilled.
DNR attempts to recycle
metal drums.
Containers are triple-
rinsed and landfilled.
Container disposal prac-
tices by local Mosquito
Control Districts are
unknown.
1,564 5,537 1,269
-------
NOTES TO TABLE VI-1
a. Data reported in table is for Oregon and Washington. The
BLM in Idaho71 reported that very little "chemical work"
has been done over the last few years. Some 2,4-D has
been used recently for weed control involving 2-3 hundred
acres. The BLM in Idaho uses the Wes Con site (see Chapter
VII) for disposal of all used pesticide containers.71
The Bureau of Land Management in Alaska does not apply
pesticides; however, an unknown amount of pesticides are
used by permitees on some sites within lands administered
by the BLM.72
b. Not included in the table is 102, 882 kilograms (226, 815
Ibs) of DDT75 used to control a widespread tussock moth
infiltration in the forests of eastern Oregon and Washing-
ton during FY 74.
c. Mosquito Control in Oregon is handled by local mosquito
Control Districts. No centralized source of data could be
found to indicate annual pesticide usage by local districts.
Usage reported in Table VI-1 is an estimate based on usage
reported by local mosquito control districts in Washington.
d. Like Oregon, Mosquito Control in the State of Washington
is carried out through a number of local Mosquito Control
Districts. However, the Washington Department of Social
and Health Services maintains records of pesticide usage
by the various districts and reports these figures annually.83
68U. S. Department of the Interior, Bonneville Power Administra-
tion. "Environmental Statement FY 1975 Proposed Program,"
August 23, 1974.
69Personal communication with Mr. Fred Gross, Head, Transmission
Line Maintenance BPA, Vancouver, Washington, October 9, 1974.
7"Personal communication, Mr. Maxwell T. Lieurance, Chief, Divi-
sion of Resources, Oregon State Office, Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, November 8, 1974.
71Personal communication, Clair M. Whitlock, Associate State
Director, Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management,
June 3, 1975.
72Personal communication, Mr. Jules V. Tileston, Chief, Division
of Resources, Anchorage Office, Bureau of Land Management,
June 19, 1975.
7'Personal communication, Mr. Bill Mathews, Oregon State Office,
Bureau of Land Management, May 21, 1975.
7''Personal communication, Mr. Brian R. Appleburry, Emergency
Operations Planner, Seattle District, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, May 29, 1975.
100
-------
TABLE VI-2
ESTIMATE OF HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM
STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
Activity Generating
Fairchild Air Force
Base (Washington)*'
Mountain Home Air
Force DJ^O (Idaho)'7
McChord Air t'oice
FUsf (K-ishinqfon) "'
U. S. Anny, Tort Lewis
(Washington) s
Waste
Category
IV
V
V
II
VII
III
VIII
No hazardous
No hazardous
I
II
III
IV
VI
VI
Description of Was ;e
Photo chemicals
Chlorinated hydro-
carbons
Cleaning compounds
Solvents
Paint and thinner
oil a
Munitions
wastes reported.
wastes reported.
Radioactive matori ils
Spent chromic acid
Solvents
Spent acid and
caustic
Spent photo chemic, Is
Excess insecticide'
10% DDT, 5% DDT,
pyrithin
Excess herbicides
7.12% disqdium tetia-
Quantity Per Year
6,246 l/yr
(1,650 gal/yr)
318 It/yr
25,438 l/yr
(6,720 gal/yr)
32,751 fc/yr
(8,652 gal/yr)
681 t/vr
(130 yal/yr)
57,008 l/yr
(15,060 gal/yr)
3 907 ? /yr"
(1,032 gal/yr)
5-272 kg/yr
(12-600 Ibs/yr)
545.5 kq/yr
(<1200 Ibs/yr)
378 8,/yr
(100 gal/yr)
2,646 l/yr
(700 yal/yr)
36,439 H/yr
(9,640 gnl/yr
1,587.6 l/yr
(420 gal/yr)
6,643 kg/yr
(14,615 Ibs/yr)
159 ky/yr
(350 Ibs/yr)
Current Di ซ-pos.->1/
Management Practice
Sewer to treatment plant
Evaporation
Oil r.kirnming pone] -_
sewage treatment plant
Oil skimnina pond --
sewage treatment plant
Landfill
Cฃl-bdSfc recycle (784)
On-base recycle (22$)
Detonate/bvrn
Sc;e note 1
Noutrnli zed/reduced sl^dqo
to landfill
Sold to off-base waste
Neutralized sewer to tr^dt-
mont plant
Scwcr to treatment plant
In storage awaiting dir;n')';.-!
instructions
In ^loraqe awaiting
-------
TABLE VI-2 (Cont'd.)
Waste
Activity Generating Categor
Description of Wa; _tฃ Quantity Tor Year
Current Disposal/
Manij'f"n' -n h P r.i r-t i r-f
o
NJ
Madigan Array Medical
Center
Elmendorf Air Force
Uiuluen Air Fence Ucitio
(Aln<-,ka) 3
V
III
II
III
V
IV
V
IV
in
ii
VI
V
IV
II
VII
Infections hospit,. 1
waste
Medical radioact ive
materials
Sodium hydroxide
Morphol ine
Sulfuric acid
Cyclohexylamine
Inorganic film pro-
cessing chemicals
Organic film pro-
cessing chemicals
Film processing
chenicals contain
ing cyanides
AuuuoniujTT hydroxid '
Stripping solvent i
Waste pesticides
Antifreeze
Aircraft soap
Sulfuric acid
Paint wastes
330 MT/yr Incinerated
(364 tons/yr)
5,896.8 P,/yr See note 2
(1,560 gal/yr)
19,300 kg/yr Neutrulizo/^owor
(42,460 Ibs/yr)
6,400 kg/yr Sow^r
(14,080 Ibs/yr)
25,500 kg/yr Neutralize/sewer
(56,100 ibs/yr)
2,190 kg/yr Sewer
(4,818 Ib-Vyr)
736 kg/yr Scwur
(1,619 Ibs/yr)
SOI ky/yr Rr-w^r
(1,304 Ibs/yr)
270 kg/yr See note 3
(594 Ibs/yr)
02r, k.j/yr .';.-w<-r
(2,035 Ibs/yr)
17,424 kg/yr . See note 4
(38,332 Ibs/yr)
657 kg/yr See note 5
(1,445 Ibiv'yr )
l,rinn P/yr Pot-ovored nnd '".old on haqr
(420 gal/yr)
4,173 l/yr Sanitary sewer
(1,104 gal/yr)
1,814
-------
TABLE VI-2 (Cont'd.)
Activity Generating
U. S. Naval Shipyard,
Bremerton, Washington89
(see note b)
Waste
Category Description of Veste
III Acid and caustic
tank solutions
III Phosphoric acid
IV Sodium nitrate/
phosphate
VII Sodium hydroxida
(puillL sLlip)
Quantity Per Year
37,854 Itr
(10,000 gal)
7,192 Itr
(1,900 gal)
15,142 Itr
(4,000 gal)
24,605 Itr
(0,500 yul)
Current Disposal/
Management Practice
See note c
O
OJ
IV
III
VII
II
I
II
VII
Oakjte solutions
Anodizing solution
(non-chronnlod)
Aluminum bright dip
(nitric & phosphoric
acid)
Waste paint & solvent
Plating solutio it
(Cr, Ni, Cu, CM, Sn,
Au)
Liquid lead
Aluminum &
strip
Aluminum iriditn
solution
Epoxy strip sol ttion
Anodize chrome
Solvent
Paint booth washwater
residue
18,549 Itr
(4,900 gal)
5,300 Itr
(1,400 gal)
3,407 Itr
(900 gal)
113,562 Itr
(30,000 gal)
31,797 Itr
(8,400 qal)
379 Itr
(100 gal)
1,JJJ Itr
(405 gal)
15,142 Itr
(4,000 qal)
568 Itr
(150 gal)
644 Itr
(170 gal)
9,464 Itr
(2,500 yal)
6,435 Itr
(1,700 qnl)
-------
TABLE VI-2 (Cont'd.)
Activity Generating
Naval Air Station,
Whidly TRl.-md (W.ish-
ington)90
Waste
Category
II
II
II
IV
IV
VI
II
II
IT
II
II
II
Defense Property
Disposal Office,
Seattle (Washington)
Description o< Waste
Chlorinated solvents
Freon PCA
Used varnish
Ketone, methyl
chloride epoxy,
polyester mix
Photo etch salts
Expired chemical
inorganic nlats
ELliyluno dijnune
DaLLury ucid
Cleaning compound FSN
6850-D59-2837 (organic
solvent)
Corrosion removing
compound Mil-''-14460B
FUN GUSO-550-
5568
Carbon removi'iq com-
cound Type 2 ilil-C-
1'JUIJA, F1.N f,-i:.0-
7473, (organi : sol-
vent)
Epoxy stnppe com-
pound Mil-R-8'.294A
Tri-Chloro-Et inne
Mil-R-812533A
Dry cleaning solvent
PD-680
See note e
Quantity Per Year
4,542 Itr
(1,200 gal)
6,814 Itr
(1,800 qal)
946 Itr
(250 gal)
757 Itr
(200 gal)
Current Disposal/
Management Practice
946 Itr
(210 yjl)
1,622 ky
(3,ri75 Ibs)
J7B Itr
(100 gal)
757 Itr
(200 gal)
4,164 Itr
(1,100 gal)
3,331 Itr
(880 gal)
6,662 Itr
(1,760 gal)
1,249 Itr
(330 gal)
2,498 Itr
(660 gal)
6,246 Itr
(1,650 gal)
Sen note
-------
TABLE VI-2 (Cont'd.)
Activity Generating
U. S. Naval Hospital
Dj. C.'.OL Lun (WuLjhiay ton)
Tii^eat submarine Base
(Iv'.ish incjfon)
PiMi:u-vi I li- rvvx'i
Administration8*
r.rr.or.il Por%'iccs
Administration3>
Haste
Category
Description of Wr.ste
See note f
See note g
rulyclil orinat^d
biphenyls (PCB's!
Askarel contaminated
oil
Quantity Per Year
5GQ K/yr
(150 gal/yr)
5,678 t./yr
(1,500 gal/yr)
Current Disposal/
Management Practice
Cccrur'jd larKlfi.il
(see note h)
Future wn^to dis-
posal option not
O
(Jl
-------
NOTES TO TABLE VI-2
d.
a. Off-base recycling constitutes pumping of contaminated oil
tanks by a commercial drain oil service. On-base recycling
consists of use of the oil as a fuel supplement.
b. There may be in the aggregate 9,072 kg (20,000 Ibs) per
year of miscellaneous solvents, outdated chemicals, clean-
ing agents, photographic developers, etc., of less than
J79 liters (100 gal) each, in addition to items listed.89
c. Hazardous wastes from Bremerton Naval Shipyard are currently
being disposed of by Resource Recovery, Inc. of Seattle
under a one year contract with the Navy, This contract
does not include oils, petroleum, and hydrocarbon wastes
which are presently barged to the Manchester Fuel Division.
Present practice for disposal of the indicated wastes is
dillution and dumping into a limestone lined acid pit
The station is now investigating methods to provide better
disposal or reuse. ฐ
Hazardous materials received for disposal by the Seattle
Defense Property Disposal Office are transfered to the Naval
Shipyard in Bremerton. Wastes listed in Table vi-2 for
Bremerton Naval Shipyard include those received by the
shipyard from the Defense Property Disposal Office.90
Hazardous wastes comprised primarily of expired drugs,
medications, vaccines, and laboratory chemicals from the
Bremerton Naval Hospital are presently transfered to the
shipyard forge shop for incineration. Although the list
of materials in this waste stream is rather extensive, the
volume of the potentially hazardous component is quite
small. This practice is expected to continue until the
new hospital, presently under design, is constructed.90
Construction of the Trident Submarine Base on the Hood
Canal near Bremerton, Washington, has just begun. It is
anticipated that this facility will not be operational
until 1978 at which time wastes similar to those found at
the Bremerton Naval Shipyard can be expected.90
h. Polychlorinated faiphenyls (PCB's) are used by the BPA
as insulating liquids in their capacitor cells. Present
BPA standards31 call for the disposal of ruptured or
failed capacitor cells containing PCB at the Wes-Con,
106
-------
Inc. hazardous waste disposal site near Twin Falls, Idaho
in Owyhee County.
Note 1 - All waste radioactive material is stored then shipped
to AEC land burial site. Appropriate U.S. Army Edge-
wood Arsenal instructions are followed concerning
storage and shipping of radioactive wastes.
Note 2 - Radioactive wastes are stored in 55 gallon drums and
surface shipped to Spellman, South Carolina.
Note 3 - Cyanide wastes are processed and recycled. A new
biodegradable film process is sought to replace cyanide
bleach process.
Note 4 - At present, solvents are either sewered or stored. A
reduction is planned on site stripping and corrosion
control programs. Plans call for substitution of
less hazardous stripping and cleaning compounds.
Note 5 - Temporary storage is provided until an environmentally
acceptable disposal can be accomplished.
Additional footnotes
1 - Personal communication, Captain E. L. Jewell, Assistant
Adjectant General, Fort Lewis, Washington, January 7,
1976.
2 - Personal communication, Colonel Allan W. Morton, Base
Civil Engineer, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, January 14, 1976.
3 - Personal communication, Lt. Col. James G. Willett,
Base Civil Engineer, Eielson AFB, Alaska, December 2,
1975.
86Personal communication, Major Daniel McMahon, Base Civil
Engineer, Fairchild AFB, June 10, 1975.
8'Personal communication, 0. S. Williams, Deputy Base Civil
Engineer, Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, May 21, 1975.
88Personal communication, Mr. Theodore W. Lynn, Deputy Base
Civil Engineer, McChord AFB, November 28, 1975.
"Personal communication, Mr. Gale B. White, Assistant
Environmental Engineer, Seattle Branch, Western Division,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, May 8, 1975.
90Ibid., May 27, 1975.
91"Failed Capacitor Cells Handling, Storage, Transportation
And Disposal," BPA Substitution Maintenance Standard, No.
640(D, March 10, 1975.
107
-------
TABLE VI-3
INDUSTRIAL WASTES FROM
STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
o
cc
Wastewater
Waste Treatment Stored on Secured Burned or
Waste Category Processor Plant Property Landfill Incinerated
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
TOTAL
Metal Sludges 69.7
and Solutions
Solvents and 22.4 35.8 21.7
Oils
Caustics and 58.7 96.4 - -
Acids
Inorganic 43.0 7.6 - - 0
Chemicals
Organic .4 25.7 - .7 330
Chemicals
Pesticide - - 6.8 -
Wastes
Paint Wastes 173.1 1.9 - -
Explosive - ~ !
Wastes
MT 367.3 167.4 28.5 .7 330.1
T (404.0) (184.1) (31.4) (.8) (363.1)
Sanitary Recycled or
Landfill Sold as Product Total
.5 - 70.2
(77.2)
17.4 97.3
(107.0)
155.1
(170.6)
.3 50.9
(56.0)
1.4 358.2
(394.0)
.2 - 7.0
(7.7)
175.0
(192.5)
.1
(.1)
.7 19.1 913.8
(.8) (21.0) (1005.2)
-------
VII. WASTE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL COMPANIES
Discussion thus far has centered on operations which generate
hazardous waste as a result of some other primary activity. As
indicated in previous chapters, many of these "generators" have
taken steps to reduce the volume of hazardous waste through
internal recycle or to ameliorate the hazards of their wastes
through various treatment processes. Other activities in the
region, external to these sources, provide important services
which augment and support the hazardous waste management pro-
grams of these primary sources. These other activities can be
classified under three headings as follows:
* Waste Processing - Activities which receive hazardous
wastes and process them into reusable products. This
reprocessing may or may not yield a final waste or
hazardous residual requiring disposal.
Waste Disposal - Activities which provide ultimate
disposal for hazardous wastes.
* Waste Removal - Activities which provide transfer
services between primary sources of hazardous wastes
and disposal/processing operations. Transfers made
by these companies may or may not be to authorized
or approved disposal sites.
Regional operations under these three headings are discussed
below. These evaluations are based on site visits and dis-
cussion with the subject companies. In depth monitoring of the
internal practices of these companies was beyond the scope of
the study.
WESTERN PROCESSING COMPANY
(WASTE PROCESSOR)
Background and Organization
Western Processing Company was founded in 1957 by Mr. Garmt J.
Nieuwenhuis. The facility, consisting of a small chemical
reclamation/industrial waste processing site, is presently
located on 13 acres of prime Kent Valley industrial land near
Seattle, Washington. The company employs from 10 to 30 people
at any one time. Most of these employees are unskilled laborers,
Mr. Nieuvenhuis, now 64 years old, in essence comprises the
entire management of Western Processing both from a technical
and business point of view. This situation, by his own
109
-------
admission92 has created certain problems relating to the future
of this company. This problem will be discussed more fully in
subsequent sections of this report.
The philosophy underlying Western Processing's operation is one
of chemical reclamation through the combination and blending of
industrial wastes to produce saleable products. The emphasis
is on resource recovery as opposed to detoxification and waste
disposal.
Waste Streams and Products
The service area covered by Western Processing extends along the
West Coast from San Diego to British Columbia; however, the major
portion of the waste received by Western Processing is generated
in the Seattle - Tacoma area.
The principal wastes received by Western Processing include the
following:
Electroplating solutions and sludges
Pesticides/Herbicides (relatively small)
Spent acid and caustic solutions
Waste oils and solvents
Battery mud
Flue dust from secondary smelters
Aluminum slag
Galvanization skimmings
Table VII-1 summarized the wastes received by Western Processing
over the period April 1974 to April 1975. Products which are
produced from the received wastes include the following:
Zinc ingots
Ferric compounds for moss control on lawns
Flame retardants for wood products
92Personal communication, Mr. Nieuwenhuis, President of Western
Processing Company, May 7, 1975.
110
-------
TABLE VII-1
HAZARDOUS WASTES RECEIVED BY WESTERN PROCESSING
COMPANY, APRIL 1974 TO APRIL 197592
Waste Material Quantity
Waste Cyanide 80,527 Itr
Solutions (21,273 gal.)
Hexavalent Chrome 1,480,399 Itr
Solutions (391,080 gal.)
Trivalent Chrome 378,541 Itr
(100,000 gal.)
+
379 cu. m.
(496 cu. yds.*)
Acid Solutions 854,216 Itr
(225,660 gal.)
Caustic Solutions 1,025,744 Itr
and Sludges (270,973 gal.)
Metal Salt Solutions 103,777 Itr
and Sludges (27,415 gal.)
Oils 333,760 Itr
(88,170 gal.)
Solvents 38,980 Itr
(10,300 gal.)
Oils and Solvents 297,249 Itr
(78,525 gal.)
Paint Sludges 401,726 Itr
(106,125 gal.)
Organics Other than 197,258 Itr
Solvents (Phenols, (52,110 gal.)
Amines, etc.)
Inorganic Chemicals 183,761 Kg
(405,125 Ibs)
+
17,223 Itr
(4,550 gal.)
*Filter cake from industrial wastewater treat-
ment plant.
Ill
-------
Fertilizer additives
Wood preservative (copper-chromium-arsenate)
Sodium cyanide
Fuel oil and recovered solvents
Zinc sulfate (liquid and pellets)
Zinc chloride
* Zinc nitrate
Iron oxide pellets
Iron sulfate
Sodium aluFiinate
Ammonium sulfate
Aluminum sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper hydroxide
Sodium dichromate
Lead chromate (pigment)
Effluents from Western Processing conform to Washington Depart-
ment of Ecology standards. Solid residuals, including sludges
and occassional pesticide wastes, are mixed with the concrete
and used to make blocks which support above ground storage ponds.
Waste Handling and Processing
Waste handling and processing at Western Processing is, for the
most part, performed on a batch basis. Wastes are received inter-
mittently and stored in above ground holding ponds for subsequent
processing. Present storage capacity is close to six million
gallons. Wastes which are received at the facility are immediately
characterized and directed to either the above ground storage
basin or one of a number of vertical holding tanks.
Operations and processes employed by Western Processing are
quite varied. The principal processes and resulting products
include the following:
112
-------
Green Giant Fertilizer Pellets - This fertilizer additive
composed of iron sulfate and zinc sulfate pellets is pro-
duced from the addition of waste sulfuric acid to steel
mill flue dust (primarily zinc and iron oxide). The main
market for this product is the farming country of Eastern
Washington and Idaho.
Zinc Ingots - A small five ton per day smelter is operated
by Western Processing. Galvanization skimmings high in
zinc are purchased by Western Processing from local galvan-
izing operations, refined into zinc ingots, and resold to
the galvanizers.
Liquid Zinc Sulfate - This product is produced through the
addition of sulfuric acid to flue dust, zinc ash, and
galvanization skimmings. Zinc ammonium sulfate can also
be produced from the process with the addition of ammonia.
The product is used as a growth stimulant for various
crops in Eastern Washington and Idaho.
Type D Fire Retardant - This product is produced from
waste zinc oxide and chromic-sulfuric acid. These
wastes are combined with ammonia and boric acid (pur-
chased) to produce the fire retardant which is used to
treat wood in the housing industry.
Fuel Oil and Solvents - A solvent recovery system is used
to produce Bunker C fuel oil, acetone, naphtha, trichloro-
ethylene, and cellosolve from waste oils and contaminated
solvents received by Western Processing.
Ferric Chloride - This product, used primarily as an
asphalt conditioner, is derived from flue dust (high in
iron oxide) and muriatic acid. It can also be used for
etching printed circuit boards and as a flocculant for
water and wastewater treatment.
Wood Preservative (Copper-Chromium-Arsenate) - Produced
by blending plating solutions containing copper and
chromium with purchased arsenic acid.
Aluminum Sulfate - Produced from aluminum slag and pur-
chased sulfuric acid.
Sodium Cyanide - Plating solutions containing various
metal salts of cyanide are acidified with sulfuric acid.
The resulting hydrogen cyanide gas is passed through a
sodium hydroxide solution to produce reusable sodium
cyanide.
113
-------
Chromium Wastewater Recovery - This recently patented
process uses lead bearing sludge to remove chromium in
the form of lead chromate from rinse waters in the
metal finishing industry. Installation of this system
will essentially preclude the discharge of high volumes
of low level chromium solutions from electroplating
operations by allowing continuous recycle of the rinse
water. The resulting lead chromate can be used as a
pigment.
Ferric Sulfate - Produced by blending waste sulfuric
acid and flue dust from steel mills. This product
is used as a moss killer,
Evaluation
The value of Western Processing to the overall management of
hazardous waste in Region X is evident. Not only does Western
Processing provide for substantial reduction of highly toxic
and persistent hazardous waste materials which would otherwise
require disposal by dumping, but it also has furthered the
concepts and practices of reuse and waste exchange in the
region. Indeed, the economic conversion of waste materials to
usable products is a concept which has been endorsed by many
as an effective answer to environmental pollution. However,
despite the soundness of the underlying philosophy, and demon-
strated workability of its various processing technologies,
the future viability of this company is questionable. This
circumstance hinges on two major factors: 1) the financial
condition of the company, and 2) the almost complete depen-
dence of the company on the continued direction of Mr. Garmt
Nieuwenhuis. The conditions surrounding these circumstances
have been well documented in a recent study9 3 of Western Pro-
cessing by students of Seattle University under the sponsorship
of the Small Business Administration. The reader is referred
to the basic document for a complete description. Some of the
more noteworthy findings of this study are summarized below.
Financial Condition
Western Processing was initially under-capitalized and is
presently undergoing a severe cash shortage. In 1974, current
liabilities exceeded current assets by over $55,000. In addi-
tion, the State Department of Ecology has identified improve-
ments required to upgrade the environmental acceptability of
Western Processing costing around $385,000. These improvements
include improved drainage, dikes, relocation of holding ponds,
93Alexander, M. "Western Processing, Inc.," report submitted
to Seattle University, March 15, 1975.
114
-------
concrete pads, etc., required to comply with state regulations.
A five year plan was negotiated with the state to comply with
the requirement; however, the business is simply not profitable
enough to comply with even the five year plan. Furthermore,
these improvements are not expected to add to the profitability
of the operation.
Although the business has shown a profit, capital requirements
for equipment and expansion far exceed that provided by annual
profits. The annual financial condition of the company is such
that additional long-term financing is unlikely.
Cash flow problems stemming from the intermittent nature of the
business has forced Western Processing to consistently borrow
against each month's sales to meet fixed monthly expenses.
Management Problems
The success or failure of Western Processing hinges on one man,
Mr. Nieuwenhuis. As stated in the Seattle University study,
"Mr. Nieuwenhuis is Western Processing."93 Mr. Nieuwenhuis is
64 years old and wishes to retire. In order for the business
to continue, a competent replacement, both managerially and
technically, must be found. Cessation of operations by Western
Processing would represent a loss of a major part of the present
hazardous waste management capability in Region X.
CHEMICAL PROCESSORS, INC.
(WASTE PROCESSOR)
Background and Organization
Chemical Processors, Inc. (Chem Pro) is primarily a waste chemical
processing and recovery operation. The company was established
in 1959 and remained Chemical Processors in 1970 when it underwent
a major management change and reorganization. The company is
headquartered in South Seattle where it operates a solvent
recovery plant. The other major facility of the company, a
gravity oil separation plant, is located on Pier 91 on Elloit
Bay in Seattle. As noted above, Chem Pro's main line of business
is oil and solvent recovery, however, the firm does accept other
hazardous wastes usually for subsequent disposal through Resource
Recovery, Inc. an independent* though closely allied firm.
Chem Pro also operates a small subsidary (Chem Pro of Oregon)
which practices oil recovery through gravity separation.9
*Chem Pro is the major stock holder of Resource Recovery pre-
sently holding 45 percent of the common stock.94
9^Personal communication, Mr. Ron West, Chemical Processors,
Inc., May 22, 1975.
115
-------
Waste Streams and Products
Chem Pro will accept all types of wastes except medical, explosive
and radioactive materials. Oil bearing wastes from tankers,
gasoline stations, and other sources are handled at the Pier 91
gravity separation facility. Two reusable products results from
the oil separation operation:
Light oil fraction suitable for use as a supplement fuel.
Heavier oil fraction with some colloidal and suspended
solids usable for road oiling.
Chem Pro estimated that they will process close to five million
gallons of oil bearing waste this year.94 Approximately 70 per-
cent of this volume is recoverable (75-95 percent as supplemental
fuel).
Wastes for the oil separation facility consist of a sludge com-
posed primarily of inert material which accumulates at the bottom
of the oil separation tanks. This sludge is removed periodically,
dried, and shipped to Resource Recovery for landfill disposal.
Due to the recent termination of operations by Resource Recovery,
the sludge from Chem Pro's oil separation facility is being
retained in the separation tanks pending approval of a new dis-
posal site for Resource Recovery.
The Chem Pro solvent recovery operation is located at 734 S.
Lucile Street in Seattle. The facility consists of a converted
paint production plant complete with chemical separation and
petroleum fractionation towers. Wastes received at this facility
come from a variety of sources and consist of spent of contami-
nated solvent cleaning solutions, solvent sludges, stripping
solutions, etc. Solvents are recovered through evaporation and
distillation and result in three basic products.91*
Acetone
Lacquer thinner
Chlorinated solvents
Chem Pro expects to process close to 500,000 gallons of solvent
waste this year. Solvent recovery is about 60 percent. The
remaining 40 percent is residual sludge. In the past, this
sludge (still considered hazardous) has been disposed of through
Resource Recovery. The recent cessation of operation by Resource
Recovery has caused Chem Pro to stockpile this material until
Resource Recovery can obtain a new site. Mr. Ron West, President
of Chem Pro, has recently indicated9 ** that his firm is seriously
116
-------
considering the installation of a sludge cooker which would
remove and recover the remaining solvents from this sludge and
render it suitable for disposal in local, "conventional1' land-
fills.
As indicated previously, Chem Pro will accept other wastes
including heavy metal sludges, plating solutions, and pesticides.
However, in the handling of these wastes, Chem Pro serves as an
intermediary -- the wastes are merely accepted by Chem Pro and
then transferred to another company such as Recource Recovery
whose operations are geared to process and disposal of these
types of wastes.
Economics
Charges for oil separation are fairly standard. Che Pro
pays its customers $0.02 per gallon of oil recovered and charges
$0.025 for each gallon of water received with the oil. Recovered
fuel oil is currently selling for $0.18 - $0.20 per gallon.94
Charges for solvent recovery and other hazardous wastes are
usually handled on a quotation basis. Chem Pro has established
reciprocal agreements with its customers whereby solvent wastes
are processed and the recovered fractions returned to the customer
for a fixed processing charge (^ $0.30 - $0.40 per gallon). For
"casual drums" delivered to the Chem Pro plant in Seattle, the
nominal charge is $3.00 - $20.00 per drum depending on the nature
of the material.91*
Chem Pro, in combination with Resource Recovery, is capable of
providing a full spectrum of hazardous waste handling and dis-
posal services. The management of Chem Pro appears to be growth
oriented as evidenced by their recent acquisition in Oregon.
As Chem Pro is a major stock holder in Resource Recovery, Inc.,
continued failure of this company to site a hazardous waste dis-
posal facility may present some problems to Chem Pro.
WES CON, INC.
(WASTE DISPOSAL)
Background and Organization
Wes Con is an Idaho corporation which operates a chemical dis-
posal and recycling center. Headquartered in Twin Falls, Idaho,
the principal holding of the corporation is an abandoned missile
base located in Owyhee County approximately 10 miles west of
Grandview, Idaho. The primary working area of the 100 acre site
consists of a 17 acre former missile launching complex secured
by a nine foot, climb-proof, chain-link fence Located within
this area are a series of abandoned missile silos and tunnels
117
-------
which are now used to encapsulate and retain hazardous wastes.
The site is intermittently operated for disposal depending on
business volume; however, 24 hour surveillance of the site is
provided.
Waste Streams
Wes Con accepts any wastes except radioactive materials, poison
(military) gas and pressurized gas. Recently, volume has been
averaging 40 tons per week and business has been improving
steadily in the last year.95 Much of the volume at Wes Con's is
in the form of used pesticide containers and pesticide manufac-
turing wastes. The company is also handling most of the waste
PCB's from the region through arrangements with the major power
companies and the BPA.95 Table VII-2 summarizes wastes received
by Wes Con for the period February 1974 through August 1975.
Handling and Processing
Materials destined for disposal by Wes Con are transported to
the site via common carrier. Customers are given the option
of selecting the carrier. Since Wes Con does not maintain a
chemical analysis laboratory at the site, the customer is re-
quired to provide certification of the contents of his shipment
prior to acceptance of the material by Wes Con.
Wastes received at the site are disposed of immediately. Dis-
posal consists of unloading the contents of incoming trucks
directly into one of the silos or tunnels. The silos are
approximately 150 feet deep. The walls are constructed of six
foot thick, reinforced concrete, with 13 foot thick floors. The
ground water table at the site is approximately 3,000 feet below
the bottom of the silos. Total capacity of the site is approxi-
mately 1.5 million cubic feet. To date, just over five thousand
cubic feet of disposal volume have been expended.95
Treatment provided prior to disposal is minimal. Bentonite clay
is available to contain liquids and lime is used for pH adjust-
ment if necessary. Additionally, a deodorizer is used to control
noxious gas emissions when the silos are opened to receive
incoming wastes. Vehicles used to transport materials to the site
are inspected for contamination prior to release from the site.
Equipment and procedures are available to decontaminate these
vehicles in the event of a spill or container breakage.
95Personal communication, Mr. Gene Rinebold, Wes Con, Inc.,
May 15, 1975.
118
-------
TABLE VI1-2
WASTES RECEIVED AT WES CON FOR THE
PERIOD APRIL 1974 THROUGH AUGUST 197596
Waste Type
Drumed waste pesticide and pesticide
manufacturing residues
Spent capacitor cells, sand and gravel
contaminated with askeral transformer
oil with trace PCB's
DDT*
Fire damaged pesticides*
Sweepings contaminated with pesticides
Waste Pesticide
Mercury treated seed
Inorganic chemical waste
TOTAL
Quantity
2456 tons
1407 tons
4 tons
25 tons
<1 ton
<1 ton
37 tons
62 tons
2726 tons
*Includes containers.
96Wes Con Site Log, April 1974 to August 1975, received
from U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X Office,
October 2, 1975.
119
-------
Economics
User charges for the Wes Con site are typically negotiated on a
case by case basis. The nominal quoted rate is $1.00 per cubic
yard which, under present operating experiences, can be equated
to $.0026 - $.0030 per pound. This price does not include ship-
ment costs which are paid by the customer. The company would
prefer to negotiate long-term contracts with prospective customers
whereby the customer would purchase or reserve a given volume of
disposal space for their own private use. Wes Con reports that
to date no arrangements of this nature have been transacted;95
hence, Wes Con continues to operate on a case by case basis.
Evaluation and Future Trends
Future plans for the Wes Con site call for the construction of
an incineration facility which would allow for a significant
volume reduction in the wastes requiring disposal and also permit
the recycling of many of the metal drums received at the facility.
Detoxification of a portion of the influent wastes through incin-
eration would also allow Wes Con to use conventional landfill
procedures for incinerator residues, thus realizing a further
reduction in volume demand on the silos. Long-term commitments
from industrial customers would provide the necessary financial
security to permit capital expansion such as the incineration
facility. To date these long-term commitments have not been
forthcoming.
The Wes Con operation is viewed as an environmentally acceptable
means of hazardous waste disposal. Wes Con's plans for a drum
recycling facility are also considered commendable. Due to its
relatively low overhead costs, Wes Con's disposal fees are quite
competative; however, associated transportation costs from the
main hazardous waste generating centers of the Willamette Valley
and Seattle - Tacoma areas may continue to restrain the firm's
growth.
RESOURCE RECOVERY, INC.
(WASTE DISPOSAL)
Background and Organization
Resource Recovery Corporation is a joint venture of Basin Dis-
posal Company of Pasco, Washington, and Chemical Processors, Inc.
of Seattle, Washington. The company was incorporated in the
State of Washington in 1972 to operate an industrial waste manage-
ment facility for purposes of collection, transporting, storage,
processing, reclamation and recycling, and final disposal of
wastes from industries in the Northwest. The firms only facility
has since closed down due to the failure of the Franklin County
120
-------
commissioners to renew the firm's land use permit. Resource
Recovery next attempted to establish a similar type operation
(minus final disposal) at an abandoned Titan Missile Site near
Warden in Grant County, Washington. Due to adverse public reaction
to the proposed site, the Grant County commissioners have declined
to issue a permit to Resource Recovery.97 Resource Recovery is
continuing its efforts to locate an industrial waste disposal
site in Eastern Washington.97 A brief discussion of the proposed
Warden site operation is included below. It is expected that any
future operation by Resource Recovery, Inc. would be similar in
nature.
Waste Streams and Products
Resource Recovery proposed the initial handling of six general
classifications of wastes at the Warden site.98
Acid, base and salt solutions
Caustic waste solutions
Paint and resin wastes
Metal finishing wastes
Fertilizer manufacturing wastes
Oily type wastes.
Resource Recovery intended to construct a series of evaporation
ponds (described more fully in subsequent sections) to concen-
trate and dewater the aforementioned wastes. Recovery/recycling
was planned for the following wastes:
Caustic recovery for resale or use at the site to
neutralize acid wastes.
Metal recovery from acid, salt, and metal finishing
sludges which accumulate in the evaporation basins.
Processing of fertilizer wastes (a mixture of sodium
carbonate and diisopropylene) to ammonia base fertilizer
for resale back to the generator.
9'Personal communication, Mr. John R. Kimberly, President,
Resource Recovery, Inc., October 22, 1975.
98Washington State Department of Ecology. "Draft Environmental
Impact Statement - Proposal for the Establishment of an Indus-
trial Waste Management Facility at Warden," by Resource Recovery
Corporation of Seattle, Washington, April 1975.
121
-------
Other wastes were to be dewatered and the remaining sludge
removed for disposal. Although over one million cubic feet of
abandoned missile silo space similar to the Wes Con facility
is available at the Warden site, Resource Recovery did not, at
the time, propose to use this space for disposal of non-reclaim-
able residuals. In part this is due to the fact that many of the
silos have been fractured and have therefore lost some of their
liner integrity.
Resource Recovery also planned to conduct a pesticide container
washing and disposal operation at the site.
Waste Handling and Processing
Seven evaporation ponds ranging in size from 50' x 100' to
100' x 100" and 61 to 8' deep were proposed. All ponds were to
be lined with plastic or bentonite clay (to prevent groundwater
seepage) with the possible exception of the ponds used for pro-
cessing resins and pigments. Experience at the Pasco site in
Franklin County showed that these two types of materials are
self-sealing in the bottom of the ponds.
Plans called for the periodic unloading of sludge from the pond
using a front end loader. As indicated previously, certain
sludges with no resource recovery potential would be disposed
of as directed by the Washington DOE. Sludges containing
recoverable metal would be transported to appropriate (although
unidentified) recovery operations. The latter was one of the
weak points in the proposed operation.
Economics
Disposal charges for the proposed Resource Recovery operation
at Warden were not established; however, based on previous
operating experience at Pasco, it can be expected that charges
would be on the order of $0.50 per CWT for bulk liquids plus
transportation costs.99
Evaluation and Future Trends
Failure of Resource Recovery to locate the proposed industrial
waste disposal site in Grant County is viewed as a significant
setback. Although the company intends to continue its search
for an acceptable location, there appears to be no real prospects
in the near future.97 The company is maintaining some level of
activity primarily in the form of transporting industrial wastes
to the Chem Pro facilities in Seattle.97
99Personal communication, John R. Kimberly, Resource Recovery,
Inc., May 1975.
122
-------
With respect to the proposed Warden operation, a comment relating
to the resource recovery aspect is in order. The resource
recovery aspects of the proposed operation remain ill defined in
those areas relating to heavy metal recovery from the dewatered
sludge and metal salt solutions. The economic and technical
feasibilities of such an operation are unproven and in the final
analysis will be heavily dependent on 1) the assay value of the
predictably amorphous sludge; 2) the availability of appli-
cable recovery technology; and 3) the current market price of
the various metal constituents. Barring the suitability of the
sludge for another use (e.g., fertilizer trace nutrient additive)
a suitable means of ultimate disposal of this hazardous sludge
would have to be found.
CROSBY AND OVERTON
(WASTE REMOVAL)
This company (formerly Pac-Mar) directs its activities to ship
sandblasting and tank cleaning. In the tank cleaning operations,
a wide variety of hazardous wastes including: creosote; penta-
chlorphenol; solvents; oils; and solutions containing metal salts,
acids, and caustics are collected. Most of the materials collected
during tank cleaning operations are transferred to Western Pro-
cessing or Chem Pro for reprocessing; however, Crosby and Overton
does have a limited capability for oil separation, and does
practice some recovery.100
The company maintains two facilities -- one on Swan Island in
Portland, Oregon, and the other in Seattle, Washington. Wastes
collected by the Portland operation are usually transferred to
Chem Pro of Oregon while the Seattle wastes typically are
handled by Western Processing or Chem Pro at Pier 91 on Elliot
Bay. In 1972 this firm collected over 500,000 gallons of waste
oil and solvents.14 No site visit was made or business records
reviewed to indicate if some wastes are taken to other operations
or disposed of in an uncontrolled manner.
LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL COMPANY
(WASTE REMOVAL)
Located in Seattle, Liquid Waste Disposal Company (LIDCOA)
provides portable containers to its customers for the collection
of industrial wastes including oils, solvents, and liquid
chemical wastes. These wastes are then transferred to either
Western Processing Company or Chem Pro for reprocessing. Table
VII-3 lists the receipts of wastes from LIDCOA at Western
100Personal communication, Mr. Windsor, Crosby and Overton,
Portland Office, June 4, 1975.
123
-------
Processing for the period May 1974 through April 1975.* Data on
transfers to Chem Pro were not available, however, LIDCOA has
indicated that for the most part concentrated oil wastes are
sent to Western Processing while oil wastes with higher water
contents go to the Chem Pro oil separation facility at Pier 91
in Seattle. LIDCOA does maintain some permanent storage
facilities at their East Marginal Way (Seattle) site for the
temporary storage of liquid wastes; however, no treatment or
recovery is practiced at this site.101
TABLE VII-3
DELIVERIES TO WESTERN PROCESSING FROM LIQUID WASTE
DISPOSAL COMPANY (MAY 1974 - APRIL 1975) 102
Material Quantity
Oil 56,670 gal.
Acid-Caustic 41,147 gal.
Etching Solutions 21,690 gal.
Solvents 6,200 gal..
TOTAL 125,707 gal..
OTHER WASTE REMOVAL COMPANIES
During the course of the industrial waste survey, a number of
small tank cleaning and septic tank companies were identified
as receiving hazardous wastes. The types of wastes received by
these operations include the following:
Pentachlorophenol and creosote contaminated sludges and
residuals from wood treating plants.
Etching solutions from printed circuit board manufacturing.
* Cutting oils and solvents from a variety of operations.
*Excluding December 1974 and January 1975.
10 Personal communication, Mr. Jack Pinshev, Liquid Waste Dis-
posal Company, August 15, 1975.
102Personal communication, Mr. R. S. Jorgensen, Solid Waste
Management Branch, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region X, June 16, 1975 (records of liquid waste receipts
by Western Processing Company).
124
-------
Ink washings from ink manufacturing.
Latex washings from paint manufacturing.
Information on the activities of small tank cleaning companies
and septic tank companies remains incomplete. There are
literally hundreds of these companies scattered throughout the
region each one with the potential to handle hazardous liquid
wastes. It would appear on the surface that the larger companies
such as Liquid Waste Disposal and Crosby and Overton are aware of,
and for the most part use the resources of companies like Chem
Pro, Western Processing, and Wes Con; however, no such statement
can be made with regard to the smaller companies. The potential
problem of improper disposal of hazardous liquid wastes by
hazardous waste generators that transfer their wastes to these
smaller companies constitutes proper disposal. In most instances,
the industries contacted would or could not identify the specific
company which was receiving their waste. A total of ten waste
removal companies (including Liquid Waste and Crosby and Over-
ton) were identified by name. Of these ten, only five could be
located. Aside from the two large companies previously discus-
sed, one of the five companies contacted disclaimed the handling
of any liquid wastes, another tank cleaner admitted that the PCP
sludge he picked up from a wood treater had been buried on pri-
vate property, and a third septic tank company said that the
caustic and solvent wastes he was receiving were going to a
local landfill.
Based on the limited information collected during the survey,
the assumption that the consignment of hazardous wastes to
waste removal companies constitutes proper disposal cannot be
substantiated. Based on the few communications with waste
removal companies which were located, and reports from Western
Processing regarding inquiries (but no deliveries) by septic
tank companies, it appears that questionable or improper dis-
posal practices exist among some of these companies. The
extent of such practices remains undetermined. This problem
area underscores the need for better legislative authority
and regulatory control. A permit program for sites and trip-
ticket system for transfer of wastes as discussed in Chapter
VIII could go a long way towards providing information which
would allow the state to at least monitor potential problems
if not control them. This is needed even for the major pro-
cessors such as Chem Pro and Western Processing. At the present
time, the state must rely on voluntary data. That is, an
unacceptably weak position for a regulatory body to find itself
in. Therefore, even though Region X is fortunate to have
several active firms in the hazardous waste management area,
management should not be considered adequate until mechanisms
are available to obtain periodic reports and to allow spot
checks on operations.
125
-------
VIII. HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
INTRODUCTION
An effective state or regional hazardous waste management system
should include a "control mechanism". That is, control of some
type is needed from the point of waste generation through
handling and processing to the point of ultimate disposal.
This control is best exercised through designated regulatory
agencies empowered by specific legislation. Therefore, it
is pertinent first to review the present activities of appro-
priate state and federal agencies, and the status of hazardous
waste legislation and regulation in Region X; then to consider
specific elements necessary to facilitate proper control of
hazardous wastes.
STATE GOVERNMENT
State governments in all four states of the region are active
in the area of hazardous waste management. In Oregon four
separate pieces14'103 of legislation have been enacted which
deal totally or in part with hazardous waste management. This
legislation includes:
HB 1931 (1971 Legislature) An act that defines environ-
mentally hazardous wastes (EHW) as radioactive materials,
spent pesticide containers and other residues specified
by the Oregon DEQ; Prohibits disposal of EHW1s on land
within the State except at designated sites; Sets pro-
cedures and requirements for EHW licensing; Delegates
administrative and regulatory authority for hazardous
waste management to the DEQ; and prescribes penalties
for violation of the statutes. This legislation has
been codified in Chapter 459 of the Oregion Revised
Statutes (ORS) Sections 459.410 - 459.690 and 459.992.
SB 77 (1973 Legislature) A law which revises portions
of the language of ORS 459.410 - 459.690 and 459.992
but does not change the significant powers or duties
of the State or other requirements of the Statutes.
SB 293 (1973 Legislature) An act that provides addi-
tional authority to the DEQ to declassify hazardous
wastes, to acquire disposal sites by condemnation
103Personal communication from Patrick H. Wicks, Administrator
of Hazardous Waste Management Division, Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality, July 1975.
127
-------
procedures; and to use State Pollution Control Bond funds
for hazardous waste disposal (emergency situations) and
disposal site property acquisition. This bill also
requires proper cleanup of hazardous material spills
and barring action by the spiller authorized the DEQ
to provide cleanup and to collect for incurred expenses.
SB 163 (1975 Legislature) A statute which prohibits
radioactive material disposal sites from being established,
operated or licensed in Oregon prior to January 1, 1978;
establishes standards for licensing radioactive waste
disposal sites, and authorizes the Oregon Environmental
Quality Commission to modify or waive any solid waste
control law except those established under SB 163 if
such actions are necessary to make the operation of
certain disposal sites economically feasible provided
that public health and safety will not be endangered.
Armed with this rather substantial backing, the Oregon Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality has embarked on a number of
projects in the area of hazardous waste management. This
agency has recently complied a comprehensive study of hazard-
ous waste management planning1!* which included an inventory
of hazardous wastes and oil. The agency is also attempting
to site a hazardous waste disposal facility in the state.
Presently none are in existance. Efforts are also underway to
finalize rules establishing requirements for EHW management,
and prescribing criteria for the designation of EHW's.
Although Washington has no specific hazardous waste legislation,
the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) is active in hazard-
ous waste management as part of the overall responsibilities
delegated to them by the 1971 State Solid Waste Management
Act. Past activities of the DOE have included an extensive
solid waste survey of 500 Washington industries.15 Hazardous
wastes were identified in a number of instances during this
1973-74 survey. The DOE also provides technical assistance
to local government and other state agencies on matters relating
to hazardous waste handling and disposal. The location and
certification of a hazardous waste disposal site in the State
of Washington continues to be a major goal of the Solid Waste
Division. Recent activities along these lines have included
an effort to gain approval for the proposed Resource Recovery,
Inc. site (see Chapter VII) near Warden in Grant County, and
negotiations with state and federal agencies to find a suitable
hazardous waste disposal site on public land.
Preliminary legislative efforts are also underway in Washington
to explore the need for hazardous waste legislation similar
128
-------
to that which already exists in Oregon. Preliminary hearings
by the House Ecology Committee have been conducted.
In Idaho, hazardous waste management is the responsibility
of the Division of Environment, Department of Health and
Welfare (DHW). Like Washington, the DHW has conducted a state
solid waste survey which included identification of hazardous
waste sources.13 The department operates under the Idaho Solid
Waste Management Regulations and Standards and controls hazard-
ous waste disposal through the issuance of conditional use
permits for various public and private landfill operations.
One site (Wes Con, see Chapter VII) has been approved for
pesticide containers and hazardous waste disposal. Efforts to
locate and approve landfills throughout the state for triple-
rinsed pesticide containers disposal are presently underway.
Presently, no hazardous waste legislation is planned.
The State of Alaska has no specific legislation related to
hazardous wastes in general, and no pending or new legislation
upcoming. No regulations on pesticide containers are antici-
pated either. The Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC), which oversees these activities, sites a lack of suffi-
cient pesticide use as the major reason for no present regula-
tion. Growing use patterns along the pipeline may change this.101*
The State of Alaska is concerned about the potential growth of
hazardous waste quantities which may result from the rapidly
expanding activities of the petroleum industry. Consequently,
a hazardous waste disposal site is being evaluated for drilling
needs, chemical solvents, and other wastes. Most of these
materials will go to land disposal. Currently, a site for
oily wastes on the Kenai Peninsula, 60 miles southwest of
Anchorage, is being developed. The site will be operated by
the Kenai Peninsula Borough under a permit from the DEC.101*
A state inventory of production of potentially hazardous wastes
is planned for 1976. llMf
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The Environmental Protection Agency, Region X office located
in Seattle, Washington is active in hazardous waste management
through its Solid Waste Management Program. Approximately
half a man year per year is devoted towards providing techni-
cal assistance to state and local governments. This assistance
101*Personal communication, Mr. Lance G. Elphic, Alaska Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, August 20, 1975.
129
-------
is provided through:
* technical review of hazardous waste regulations, handling
and disposal practices;
consultation relating to political considerations, and up-
grading of present practices;
implementing federal guidelines on disposal of pesticide
containers;
* dissemination of relevant information and publications; and
* awarding of EPA contracts and preparation of in-house
reports.
The EPA also works with federal agencies to recommend proper
handling and disposal options for their hazardous wastes.
Coordination of regional approaches to hazardous waste manage-
ment in another area of interest.
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
Various sections of this report have touched upon the problem
of hazardous waste disposal. Results reported in Chapter V
indicate that potentially hazardous industrial wastes of
necessity are being disposed of on private property and in
public landfills throughout the region despite the fact that
these sites have not been formally designated as hazardous
waste disposal sites. Indeed, only one site in the entire
region, the Wes Con site near Grandview, Idaho, has been
officially approved for hazardous waste disposal. Other sites
presently receiving what have been classified here as potentially
hazardous wastes are in some instances accepting these wastes
with the approval of local authorities. Such approval is
usually granted on a case by case basis and although preferable
to promiscuous dumping, is not viewed as the best long-term
solution to hazardous waste management. Indeed, barring
recycle and reclaimation of hazardous waste, the best disposal
option is one whereby the wastes are deposited in a secured
area where long-term custodianship of the waste is assured
and where there is no danger to the surrounding environment.
Sites which meet these requirements have been identified by
both state and federal agencies. Table VIII-1 lists sites
which were identified in a preliminary assessment by the
Washington Department of Ecology in their state.105 Also
1ฐ5Personal communication, Mr. Tom Cook, Washington Department
of Ecology, August 1975.
130
-------
TABLE VIII -1
ACCEPTABLE HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL SITE LOCATIONS
Sites Identified by
the Washington
DOE *c 5
Franklin County (14 sites)
Whitman County (1 site)
Walla Walla County (1 site)
Adams County (4 sites)
Benton County (1 site)
*Top twenty-one on priority
and Idaho.
States Identified in the EPA
National Hazardous Waste
Management Study*'1
Franklin County, WA
Benton County, WA
Whitman County, WA
Malheur County, OR
Lincoln County, WA
Adams County, WA
Walla Walla County, WA
Grant County, WA
Sherman County, OR
Gilliam County, OR
Barney County, OR
Deschutes County, OR
Douglas County, WA
Morrow County, OR
Columbia County, WA
Umatilla County, OR
Kittitas County, WA
Klickitat County, WA
Payette County, ID
Spokane County, WA
Latah County, ID
ranking for Oregon, Washington,
131
-------
shown in the table are counties in the State of Oregon, Idaho,
and Washington which were identified as being the most suitable
for hazardous waste disposal in a recently completed EPA study
on National Hazardous Waste Management.1 The counties were
selected by a computer program which considered a variety of
physical/chemical, ecological, transportation, and human
resources factors to arrive at a prioritized ranking of
counties within the three states which were most suitable for
the location of a hazardous waste disposal site.
The sites identified by the Department of Ecology as well as
those in the EPA study were chosen on a technical basis. That
is, such factors as land availability, location, climatic
conditions, hydrology, and geology along with other intrinsic
characteristics of the site were evaluated to identify the
environmentally acceptable sites. Experience has shown that
such selection criteria, although seemingly quite rational,
do not always lead to the successful siting of a hazardous
waste disposal facility. For example, local opposition in
Franklin County, Washington, rated highest in the region by
the EPA study, lead to the closure of the Resource Recovery,
Inc. operation near Pasco. Efforts by the same firm to
establish a new site in Grant County, Washington, also con-
sidered a priority site, were met with heavy local opposition.
Efforts by Chem Nuclear, Inc. to establish a radioactive and
hazardous waste disposal site at Arlington in Gilliam County,
Oregon, were also recently rejected. Thus, despite the apparent
technical acceptability of all three of these sites, local
opposition seems to weigh more heavily. In short, no one
wants hazardous wastes dumped in their own backyard. Land
disposal is still the most economical alternative for many
hazardous wastes. Indeed, for some hazardous wastes, land
disposal is the only currently viable option (i. e., arsenic
wastes). The Wes Con site has a large capacity, but its
location requires transportation costs and spill risks which
tend to discourage its use by producers in the Seattle and
Willamette Valley areas. Several industrial representatives
presently using Wes Con noted that at the present time, the
bulk of their disposal costs are associated with transportation
to Wes Con. A closer, more central site would both reduce
these costs and cut the spill risk associated with long hauls
of hazardous wastes.
At the same time, if private enterprise is expected to own
and operate sites, only a few sites can be sustained in Region
X. There is not a sufficient waste volume at this time to
support multiple sites throughout the region. This contention
is strongly supported by management at Wes Con as well as
several national firms who have reviewed the market potential
for branch operations. Discussions with management at Chem-
132
-------
Trol106 in Model City, New York suggest that disposals of 20,000
tons of waste per year are required to support a viable dis-
posal business if secured landfill is the sole operational
activity. Under this assumption, Region X can presently
support up to five* sites if they are to be owned and operated
by private enterprise. Fewer sites with sufficient capacity
can satisfy the need. As noted earlier, the Wes Con site is
a major part of the total requirement for hazardous waste
disposal, but a second more central site is desirable to pro-
vide lower disposal costs (costs would be lower as a result of
transportation distances) and to reduce spill risks.
The problem of which sites are optimal remains. Ideally, one
selects the site best suited for such an operation. From an
environmental standpoint, there are many sites in the region
which are acceptable as illustrated by the listing in Table
VIII-1. The next consideration is, proximity of the site to
major waste sources and the commensurate reduction in transpor-
tation risks which can be achieved. If, for instance, trans-
portation at a distance greater than a "critical" distance is
deemed to pose an unacceptable risk then sites should be
selected in areas within the circle described by that threshold
radius from the source locations. To date, however, hazardous
wastes have not been identified which pose a transportation
risk great enough to describe such a radius. Indeed, researchers
at Arthur D. Little, Inc.107 found that transportation of
hazardous wastes up to 1,000 miles did not pose unacceptable
risks. The highest transportation risks are those associated
with injury or property damage resulting from fire, explosion,
or the release of toxic gases. Materials with these properties
are treated in some manner other than burial at a disposal
site, such as incineration or chemical destruction. Thus,
the potentially hazardous wastes in Region X, suitable for land
disposal at certified sites, do not pose high enough_Jtransporta-
tion risks to make this consideration a limiting factor.
Consequently, economics becomes the controlling factor with res-
pect to transportation of hazardous wastes. The question
arises; are additional disposal sites required to make proper
disposal economically attractive in Region X. As noted earlier,
it would appear that at least one more site is needed for this
*Based on a maximum waste volume of 113,833 tons after reclaimed
or recycled wastes are subtracted from the total in Table V-2.
106Personal communication, E. R. Shuster, Division Manager Chem-
Trol, Pollution Services, Inc. November 11, 1975.
107Arthur D. Little. "Alternatives to the Management of Hazard-
ous Wastes at National Disposal Sites," (Draft) U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, January 19, 1972.
133
-------
very reason. At the present time, transportation costs to the
Wes Con site often exceed disposal cost and this situation has
encouraged some industries to store wastes (see Table V-l) until
a lower cost option is available.
One approach that can be taken to select optimal sites from an
economic standpoint has been described by Arthur D. Little,
Inc.107 It is based on a tradeoff between having on-site
treatment and a centralized treatment facility. An economic
decision map is constructed under the assumption that sources
are evenly distributed about a grid. Based on economic trade-
offs, one can then calculate the area that a central plant can
economically serve.
To apply this type of approach to Region X where generation
sites are clustered about major metropolitan areas, one can
treat each city as a source and determine the maximum acceptable
distance from each city at which a disposal site could achieve
economical off-site treatment of hazardous wastes. Using the
data provided by Arthur D. Little, Inc.107 specific radii for
different waste type and quantity combinations can be calculated.
The minimum radii for key counties in Region X are plotted on
a regional map in Figure VIII-1. The plot assumes that all
wastes are routed to the disposal site. If wastes that are
presently recycled or processed for recovery are subtracted
out, the appropriate radii become larger; however, the radii
will not be sufficiently large to encompass the Wes Con site for
all wastes.
From Figure VIII-1, it is clear that all wastes could economically
be routed to Grant, Adams, Benton, and Franklin Counties in
Washington; and Sherman and Gilliam Counties in Oregon. All
the counties are served by rail, and highway transportation.
Grant and Franklin Counties have rejected bids for sites
recently. Gilliam has rejected a radioactive waste disposal
site, but may accept an industrial waste site. Hence, the
optimal site will be somewhere in Adams, Benton, Gilliam, or
Sherman Counties. Benton County may be particularly attractive
because of the potential to incorporate with the Hanford Atomic
Reservation. This would insure certain safety aspects due to
the large buffer zone surrounding the area and could satisfy
some concerns over guardianship in perpetuity. In this regard,
Benton County has to be considered the first choice of the
three if federal lands can be obtained. If not, either of
the two adjacent Oregon counties or Adams County would be
acceptable.
134
-------
U)
(Jl
FIGURE VIII-1.
OPTIMUM ECONOMIC ZONE FOR LOCATION
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITES.
-------
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to siting hazardous waste facilities, proper hazard-
ous waste management requires the development of a strong reg-
ulatory program. The latter is possible only if legislation
is flexible enough to facilitate it. At the present time, Ore-
gon is the only state in Region X armed with sufficient legisla-
tive authority to properly address hazardous waste management.
The remaining states have only the rudiments of the type of
authority required. The discussion that follows is designed
to highlight some of the considerations that should be taken
in developing regulations and in so doing, indicate the kind of
legislative breadth that is desirable.
Much of the discussion thus far has focused on the point of
generation and point of disposal for hazardous wastes. Since
the two are often not coincident, it is evident that the
transportation sector plays an important role in the hazardous
waste management system. Unfortuantely, however, this sector
has historically neglected wastes while focusing on pure
commodities.* This is true at both the federal and state levels.
At the present time, none of the states in Region X have in
place regulations which deal with the transportation of hazard-
ous wastes. Hence, these materials often move throughout
the states in unsuited containers with improper or no placarding.
Haulers are not specifically licensed and so there is no means
of telling where they take the wastes or when they discharge
them. Further more, bills of lading contain insufficient infor-
mation to aid in emergency situations or to provide receiving
agents with an adequate description of what they are getting.
The current status of federal regulations does not improve
upon this. Indeed, at the present time, the latest placarding
transportation in most cases refers specifically to trucking.
Rail has been suggested as a competition for hazardous waste
shipment, but competition has not surfaced to date. This
may reflect the fact that tank cars are often dedicated to
service and hence, not available for liquid or slurry wastes
while general tank trucks are. It also reflects the fact
that trucks are more flexible with respect to routing. This
predominance of trucks is also good from a risk standpoint.
Present estimates108 suggest that truck shipments threaten
1/2 to 1/4 of the spill incidents threatened by rail. If
rail maintenance continues to deteriorate, this gap may
widen.
108Authur D. Little, Inc. "A Model Economic and Safety Analysis
of the Transportation of Hazardous Substances in Bulk," pre-
pared for U. S. Department of Commerce, Maritime Administra-
tion, July 1974.
136
-------
system has been abandoned and alternates are being reviewed.
None of these address hazardous wastes per se. Re-introduc-
tion of any system similar to previously recommended ones will
still leave some materials classed as hazardous wastes
unclassified, or not otherwise specified. The DOT Office
of Hazardous Materials Policy has suggested that this situation
may change with the new Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
signed into law in January 1975. It is their opinion that this
piece of legislation gives them the authority to specifically
address hazardous wastes for all carriers, not just interstate
carriers. They further have been given authority to prempt
state laws where the latter are found inadequate or incompatible
with federal regulations.
It is doubtful that such broad powers actually reside with the
DOT. Indeed, current commentary by trade associations, state
authorities, and other federal agencies hold that the DOT will
most likely end up with regulatory authority over only
interstate carriers and those interstate carriers which use
the federal highway system. This will still leave a gap for
the uncontrolled and unreported transport of wastes. It also
includes no provisions for transmittal of bills of lading both
at the initiation and completion of the transportation activity.
Thus, the state (s) has no information base on the amount of
specific wastes being transported, or their actual destination.
Several states outside of Region X have determined this defici-
ency to be a major weakness in the hazardous waste management
system. To compensate for this, states such as California
and Texas have instituted a "manifest" or "trip ticket" system.
An example of the latter is illustrated in Figure VIII-2.
The generator of the waste or the agent discarding a waste
fills out and signs a trip ticket upon delivery to the trans-
porter. The transporter also signs the ticket verifying
delivery. The ticket includes the name of the generator, the
transporter, the intended destination, and a description of
the waste including approximate concentrations of specific
constituents and quantity. When the waste is transfered to the
transporter, copy No. 1 of the trip ticket is placed in the
generators records. Copies No. 2, 3, and 4 are given to the
transporter. During transport, any over-the-road inspection
should find a one-to-one correlation between the load and the
trip ticket on hand. Upon delivery of the waste to an approved
disposal site, the transporter signs the ticket again to verify
delivery as does the disposal site operator to verify receipt.
The transporter retains copy No. 2 for his records while copies
No. 3 and 4 are transferred to the disposal site operator. The
operator in turn sends Copy No. 3 to the generator to verify
delivery at an approved site while copy No. 4 is retained for
the disposer's records.
137
-------
Generator
Transporter
Discosal Site Ooerator
Generator
Transnorter
Disposal Site
Constituents
Copy dumber
FIGURE VIII-2
PROCEDURES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES
TRIP TICKET (SCHEMATIC)
1 30
-------
Both the generator and the disposer subsequently must tabulate
the data from their files and provide monthly summaries of
hazardous waste activities to the regulatory agency. California
is presently automating the information system to facilitate
use of this data. Intended uses include the comparison of
quantities shipped and delivered to discover or prevent loads
being dumped indescriminately at unapproved sites and the
maintenance of an inventory of data on waste quantities
received at specific sites. The latter will help in estimating
facility life as well as checking compliance with disposal per-
mit regulations authorizing disposal of specific waste types
at specific site types.
Texas has yet to implement the system described. California's
system is operable save the automated analysis center. To
date, officials are happy with results and feel the system is
one of the more easily implemented options available. A few
additions have been made. Farmers hauling empty pesticide
containers or undesired residuals are asked to complete tickets
when they arrive at a disposal site. All liquid haulers have
been required to obtain specific permits for hauling liquid
wastes. There is some dismay that the permits are not required
of all haulers since solid hazardous wastes are not presently
covered.
The institution of a trip ticket system does not provide for the
reporting of wastes disposed of or stored indefinitely on-site
by the generator. This situation calls for additional informa-
tion mechanisms. The importance of the latter cannot be over
emphasized. Without mechanisms for mandatory reporting, the
state simply cannot get a firm grasp on the actual status of
hazardous waste management in its jurisdiction. This leads
to reliance on voluntary compliance with requests such as
that conducted for this program. This is a weak position for
a state to find itself in since it relies on the good faith
of those most affected by proposed regulations.
This raises the question of whether or not hazardous waste
legislation and subsequent regulations are needed. At the
present time, there are comprehensive controls being placed
on discharges to the air and water. This places a tremendous
burden on the land as the final receptical of residuals.
Without balanced legislation to protect the land environment,
continued abuse is unavoidable. At the same time, it must be
recognized that hazardous waste legislation does not provide
the total protection desired. Indeed, hazardous waste legisla-
tion should be viewed as a necessary addendum to a more compre-
hensive land disposal program, not a surrogate. Within this
context all four states in Region X should be encouraged to
develop and enact strong, rationale pieces of legislation
addressing hazardous waste management.
139
-------
Additionally, because of the economies of scale and existence
of commerce that transcends state boundaries it should be
recognized that uniform or generally compatible regulations
in adjoining states are highly desirable. Similar efforts are
underway in other parts of the nation with regard to air
pollution regulations. There is no reason to believe that
workable forums cannot evolve for hazardous waste management.
This is developed more fully in the following section.
Any discussion of interstate cooperation must touch on state
bans against the importation of wastes. Several states, such
as New Jersey, have already instituted such restrictions. From
a regional management standpoint, this is undesirable. From
a legal standpoint, it may soon be an unavailable option.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has overturned to uphold the
New Jersey ban. If the Supreme Court determines that with
bans on interstate importation are an interference with inter-
state commerce and, therefore, unconstitutional, this decision
will be overturned.109 Barring such an outcome, the states of
Region X should encourage provisions specifically prohibiting
such importation bans.
Recent experience in Franklin and Grant Counties suggest that
siting may be a major stumbling block to development of a
comprehensive hazardous waste management system. This
raises several issues. Primarily, it suggests that any legisla-
tion enacted to regulate the disposal of wastes must avoid
prescribing tight time frames for compliance. It would be
naive to assume that adequate disposal facilities will be
available soon after enactment. Recent experience/ both in
Region X and elsewhere in the U. S., suggest theit upwards of
three years may be required to develop the facilities required
once legislation provides private enterprise with the incen-
tive to expand the present hazardous waste processing and
disposal industry. Recognizing this, some states have begun
to consider the desirability of having the authority to invoke
eminent domain if county political groups deny use of other-
wise acceptable sites. This is a harsh measure which should
be considered carefully before taken. Past episodes in Texas
where county and local perogatives have been pre-empted
created a sufficiently hostile environment that the applicant
organization ultimately withdrew.11ฐ While states may wish to
109Solid Waste Report, Volume 6, No. 24, p. 239, November 24,
1975.
1 * "Personal communication, Mr. Ray Barber, Brouning Ferris,
Inc., October 2, 1975.
140
-------
place provisions for eminent domain in their legislation, it
should be considered only as a last resort.
Because of the highly technical and political nature of hazard-
ous waste management, there is a growing concern that an out-
side advisory body is needed to make recommendations and
review agency actions. The latter can include a number of
options. In essence, however, it is a committee appointed
for specified terms from the various sectors of involvement
including the disposal industry, the generating industries,
and the public. This committee meets on an as needed oasis
to review proposed regulations and make recommendations on
subsequent action. Typically, the agency is not obligated
to follow recommendations. In general, there has been concern
that such an arrangement gives the advisory group no clout
and, therefore, undermines its value. Experience in California,
however, reveals that even without strong authority, committee
recommendations are not taken lightly.
Should a strong regulatory program be developed, there are
may configurations available. One that appears to provide
comprehensive coverage as well as a simple logic is illustrated
in Figure VIII-3.
A hazardous waste is first evaluated to determine if an exemp-
tion is warranted. The latter is granted if special circum-
stances or conditions dictate. An exemption allows the dis-
posal of specified wastes in non-permitted sites. That is,
the waste is allowed to be disposed of in sanitary or other
landfills where hazardous wastes are not normally allowed.
If an exemption is not warranted, it is next necessary to
determine if it is a waste allowed in designated hazardous
wastes disposal sites. If so, it is directed to a designated
site. If the waste is not in a form acceptable at hazardous
waste disposal sites, it must be further processed. At this
point, the processor can consider recycle or resue options.
This part of the evaluation need not be included in the
regulatory structure. If the processed waste or its residual
is still potentially hazardous, it is once again subjected
to the regulatory logic.
While the process detailed above is simple in nature, it
provides for two important features of a regulatory pro-
gram: 1) the granting of exemptions, and 2) the establish-
ment of a permit program. Exemption may be granted for any
non-hazardous waste as well as hazardous wastes in special
circumstances. The permit program should encompass all sites
at which hazardous wastes are disposed. It provides for con-
trol both in the operation and in the ultimate decommissioning
of sites such that environmental hazards are minimized. At a
141
-------
Unprocessed
Hazardous Pastes
Do
Wastes Merit
An Exemption?
Do
lastes tterit A
Permit for Disposal
To Land?
Processino (Treatment)
Required
Are
Any of the
Processed Wastes or
By-Products Therof
Recoverable
For Reuse?
Processed 'fastes or
By-Products
Yes
Sanitary Landfill inn
Yes
Disoosal to Land
Yes
FIGURE VIII-3.
LOGIC DIAGRAM FOR REGULATORY
CLASSIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
142
-------
minimum, the permits provide recorded information on the loca-
tion of sites where potentially long-lived hazards are being
placed. This should greatly reduce the cases where incidental
exposure after abondonment causes damage.
COOPERATIVE CONCEPTS
While hazardous waste management comes under the control of
individual state regulatory programs, it is apparent that
problems and potential solutions are common throughout the
region. Furthermore, optimal management will often require
the crossing of state boundaries to facilitate waste pro-
cessing and to realize economies of scale. Recognizing this,
several comments are in order with respect to cooperation
among the parties involved.
The proper and cost effective management of hazardous wastes
relies on a knowledgeable, competitive, and active waste
handling industry. Included in the latter are waste haulers,
processors, and disposal site operators. Many times, economics
require that these organizations operate in multi-state
areas. Further, logical market areas may be dictated more
by topographic and transportation considerations, than poli-
tical boundaries. The latter realities can frustrate growth
of the industry if each state maintains programs vastly
different in content and execution. Proliferation of incom-
patible regulatory definitions of hazardous wastes, manifests,
transportation restrictions, permit requirements, and siting
criteria increase operating costs. This discourages expansion
to interstate marketing and encourages generators to cut costs
by undertaking unacceptable disposal options.
To avoid the above mentioned events, states in Region X, and
especially Oregon, Washington, and Idaho should make a major
effort to coordinate regulatory efforts while the latter are
in the formative stages. Interaction between pertinent
agencies should be encouraged in an attempt to develop mutually
acceptable approaches to management control alternatives. Of
particular importance are compatible definitions of hazardous
wastes, permit requirements, transportation regulations, and
manifests. Early attention to these will circumvent tend-
encies to move wastes into the more lenient states regardless
of economic and environmental factors.
Information flow also appears to be an area where cooperation
could be very rewarding. During the study reported here, it
became quite apparent that many waste generators, both large
and small, public and private, are unaware of the alternatives
available to them for disposal of hazardous wastes. This can
143
-------
be particularly unfortunate if a market exists for these wastes
as input to other processes. The questions arising from this
reality suggest that a central information function could be
very beneficial.
At the present time, the regional EPA office is best suited
to provide this resource. Several major operational modes
can be envisioned. These include:
Function as a waste exchange information center to
facilitate matching process input needs to existing
wastes.
* Disseminate information of existing waste processing
operations which can be utilized.
Provide data on waste disposal technology available
for on-site use.
Distribute information on hazards and safety procedures
pertinent to waste management.
Identify specific areas and wastes where new technology
is needed.
The regional office presently does not have the capability
to perform many of these services because of staff and budget
levels. Currently, two individuals are charged with responsi-
bility for all solid and hazardous waste activities in the
region. This is an insufficient base from which to conduct
the desired activities. At the same time, it should be noted
that people are not utilizing the resource that does exist.
Interviews with generators suggest that much of this is due
to a lack of knowledge that the resource exists and that
regulatory staff can assist them without imposing burden-
some costs or requirements. From this, one can assume that
a general public relations effort is in order. An effort
must be made to remove lack of information as a major reason
for improper or sub-optimal waste management.
144
-------
REFERENCES
1. Battelle Memorial Institute. "Program for the Management
of Hazardous Wastes," Environmental Protection Agency,
Contract No. 68-01-0762, July 1973.
2. Ottinger, R. S., et al. "Recommended Methods of Reduc-
tion Neutralization, Recovery, and Disposal of Hazardous
Wastes," TRW Systems for Environmental Protection Agency,
February 1973.
3. Booz-Allen Applied Research, Inc. "A Study of Hazardous
Waste Materials, Hazardous Effects, and Disposal Methods,"
Environmental Protection Agency, June 30, 1972.
4. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Designation and
Determination of Removability of Hazardous Substances
from Water," Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 164, Part IV,
August 22, 1974.
5. Report of the Food Protection Committee, National Academy
of Science, 1970.
6. U. S. Office of Management and Budget. "Standard Industrial
Classification Manual," U. S. GPO, Washington, D. C.,
1972.
7. Alaska Department of Economic Development. "Directory
of Alaska Commercial Establishments," July 1974.
8. Idaho Department of Commerce and Development. "Manufac-
turing Directory of Idaho," 1973.
9. Oregon Department of Economic Development. "Directory of
Oregon Manufacturers," 1974.
10. Washington Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
"Directory of Washington Manufacturers," 1974,
11. Bureau of Census, U. S. Department of Commerce. "1969
Census of Agriculture," Washington, Part 46, Oregon, Part
47, and Idaho, Part 39, Vol. I, Area Reports, Washington,
D. C., 1972.
12. Statistical Reporting Service, U. S. Department of Agricul-
ture. "1971 Farm Production Expenditure Survey," Inter-
viewers Manual, Washington, D. C., 1971.
145
-------
13. Idaho Department of Environmental and Community Services.
"Idaho Solid Waste Management Industrial Survey Report,"
June 1973.
14. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. "Hazardous
Waste Management Planning 1972-73," March 1974.
15. Washington Department of Ecology. A Report on Industrial
and Hazardous Wastes, December 1974.
16. Personal communication, Mr. Robert Silvagni, Direct
Solid Waste Management, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, November 9, 1975.
17. Personal communication, Dr. Roy Herndon, Project
Director for the Florida State Hazardous Waste Survey,
November 9, 1975.
18. 1969 Census of Agriculture, Washington, Part 46, Oregon,
Part 47, and Idaho, Part 39, Volume I, Area Reports,
Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, DC, 1972.
19. Data provided by Dr. H. Collins, Vector Control Section,
California State Department of Health, October 22, 1975,
from 1969 State Survey.
20. Personal contact, Crop King, Inc., Yakima, Washington,
October 29, 1975.
21. Ralph Stone Company, Inc. "Forecasts of the Effect of
Air and Water Pollution Controls on Solid Waste Genera-
tion," EPA Contract No. 68-03-0244, August 1974.
22. Holcombe, J. K., P. W. Kalika, The Research Corporation
of New England. "Solid Waste Management in the Indus-
trial Chemical Industry," EPA Contract No. CPE 69-5.
23. Saxon, J. C. and M. Kramer. "Industrial Chemicals Solid
Waste Generation, The Significance of Process Change,
Resource Recovery, and Improved Disposal," International
Research and Technology Corporation, EPA Contract No.
68-03-0138, June 1974.
24. Datagraphics, Inc. "Inorganic Chemicals Industry Profile,"
Updated for EPA Program 12020, July 1971.
25. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Phosphorus
Derived Chemicals Segment of the Phosphate Manufacturing
Point Source Category, EPA, January 1974.
146
-------
26. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Basic
Fertilizer Chemicals Segment of the Fertilizer Manufac-
turing Point Source Category, March 1974.
27. Versar, Inc. "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices, Inorganic Chemical Industry," Draft Final
Report, EPA Contract No. 68-01-2246, October 1974.
28. Gruber, G. I. and M. Ghassemi. "Assessment of Industrial
Hazardous Waste Practices, Organic Chemicals, Pesticide
and Explosives Industries," TRW Systems and Energy Draft
Final Report, EPA Contract No. 68-01-2919, April 1975.
29. Datagraphics, Inc. "Projected Wastewater Treatment
Costs in the Organic Chemicals Industry," Updated for
EPA Program/2020 GND.
30. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Major
Organic Products Segment of the Organic Chemicals Manufac-
turing Point Source Category, EPA, April 1973.
31. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. "Hazardous
Waste Management Planning, 1972-73," March 1974.
32. WAPORA, Inc. "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices," Paint and Coating Manufacture, Solvent
Reclaiming, and Factory Applied Coatings Operations,
Draft Final Report, EPA Contract No. 68-01-0762, July.
33. Putnam, R. C., F. Ellison, R. Protzman, J. Hilvosky,
Foskr D. Snell, Inc. "Organic Pesticides and Pesticide
Containers A Study of Their Decontamination and
Combustion," Environmental Health Service Contract No.
CPE 69-140.
34. Atkins, P. R. "The Pesticide Manufacturing Industry
Current Waste Treatment and Disposal Practices," Water
Pollution Control Research Series, 12020 FYE 01/72
USEPA, January 1972.
35. Jacobs Engineering. "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practices, Petroleum Refining," Draft Final Report,
EPA Contract No. 68-01-2288, January 1975.
36. Ernest, F. G. , et al. "Petrochemical Effluents Treatment
Practices," Engineering Science Incorporated, February
1970. Federal Water Quality Contract (Administration
Contract 14-12-461).
147
-------
37. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Leather
Tanning and Finishing Point Source Category, EPA-440/1-
74-016-a, March 1974.
38. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Secondary
Aluminum Smelting Subcategory of the Aluminum Segment of
the Non-Ferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source Category,
EPA-440/l-74-019-e, March 1974.
39. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Copper, Nickel,
Chromium and Zinc Segment of the Electroplating Point
Source Category, EPA-440/l-74-003-a, March 1974.
40. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Primary
Aluminum Smelting Segment of the Non-Ferrous Metals
Manufacturing Point Source Category, EPA-440/l-74-019-d,
March 1974.
41. Sittig, M. Pollution Removal Handbook, Noyes Data Corpora-
tion, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1973.
42. Charles River Associates. "The Effects of Pollution Control
on the Non-Ferrous Metals Industry," for Council on Environ-
mental Quality, December 1971.
43. Martin, J. J. "Chemical Treatment of Plating Waste for
Removal of Heavy Metals," Environmental Protection
Technology Series, EPA-R2-73-044, May 1973.
44. Battelle Memorial Institute Columbus Laboratories. "A
State of the Art Review of Metal Finishing Waste Treatment,"
Water Pollution Control Research Series 12010 E1E,
November 1968.
45. "Assessment of Industrial Waste Practices -- Electro-
plating and Metal Finishing Industry," Executive Summary,
Draft Final Report, EPA, June 1975.
46. Versar, Inc. "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices, Storage and Primary Batteries Industries,"
Final Report, EPA Contract No. 68-01-2276.
47. Berkowitz, J. B. , G. R. Schimie, and V. R. Valeri. "Water
Pollution Potential of Manufactured Products Catalog
Section III Chemical Ingredient Listing," Environmental
Protection Technology Series, EPA R2-73-179, April 1973.
148
-------
48. Calspan, Inc. "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry,"
Vol. I, EPA Contract No. 68-01-2604, April 1975.
49. Perry, R. N. and C. H. Chilton. Chemical Engineers
Handbook, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York, New York, 1973.
50. Dvorin, R. "Water and Waste Treatment A Review
of Methods for the Metal Finishing Industry," Metal
Finishing Guidebook Directory, 28th edition, 1960.
51. Blanco, R. E., H. W. Godbee, and E. J. Fredrick. "Incor-
porating Industrial Wastes in Insoluble Media," Chemical
Engineering Progress, No. 2, 1970.
52. Weinstein, H. J. "Waste Oil Recycling and Disposal,"
Environmental Protection Agency Report, EPA-670/2-74-
052, August 1974.
53. Santoleri, J. J. "Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Waste Disposal
and Recovery Systems," Chemical Engineering Progress,
69, pp. 68-74, July 1973.
54. Hulswitt, C. "Hoi Recovered from Chlorinated Organic
Waste," Chemical Engineering, pp. 80-81, May 15, 1972.
55. Battelle Memorial Institute. "An Investigation of Tech-
niques for Removal of Cyanide from Electroplating Wastes,"
Environmental Protection Agency, 12010 EIE, November 1971.
56. Howe, R. H. L. "Recent Advances in Cyanide Waste Reduction
Practice," 18th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue Uni-
veristy, 1963.
57. Rohrer, K. L. "Lime, CaCl2 Beat Fluoride Wastewater,"
Water and Wastes Engineering, pp. 66-68, November 1974.
58. Skripach, T., et al. "Removal of Fluorine and Arsenic
from the Wastewater of the Rare-Earth Industry," Proceed-
ings of the 5th International Water Pollution Research
Conference, III 34/1 - 34/7, July - August 1970.
59. Erskine, D. B. and W. G. Schuliger. "Activated Carbon
Processes for Liquids," Chemical Engineering Progress,
Volume 67, No. 11, November 1971.
60. Atkins, P. R. "The Pesticide Manufacturing Industry
Current Waste Treatment and Disposal Practices," EPA
Water Pollution Control Research Series 12020 FYE, 1972.
149
-------
61. Norris, L. A. "Chemical Brush Control: Assessing the
Hazard," Journal of Forestry, vol. 69, p. 715, 1971.
62. Young, A. L., et al. "Bioassay Studies of Soil Cores
from Test Area C-52A, Elgen Air Force Base," Abstracts
(No. 72) of the National Meeting of the Weed Science Society
of America, St. Louis, Missouri, 1972.
63. U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration.
"Environmental Statement, Waste Management Operations,
National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho."
64. U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration.
"Environmental Statement, Waste Management Operations,
Hanford Reservation," Richland, Washington.
65. U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. "NRTS Waste Management
Plan for FY 1975," Idaho Falls, Idaho, July 1974.
66. "Pesticide and Pesticide Containers Regulations for
Acceptance and Recommended Procedures for Disposal and
Storage," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40CFRK5.
67. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Part 165.9.
68. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bonneville Power
Administration. "Environmental Statement FY 1975 Pro-
posed Program," August 23, 1974.
69. Personal communication with Mr. Fred Gross, Head, Trans-
mission Line Maintenance BPA, Vancouver, Washington,
October 9, 1974.
70. Personal communication, Mr. Maxwell T. Lieurance, Chief,
Division of Resources, Oregon State Office, Bureau of
Land Management, November 8, 1974.
71. Personal communication, Clair M. Whitlock, Associate
State Director, Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Man-
agement, June 3, 1975.
72. Personal communication, Mr. Jules V. Tileston, Chief,
Division of Resources, Anchorage Office, Bureau of Land
Management, June 19, 1975.
73. Personal communication, Mr. Bill Mathews, Oregon State
Office, Bureau of Land Management, May 21, 1975.
74. Personal communication, Mr. Brian R. Appleburry, Emergency
Operations Planner, Seattle District, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, May 29, 1975.
150
-------
75. Personal communication, Mr. David A. Graham, Director,
Insect and Disease Control, U. S. Forest Service,
Region VI, November 13, 1974.
76. Personal communication, Mr. Roy W. Jump, Maintenance
Supervisor, Division of Highways, State of Idaho
Transportation Department, April 24, 1975.
77. Personal communication, Mr. Wayne Heiskari, Idaho Public
Health Department, May 13, 1975.
78. Personal communication, Mr. Al Atchison, Idaho Department
of Public Lands, April 28, 1975.
79. Personal communication, Mr. John N. Hams, Operations
Director, Forest Management Division, Oregon State
Forestry Department, September 26, 1974.
80. Personal communication, Mr. Joe Hay, Agronomist, Oregon
State Highway Division, September 26, 1974.
81. Personal communication, Mr. Allen Erikson, Washington
State Department of Natural Resources, April 21, 1975.
82. Personal communication, Mr. Robert L. Beoger, Landscape
Architect for Maintenance, Washington State Highways,
April 28, 1975, (letter), January 8, 1975.
83. Personal communication, Mr. Roy Russel, Washington
Department of Social and Health Services, January 8,
1975.
84. Personal communication, Portland Office Bonneville Power
Administration, October 1974.
85. Personal communication, Mr. Lester R. Myers, Jr., Regional
Commissioner, Region x, General Services Administration,
Auburn, Washington 98002.
86. Personal communication, Major Daniel McMahon, Base Civil
Engineer, Fairchild AFB, June 10, 1975.
87. Personal communication, O. S. Williams, Deputy Base Civil
Engineer, Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, May 21, 1975.
88. Personal communication, Mr. Theodore W. Lynn, Deputy
Base Civil Engineer, McChord AFB, November 28, 1975.
89. Personal communication, Mr. Gale B. White, Assistant
Environmental Engineer, Seattle Branch,, Western Division,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, May 8, 1975.
151
-------
90. Ibid., May 27, 1975.
91. "Failed Capacitor Cells Handling, Storage, Transportation
and Disposal," BPA Substitution Maintenance Standard, No.
640(D, March 10, 1975.
92. Personal communication, Mr. Nieuwenhuis, Western Process-
ing Company, May 7, 1975.
93. Alexander, M. "Western Processing, Inc.," report submitted
to Seattle University, March 15, 1975.
94. Personal communication, Mr. Ron West, Chemical Processors,
Inc., May 22, 1975.
95. Personal communication, Mr. Gene Rinebold, Wes Con, Inc.,
May 15, 1975.
96. Wes Con Site Log April 74 to August 75, received from
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X Office,
October 2, 1975.
97. Personal communication, Mr. John R. Kimberly, Resource
Recovery, Inc., October 22, 1975.
98. Washington State Department of Ecology. "Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement Proposal for the Establish-
ment of an Industrial Waste Management Facility at
Warden," by Resource Recovery Corporation of Seattle,
Washington, April 1975.
99. Personal communication, John R. Kimberly, Resource Recovery,
Inc., May 1974.
100. Personal communication, Mr. Windsor, Corsby and Overton,
Portland Office, June 4, 1974.
101. Personal communication, Mr. Jack Pinshev, Liquid Waste
Disposal Company, August 15, 1975.
102. Personal communication, Mr. R. S. Jorgensen, Solid Waste
Management Branch, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region X, June 16, 1975 (records of liquid waste receipts
by Western Processing Company).
103. Personal communication form Patrick H. Wicks, Administrator
of Hazardous Waste Management Division, Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality, July 1975.
152
-------
104. Personal communication, Mr. Lance G. Elphic, Alaska Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, August 20, 1975.
105. Personal communication, Mr. Tom Cook, Washington Department
of Ecology, August 1975.
106. Personal communication, E. R. Shuster, Division Manager
Chem-Trol, Pollution Services, Inc. November 11, 1975.
107. Arthur D. Little. "Alternatives to the Management of
Hazardous Wastes at National Disposal Sites," (Draft)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 19, 1972.
108. Arthur D. Little, Inc. "A Model Economic and Safety
Analysis of the Transportation of Hazardous Substances
in Bulk," prepared for U. S. Department of Commerce,
Maritime Administration, July 1974.
109. Solid Waste Report, Volume 6, No. 24, p. 239, November
24, 1975.
110. Personal communication, Mr. Ray Barber, Brouning Ferris,
Inc., October 2, 1975.
153
-------
APPENDIX A
DESIGNATION OF AND DETERMINATION OF
REMOVABILITY FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
155
-------
30166
PROPOSED RULES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 116]
[FBL 252-6]
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Designation of and Determination of
Removability
The Environmental Protection Agency,
is hereby giving advance notice of intent
to create a new Part 116 of Title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations pursuant
to the authority contained in sections
311(b)(2)(A) and 311(b) (2) (B) (i) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq. (the Act)).
Section 311 (b) (2) (A) of the Act pro-
vides as follows :
The Administrator shall develop, promul-
gate and revise as may be appropriate, reg-
ulations designating as hazardous substances,
other than oil as defined in this Section, such
elements and compounds which, when dis-
charged in any quantity into or upon the
navigable waters of the United States or
adjoining shorelines or the waters of the
contiguous zone, present an imminent and
substantial danger to the public health or
welfare, including, but not limited to, fish,
shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches.
Section 311(b) (2) (B) (i) of the Act
states:
The Administrator shall include in any
designation under subparagraph (A) of this
Subsection a determination whether any such
designated hazardous substance can actually
be removed."
In order to effectively address the
problem of chemical spills and assess the
impact on affected parties, this advance
notice of proposed rulemaking is being
issued to solicit public comment on the
tentative criteria for selection of hazard-
ous substances, the substances under
consideration, and the determination of
actual removability of those substances.
Because much of the information desired
prior to proposed rulemaking exists only
in the private sector, information on ac-
tual or potential spills of substances, as
well as current measures for spill preven-
tion and the effectiveness of such meas-
ures, is especially requested.
Under Section 311(b>(2XA), hazard-
ous substances are limited to materials
other than oil as defined in section
311(a)(l). In identifying substances
which may be designated as hazardous
substances for purposes of section 311 of
the Act, it was recognized that virtually
every substance has the potential for
presenting some danger to public health
or welfare depending upon the quantity
of the substance discharged, and the
time, location, and conditions of the dis-
charge. For example, the permitted use of
an aquatic herbicide in accordance with
an Environmental Protection Agency
registration is not considered a hazard-
ous substance discharge to be regulated
by section 311. Additionally, the chemical
aluminum sulfate (alum) is commonly
used in food and drinking water process-
ing In these uses and quantities, alum is
obviously not a hazard to the public
health and welfare. However, the release
of these same materials in large quanti-
ties from a storage tank, manufacturing
plant or transportation source may cre-
ate a substantial danger to aquatic life.
Thus, the materials listed herein are un-
der consideration because of their harm-
ful effects when released into the aquatic
environment in spill situations.
In analyzing the extremely large num-
ber of substances which could be desig-
nated hazardous within the meaning of
section 311, the Agency is considering
several factors. These factors deal with
quantities produced and handled, effects
on life forms and the potential for spill-
age of each of the substances. It is there-
fore suggested that substances which can
reasonably be anticipated to present an
imminent and substantial danger to pub-
lic health and welfare, would be selected
using the following criteria:
1. Any element or compound produced
in excess of research quantities possesses
sufficient danger potential to be consid-
ered as a candidate hazardous substance
if it is lethal to: (a) One-half of a test
population of aquatic animals in 96 hours
or less at a concentration of 500 milli-
grams per liter (mg/1) or less; or (b)
one-hai: of a test population of animals
in 14 days or less when administered as
a single oral dose equal to or less than 50
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of body
weight; or (c) one-half of a test popula-
tion of animals in 14 days or less when
dermally exposed to an amount equal to
or less than 200 mg/kg body weight for
24 hours; or (d) one-half of a test pop-
ulation of animals in 14 days or less when
exposed to a vapor concentration equal
to or less than 200 cubic centimeters per
cubic meter (volume/volume) in air for
one hour; or (e) aquatic flora as meas-
ured by a 50 percent decrease in cell
count, biomass, or photosynthetic ability
in 14 days or less at concentrations equal
to or less than 100 mg/1.
2. To be further considered for desig-
nation as a hazardous substance, any
element or compound meeting the above
criteria must have a reasonable potential
for being discharged; i.e., spilled into a
water bor'y. Factors being considered in
making t.'iis evaluation include the pro-
duction quantities, modes of transporta-
tion, handling and storing practices, past
spill experience, and physical-chemical
properties of each substance.
To satisfy the requirement of section
311(b) (2) (B)(i), the Agency is consid-
ering the determination of actual remov-
ability from the water of each candidate
substance. Factors under study in mak-
ing this determination include the sub-
stance's solubility, density, physical
state, dispersion characteristics, aquatic
stress potential such as acute lethality,
potential for leaving a residue, and de-
tectability in the water body, as well as
the current status of removal technology
and availability of necessary equipment.
Based upon these factors, the Agency is
considering the determination that all of
the substances listed in this advance no-
tice of proposed rulemaking are not ac-
tually removable.
In this respect it should be noted that
section 311(8> contains a definition
of "remove" or "removal". The definition
has two elements: tl> "Removal of the
oil or hazardous substances from the
water and shorelines": and (2> "the tak-
ing of such other actions as may be neces-
sary to minimize or mitigate damage to
the public health or welfare". The phrase
"actually be removed" as used in section
3U(b)(2MB>(i) is considered to refer
only to the first element of this defini-
tion. In other words, if the spilled sub-
stance cannot normally be removed from
a water body by physical, chemical or
biological means, then it would not be
"actually removable" for purposes of the
eventual hazardous substance designa-
tion. The fact that some other action may
be possible to "minimize or mitigate
damage to the public health or wel-
fare"does not make the substance
"actually removable" for purposes of haz-
ardous substance designation. However,
actions taken under the second element
of the definition in section 311(a)(8)
i.e., actions taken to minimize or miti-
gate damage but which do not result in
actual removalmay qualify for reim-
bursement from, the revolving fund un-
der section 31 He) and may result in
liability of the discharger under the con-
ditions specified in section 311(f).
Should final rulemaking determine
that a substance is not actually remov-
able, discharges of that substance may
be subject to civil penalties imposed by
section 311(b) (2) (B) (ii) and (iii). Dis-
charges of harmful quantities (to be es-
tablished by regulations pursuant to sec-
tion 311(b)(4) of the Act) of a des-
ignated hazardous substance shall be
subject to the notification requirement of
section 311(b) (5) and civil penalties im-
posed by section 311(b)(6).
It is important to note that not all
discharges of substances designated as
hazardous will be subject to the enforce-
ment provisions of section 311. Because
section 311 applies only to discharges
from vessels or facilities, a designation
regulation would not apply to discharges
from other sources such as agricultural
land runoff, or irrigation return flows.
The discharges being considered can be
placed in two separate categories. The
first relates to transportation and stor-
age incidents in which there is normally
no release of the substance except in the
spill situation. The second relates to in-
dustrial production facilities in which a
designated hazardous substance is re-
leased in quantities exceeding those of a
permitted normally operating effluent.
Periodic or continuous discharges are
regulated under other provisions of the
Act. Accordingly, the Agency is consider-
ing that the regulation would exclude
from designation discharges of hazard-
our substances which are made: (a) In
compliance with effluent limitations or
guidelines established under sections 301,
302, 304, 306, and 307, of the Act; (b)
in quantities not exceeding those iden-
tified for such substances in an appli-
cation for an NPDES permit which has
been issued pursuant to section 402 of
the Act; (c) in compliance with permits
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
157
-------
PROPOSED RULES
30467
issued under section 404 of the Act or
sections 102 and 103 of the Marine Pro-
lection. Research Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) ; from
properly functioning marine sanitation
flow-through devices certified by the
United States Coast Guard pursuant to
section 312 of the Act; or (e) in the
course of a permitted use of a pesticide
registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act <7 U S.C.
sections 136 and through 136y).
Utilizing the above criteria, the Agency
has made an initial assessment that
the substances listed below should be in-
cluded in the list of hazardous sub-
stances. Because of the many materials
involved and the complexity of the re-
view and decisions which have to be
made, the Agency has determined that
the most appropriate action is to so-
licit comments on this list as presently
constituted through this advance notice
This is being done with a view toward
obtaining detailed comments and data,
which are relevant to the subsequent
rulemakmg action. The Agency is inter-
ested in suggestions based upon fact for
additions to and deletions from the list
as well as comments on the appropriate-
ness and levels of the selection criteria.
In addition, the Agency is interested in
comments about whether the general
magnitude of the list is commensurate
with the problem to be dealt with and the
intent of the statute. The specific criteria
used for selection of each substance are
not noted here, but will be indicated in
the proposed rulemakmg which will re-
flect the Agency's consideration of com-
ments received. Data and comments on
methods of removal and equipment avail-
ability are requested in order to assess
reasonable limits of mitigating actions.
Spill prevention practices and associated
costs along with other information
thought to be pertinent, such as poten-
tial economic Impact ol implementing
the regulations for penalty rates for dis-
charges of non-removable hazardous
substances, are also of interest to the
Agency. Interested persons may partici-
pate in this rulemakmg by submitting
written comments in triplicate to the
EPA Information Center iA-107>, En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20460. Attention: Mr Philip
B. Wisman. All communications received
on or before October 15, 1974, will be
considered by the Administrator before
taking action on the proposed rule. After
consideration of the available data and
comments received in response to this
advance notice, a notice of proposed
rulemaking will be issued.
The substances which the Agency is
considering for designation as hazardous
are listed below. For the most part, the
nomenclature employed is that common
to the trade and where possible is con-
sistent with terms used in standard ref-
erences such as the Merck Index, Eighth
Edition, Merck and Company, Incorpo-
rated, Rahway, New Jersey, 1968. Certain
compounds have been listed on the basis
of the toxic properties of one component
such as the anion or cation rather than
the specific salt. Radioactive materials
are not included in the present advance
list oi hazardous substances but may be
considered as candidate substances for
designation in the future. The substances
which are indented in the left hand col-
umn of the following list are materials
for which the toxicological data used
were developed on the basis of toxicologi-
cal properties of one component ion or
group of the substance under considera-
tion for designation.
( oniinon n.mu
AiTfiildclude
Acetic aenl
Al-etirnilhvlllde
Velonc cMilinhyilmi -
A.elvl biomidc
Vei,|cliloiidc_.
V. "ilnn
Aciylonilnle.
Adipomlule
AMiin
AUvlatiohol
Mlvlehloiidc
A hlnnmim Mill,lie
\nllllOIIIa
A inrnninitiii Cfilnitniiiiflu'
Ammomum acetate
Ammonium benzoale
Ammonium IHC.II bouate
Ammonium bisulfite.._ - -
Ammonium bionnde __
Ammonium eai b;unate_ -. .
Ammonium cat lion.ile.
Ammonium eliloude..
Ammonium < itr.ue, di-
basic.
Ammonium fenoi \ .mule
Ammonium lluoboiate --
\mmoniiim formate
Ammomum slueonate. ---
\nnnonlum h\dio\ide _
Ammonium ll.vpopliob-
|)lntc>
Ammonium iodide.
Vinnionium mol\ bd.lle
Ami'ionllini mliate _ _
Ammonium oxalale..
Ammonium pi'lttahoiate_.
Ammonium pprsulfat p ...
Ammonium silieolluoiide..
Ammonium sulfamate - - -
Ammonium sulfate..
Ammonium sullMle _
Ammonium MlHltt1...
Ammonium bnlrife
Ammonium tlnoi y.male
Ammonium lliiosulf.il'1
Ainyl aectale
\mliut'
\ntimany compninid.i-
Antimony pentaehloiide.
Antimony pentafluonde.
Antimony potassium taiti'ate
Antimony tiibromide
Antiinon.\ tin-blonde
Antimonx liillnoiide
Antimony tinodiuY .. .
Antimony trioxide . . -
lj.w;nc comjxtundn:
Arsenic acid -. --
Aisemc disultide . - .
AiM'mr pci]tao\ide
AiN'm.- tnbiomide... -
AiM'iin tiiclilonde
r.llliiiml, Hh\l aldehyde, alcleli>dc, aicll'1 aldehxde -
l tliiclal iicetK a< id, viuenai ,H-ld. . .
Aiclic oxide. ;ui tyl oxide
J-me1h\ ll.'li lomll lie, alJ>ll.l-ll\dlOX\ isobllf > lOllltl lie
J-|.M.|ซ-n.i1, ii i \ III .ildcludc, .11 i vlaldcliydc, ilcl aldehyde
' \.inoป thv !< n-'. I-11 one. i. in i, \ en (ox, piopfmnutrlle, vinyl
e.v.m,de
1,1 dieymiol.uhine.
Oetalenc, II II I)N . . - - -
2-plv,uvtnHmiuiii i itialo ciUit* arid tliavnivioiiiuTii salt.
lronr ''.n id .inimonmm ^.il
\mmomnm paianioh bdate.
Aniinonmni decaboratc,..
Ammonium pel oxytlisulfato
Aminoiiiiim lluosilicate -
Aniniaie, A MS, ammonium nniKlosulfate.
I I,ill irir ,\< nl tiininoiiiujn ^.tll... .. .. -- - - -
Anininiiium i liodauidc, aiiitnonnnu sulfocyanato, aiu-
111(111111)1] Stliroi'\;nil(li'
Auuiioiiiiitu liviiosullili'. _-- . - ,, , - .--
A my lure lie rslcr, prai oil, bun unit oil,, . - - - not null-. :>o
wuoiulary-;
teitiuiy-amyl
acotato.
\ni\nn- oil, pin-in l.nnnn', aiiiinoijcnzi'iit', aniiiioplioi),
Is j .iiiol.
rl.,ilai emeu. . latlratod antimony, t.utaiiKed antimony,
nolasMum anliinonyltaitiatc.
Butty of antimony - -
Antil>iou\ lluoude -
.- Uiantiniony liioxido, (loweis of antimony.
.--.
Aiscmc, tuoxido
Al^enic t,iiMjllule_ .
Cai'odyhc neid .. .
( .unnni aisenalc -.. _
Culeium arsentto . .
t'otahsium aiRcnate
Potiis^ium ar.senite ..
Sodnlin alienate .
Sodium arsenite-. .
Sodium eac-oiljlate
Benzene -
lieuzoic add.- - .
BcnzoiiHnVo-
Uenzoyl ehloiide.. . - -
Benzyl thloride_ _._
Btryllmm compound*:
Beryllium ehloiide
Beryllium (luoiide
Bpiyllluni hydroiide
Heiylllum nitrate
Beryllium phosphate
Bei j Minm sulfoto .
Orthoarsenic acid - --
Arwiue monObuHido, led av^cmc sultide
Aisi'iiic acid anhydride, aixi'iiic- oxide. -
Aiseuio bromide, ai scmous bt omide
Arsenic chloiide, aisenious ddoiide, arsenous ehloiide,
- buttei of aiseme.
Arsenic lodicle, arsenioilModide, arsenous iodide.
Aisenious acid, ar^eiiious oxide, white arsenic
Arซenioussulude, velloซ ars< uic sulfide
Diniethylaisimc acid, hydroxydimethylarsine oiidc .
triealiium 01 tho-arsenate _ ..
Potsissium nietaalsenile .. ---
Uisodium ,usenate. -
.Sodium rimtaaisenitn
Sodium dimetiiylaraonatc
Cyclohexatriene, benzol .
Benzenwarboxylic acid, phe.nylfonnlc acid, dracync acld-
Pheny) cyanide, cyanobenzone
Benzenecarbonyl flilot ide
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
158
-------
30468 PROPOSED RULES
Common name Synonyms
Boric acid Boracic acid, ortlioborlc acid - ;.
Brucine -_ l)inhitturty>Uyohnino
Butyl acetate _ Acetic acid minm.Mm.yl ซv*tw, acetic acid secondary- Normal-; swond-
butvl iMi-r. iH'otic m-nl iso-butyl fistw, acetic acid lar- ary-;ii-o-; tซr-
h'U\ InnUi'Mer. Uury-butyl
wet at*.
Butyl,imine .., - , , _ . . 1-. -- itmuohut.u.o. -.'-ammo-.-iiH'th) Iproprme. l-amino-2- Normal-: SBOOnd-
nu'th> Ipuip-nu1. ary-; ItvUitty-
tmtyUuniiU-.
Butyric acid. .- -.. - - - Hultuntic .u-kl, rllijl.uvtie in id _ ,.. .-_ __- Normal-; iso-
Cadmhim compounds
Cadmium aeet a. e
Cadmium bromide
Cadmium chloride
Cadmium fluoborato
Cadmium nitrate... _.___.
Cadmium siilfato -'---
Calcium cat bide Citrine!.' aeelylennRcn .
Calcium hydtoxide __ Limr, hydratcd, slaked lime, calcium hydrate,
Calcium hypoed Ion t ______ .. _ _ Tnxichlor.. _
Chloniu-,-- -.
Chlorobciiwiu',- Monodilorolx-nzene, benzene chloride _
Chloioforni Tneliloroin.'tlmnp. . _
OhlorosulfoniraeUK. ,. Sulfunc chlorohydrin ._
Chromium compounds
Ammonium bichionmtp .. Ammonium diehromate ._
Ammonium ('Inornate
Calcium chromate Calcium chrome yellow, gelbin, yellow ultramarine ,
Chromic acetate
Chtonne acid Cluomic anhydride, chromium trioxide
Chromic sulfate_
Chroinous c;ป bon.tte .
Chromous chlondo
(Chroinous oxatate
Chromvl chloride Cltiomium dioxychloride _
Lit liium biehiomale Lithium dichromate
Lithium chromate
1'ot.Lssium bichromate l^tassium dichromate _
Potassium chromate
Hodium bichromate Sodium dichromate ._ _-
Sodium chroma!*1 .
Strontium chromate
Xinc bichromate _ Xinc diehroiiute. _ _ _-
Cobalt compounds-
Cobiltous acetate Cobalt acetate - __;
Cobaltons bromide Cobalt biomide _
Cobaltous chloride Cobalt chlonde _
Cob.iitous citrate. Cobalt citrate __
C!obaltous fluoride Cobalt fluoride _ j
Cobaltous formate Cobalt formate
CohalLous iodide, Cobalt iodide, anhydrous
Cobaltous nitrate. Cobalt nitrate... _
Cobaltous perchlorate _. Cobalt pcrchlorate
Cobaltous sncnriate ._ Cobalt succinate -_ _
CohiiHous Milfinmle Cobalt miiruninlt.
Cobaltous sulfutr Cobalt suIf.it< _
Copper compounds
Cupnc acetate C'opper aeet a I e, crystallized verdigris.-. __
Cupnc acetoais'f inlf Co[ปper acetoarsenite, copper acetate arsenUe, Paris green.
Cupnc aectj Kicctonatc Copper '..l-pentancdione, copper orthoarseiute, Scheel's
.
Cupric bro'nide ____________ Copper bromide _____ ....... __________
Cupnc chloiide _______ ......... Copper chloride _________________ ......
Cupric foim.ite - _______ - C'opper foi mate _____ ..... ____ .......... _
Cupiic pluconate _______ . Copper ^lueonMo ..... ____ ......
Cupric fjlycinale ___________ Copper plycuiatc, cupric aminoacetate_
Cup.ie lactule. ...... ______ Copper lactat e ________________
Cupnc ml rate _________________ Copper nitrate _______________ ......
Cup.ic ox.ilate _____________ Copper oxalate. ......
Cupric stibucetate.,. _______ Hasic copper acetate ...... ________ ____
Cupi-ic- Mil fate. __________ ---- ("upper snlfa.c _____________ .....
Cupi ic suUiite, ammonl- Ammoniated copper sulfate
a ted.
Cupnc tartratc ___________ Copper tart rate ______ .......... .
Cuprous hiornide __________ Copper bromide
Cu pious iodide ____________ Copper iodide
Co-Hal
____________
Courmphas ........... ___________ Co-Hal _______________ ..... ._ ......... ____ ......... _______
Cresol .......... ________ ...... Cresyhcucid, h yd roxy toluene ____________ . ................ Meta-; ortho-;
para-cresoL
'
Pol :iSM
Sodium I'Viiiiidc ______________
/me r\;uildr _ __ _________
('vniinceii chloride ____________
Cv{-lohox!ini' . _____ ____ ........ Hextihyrt'lobeiizene, hcxumelhylene, hexanaphthoue
y,4-l) (ncid) ______________________ 2,4-dichloropbonoxyacotic acid ____________ ป ______ ^.
li.'t-l) (esters) ____________ ......... 2,4-diwhloroplienoxyacetic acid ostors ____ . _______ ii=i
D.ihtpon _____ __________ ...... _____ Dowpon, (irtimovin, Radapon, Unlpon ___________ .
'
_-._ ..... _________ ............ ___________ ........ ...
J)i,i7,inon _____________ ........... _. Dipofono, IMnzitol, Basudin, Spectracide
Dicamba _____ ......... . ........... 2-methoxy-3,5-diclilorobenzoic acid-- ______
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
159
-------
pปoroseo WIRES
Common nanio Synonyms fMfeOiers
Dichlobenll 2,fi-dichlorobfmwnltrttet 2,0-DBN
Dichlono - PhyROn, dichlororiaphthoquinone
IXchlorvos, 2,2-dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate, Vapona.-
Dleldrin .- Ah/it. _ ..
Dielhylamino -
nimethylamine ..
Uinltrobcnrx'nn .. Dinilrobermil _,. . Meta-; ortho-;
para-dinitra-
bentol.
Dinitrophenol Aldifen. ._.,_.. 2,8-; 2,4-: 8,6-.; Sฃ-;
3,4-; 8,6-dlnttro-
phenol.
Diqtiat Afniaeide, Dextrone, Roglone, Diquat, dibromide.. ---
Disulfotun - - - --- Oi-sysUm-- _
JJiuron... - - , - - -- DCMU, UMU
Podecylbeiifccn'-sulfoiiie arid _.
Uodeoylbenzenesulfome acid,
calcium suit.
UodeeylboiizrnesulfONic acid,
isopropanoljimine suit.
l>O(liicyl()^ii7,(imซuHonic acid, so-
dium suit.
Dodecylbonzpnoaulfonic acid,
triethunolainmo, suit.
l>nr*bun . - - - ('hlorpyrlfos - .. , .
Kndosulfaii --- - - - -- Tlnoduti -- - -- - - --- ---
Kwirin - Memlrin, Compound 2fl'J___ --
Ethion -- - Nialale _ __
El hylben7,cne_ _ . -_
KUiyleriediuinine 1,2-diaminoethane __ .__ ._
Klliylmiouiainine-lelrauct'llcacid-- EDTA, edelic acid, Ilavldole (ethylenedimtrilo)-tetra-
aeotic acid.
Fluorine compounds:
AluTiuiium fluoride Aluminum tufluoride -
Ammonium bifluoride Acid ammonium fluoride, ammonium hydrogen fluoride..
Ammonium fluoride Neutral ammonium fluoride
Hydrofluoric acid.. Fluohydric acid--.
Lithium fluoride
Phosphorus periiufluoride.-
Sodium bi fluoride
Sodium fluoride1 Villiaumite. _-., __
Stannous fluoride._.
Formaldehyde Methyl aldehyde, methanal, formalin __
Formic acid Methanoicacid---
Fumaricacid- Trans-butencdioic acid, trans-l,2-etbylene-dicarboiytlc
acid, boletic acid, allomaleic acid.
Furfural. _. 2-furaldehydc, pyromuclc aldehyde
Outhion - (Jusathion, azinphos-methyl _r. ._
Heptachlor Volsicol-104, Orinox, Heptagran
Hydrochloric acid Hydrogen chloride, muriatic acid---
Hydroquinonc Para-dihydroxybenzene, 1,4-benfenediol, hydroqulDOl,
quinol Tecquinol.
Hydroxylamine Oxammonium _ -:
Iron compounds:
Ferric ammonium citrate-- Ammonium ferric citrate-- -r-_
Feme ammonium oxulate_. Ammonium ferric oxalate
Ferric chloride.-- Flores martis, iron trichloride
Ferric fluoride
Ferric glycerophosphate Iron glyceropbosphate . _-
Ferric nitrate Iron nitrate
Ferric phosphate-- ---
Ferric sulfate ___ Ferric persulfute, ferric aesquisulfate, ferric tersulfate
Ferrous am rnonium sulfate. Mohr's salt, iron ammonium sulfate _. .
Ferrous chloride Iron chloride, iron diehloride, iron protochloride
Ferrous oxalute,. Iron oxalate, Ferrox j
Ferrous sulfato Green vitriol, iron vitriol, iron sulfate, iron protosulfate
Isoprene ... . -- 2-methyl-l,3-butadiene
Kelthane Di Cp-cblorophenyl)-tnchtoromethylcarbinol DTMC,
dicofol.
Lead compounds-
Lead ucotate Sugar of lead
Lead arsenale
Lead bromide
Lead e,hlon
-------
30470
PROPOSED RULES
Common name
laomซn
Mi Iriirous niti.iii'
M- \\\<>- \bcii7cjjr
NHioL'Hi dioxide
Nitiophenol
. _ _ _ _. .
RcsoicinoL. - _ .. ______
^'(Irniuin compounds
Sclcnu- <'i*'ifl_
Scl( inuin o\ido -
Selenium o\\i blonde
Sodiuii) sclemle ........ __
Sodium .. __ ... ...
Sodium bisiillHo,. _ .. .
Sodium bora! c ._ ........
Sodium !i\ drosulfidr ..... .
Sodium I'j dro\ido. .....
Sodium byporhloiite.. _
.- .
Sodium inliilo. _ . .. _
Sodium pbosphnte, dibjsic ..
Sodium pbosplmlc, monobasic
Kodium pbosphal<\ Dibasic ___
Soclium ^iln-jiic
Sodium Miilide . __ _.
Si t \ chmno
Sl\inie. .
Merem \ HKH.O. hV>ud^ - ; > u: \ prnio. hlotid*1. mild ruer-
I)M(>7: in* f t\f}\\ - hit"!
()' ninile
NMiox-XO
I'hosdim . ....
Molybdenum in<>\id< , mol) b-1! ,nih\ di id*1 - - - .
. \Ielhvl.iiinne. :inuiioin< lhanc , . ... . __
\\ I ill'1 lai, 1.D c.unphor, n > pi it I tali n .
. ('\ i Inhcvmec.ti li'ixyhc .icid hevihydrobeiuoie acid- - -
. Ammonium nickel Milf.ile. _ _ _
NH kelous hionudc _ . _ _. _- . .
Nit'kelous I'hlotid*1 .... -. .
Aqua foili^ _ ., ... .- --
Niliohen/ol, oil of inubaue _ . ....
Niliofien teliaoMde . _ ,
\iononitiophenol ._ ... . Meta-;oilfaO-;
pLiuinitropheiiol.
I'aiafoini, Foimapene, TufoimoJ, polymerized foi'JiKtldc-
hvde, polyovj-inclhvlene.
DNTI', Nuun" - --
r<,'(', JN-iita. _. .-.- ---
. Cinbolic acid, phcnyl hydioxidc, hydroxybeuzene, oxy-
1 )ij)l)(isjieiie, cm bony I chloi ide, chloioformyl ohloiide
(Hlhoj)hosph(nie acid ._ ,
Black phoHplioius, red phosphorus, white phosphoius,
yellow phosphoi us
I'hosphoryi chloride phosphorus chloride.
Phosphoric sulfide, tlnoplKjsplioric anhydride, pliosphorus
Phosphorous chloiide _ . ......
I'CH, Aioclor, Polvchloifnatcd diphcnyl.
Potassium hydiate, caustic potash, potassa .. . ... _ .
('(limn Icon iinneial _ _ . - ...
I'Hipanoic at id, met h\ laeciic add, ethylfortnic ae,id. _
Pio|>anoic anli>diide, methylaeetic anhydride _ .
Ethyl eaibmol, pmpylie alcohol, pioi>anol Notmal-. iiso-
propyl alcohol).
J'yiothiiu I, Pyrnthiiiill ---
1,2,3-trihydroxybenzene, pyrogallol, 1,2,3-benzenetriol
1-benzazine, benzo(bjpyji'linc, leucoline, chinoleine, leucol-
Resorcin, 1,3-bcnzcnedtol, meta-dihydroxybenzene -
Selenium dioxide. .
Scleninyl chloride.
Natrium ._
Sodium acid snlfite, sodium hydrogen sulfitc
Sodium biboiate, sodium pyroborate, sodium tetraborate.
Sodium sulflfydrate ._
Caustic soda, soda lye, sodium hydrate _ _
. Blench _
Sodium melhoMde
'I' I > K
Tm-hlniopliruol
Ttirllu 1. iimne
Tiinirlliv hniiine
( run ni in rout putt mii
I 'i.iimiin pcio\idi'.._
. Water pi ass soluble
Vmvlbmizeue, phenyleUiylems, styiol, btyioU-ne, oin-
naiuene, ciunamol.
- Oil of viliiol, oleum_. _
Sulfur chloride _
2,4,5-1 riehloropheiioxyacetic acid ^
. L'.I.VliichloioplK'noxyaceUc esters
Tannin, galiotannin, gallotannic acid.. ___
1)1)1)
Lead tetiaethyl, TEL
TKJ'J' - . . ..
Toluol, n]ethylben7('ue, plieiiybuethano, Methacide
(.'amphechlor __ ^ _ __
IHpteiex, Dylox - _.
Colluiio^ol, howiclde J or JS, Omal, I'hcnachlor
TMA.
.
I 'i.invl sill Oil <>
\ 'niKitlnitii compounds,
\ .madiuin o\\ t
\'aiiiulium jMHitoMd
\ ivn.idv) Milfati1
\nivl ;Hi'lalซ'
Vunadyl tuchloiidc_ .
Vanadic auhydiide, vauadic a
-------
PROPOSED RULES 30471
Common name Synonyms
Zinc compounds-
Zinc acetate - - - -
Zinc ammonium chloride. _
Zinc rummtmum sulfate
/iuc lior.il^
/IMC hrnnmle.
/me rurtionatr-
/me chloride Butter ofzlnc _
Zinc (luondt1
/IMC foirrmtc
/ino hydro'iill'ite ^
Zinc mtr:iH'_.
Zinc permanganate
Zinc phrnoLsulfouate Zinc sulfocarbolate- - .._
Zinc phosphide _.,
Zinc potassium chroinatc. _ Zinc yellow, citron yellow, buttercup yellow, xlnc chrome.
Zinc propioiintp _
Zinc silicofluoridc Zinc fliiosilicatc __
Zincsulfate.. .. _ ,._ White vitriol, KIIIC vitriol, while copperas ,...,...
Zinc sulfatc, monoliydratd^
Zirconiuin coinpoiind-i
Zirconium ftcotftto
Zirconium ammonium !1u-
ondc
Zirconium potassium flfio-
ri(H>
Zirconium mtrato .
Zirconium oxvrphbride _ Xirconyl \ lilornlc, 7-irconium cliloridc, basic,..-. ,,
Zirconium sulfatr - , Uisulfatourcotuc acid -
Ziiconium U'truchloride
This advance notice of proposed rule- Dated: August 16,1974.
making is issued under authority of sec- JAMES L. AGEE,
tion 311 and section 501 of the Federal Assistant Administrator for
Water Pollution Control Act as amended Water and Hazardous Materials.
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). I Doc.74-19234 Filed 8-21~74;8;45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO, 164THURSDAY, AUGUST 22f 197^
162
-------
APPENDIX B
THE HAZARDOUS WASTE DECISION MODEL
163
-------
THE HAZARDOUS WASTE DECISION MODEL
The hazardous waste decision model is designed to reorient the
pure compound approach to a more objective methodology. The use
of comparative threshold levels is retained, but the basic cri-
teria for judgment are expanded to cover a full range of hazard
types. Constituent interactions are taken into account as fully
as possible by use of available waste stream data.
The selection process is analogous to a screening operation.
Candidate wastes are examined in a manner illustrated by the
logic diagram, Figure 1. Affirmative response to any of the
criteria, or screens, automatically qualifies the waste as haz-
ardous. All wastes are considered candidates for the screening
procedure, regardless of production quantities. While low
volume streams will be unimportant in designing individual
treatment facilities, they must be classified and regulated as
hazardous if their intrinsic properties so warrant.
A subjective treatability assessment is avoided by evaluating
waste streams as they exit the plant's boundaries. Hence, if
on-site processing adequately reduces waste stream properties
below the designated thresholds, the resulting discharges will
not be classified as hazardous. On the other hand, sludges or
concentrates resulting from on-site treatment may well be suf-
ficiently dangerous to qualify as hazardous. These by-product
streams would then be so designated.
This concept allows for continual updating of designations and
regulations as new production techniques and treatment systems
modify existing wastes and as new wastes are produced. The
rationale for the thresholds selected for use in the hazardous
waste decision model follow.
Radioactivity
The purpose of this screen is to designate all waste streams
containing radioisotopes above the accepted maximum permissible
concentration (MFC) levels as hazardous. The actual MFC levels
as set by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) are in a state of
transition; therefore the screen is formulated to accommodate
whatever standards exist at the time of the evaluation. Present
values are currently under review and may be reduced in the
near future. Should this occur, re-evaluation of radioisotope-
bearing streams may be necessary.
The MFC levels are appropriate for use in a scheme such as this,
since they are in part developed to specify discharge levels.
Consequently, their use renders the screen compatible with
165
-------
WASTE STREAMS
DOES WAST
RADIOACTIVE
>MPC I
i
f CONTAIN
EVELS ?
NO
IS WASTE SUBJECT TO
BIOCONCENTRATION?
i
NO
r
IS WASTE FLAMMABILITY
INNFPA CATEGORY-)?
1
NO
r
IS WASTE REACTIVITY
INNFPA CATEGORY 4?
i
NO
r
DOES WASTE HAVE AN ORAL LD .
< 50 mg/kg
*
NO
r
IS WASTE INHALATION TOXICiTY
< 200 PPMฎ GAS OR MIST?
LC5Q<2 nig/LAS DUST?
i
NO
r
IS WASTE DERMAL PENETRATION
TOXICITY LD5Q<200 mg/kg?
i
NO
t
IS WASTE DERMAL IRRITATION
REACTION>GRADE7?
i
NO
r
DOES WASTE HAVE AQUATIC
96 HR TLM < 1000 mqlf>
i
NO
p
IS WASTE PHYTOTOXI CITY
IL30<1000MG/L?
1
NO
p
DOES WASTE CAUSE GENETIC
CHANGES?
1
NO
r
NONHAZARDOUS WASTES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
h
YES
YES
to
YES
r
HAZARDOUS WASTES
FIGURE B-l.
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE DECISION MODEL
166
-------
existing AEC regulations and draws on the wealth of research
and experience which stands behind the initial selection of
those values
Bioconcentration
The terms bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification
are often used interchangeably to describe the phenomenon by
which living organisms concentrate an element or compound to
levels in excess of those in the surrounding environment. Kneip
and Lauer1 define the three terms in the following manner:
Bioconcentration refers to the ability of an organism or a
population of many organisms of the same trophic level to
concentrate a substance from an aquatic system.
Bioaccumulation refers to the ability of an organism to
not only concentrate, but to continue to concentrate es-
sentially throughout its active metabolic lifetime, such
that the 'concentration factor1, if calculated would be
continuously increasing during its lifetime.
Biomagnification is the term which should be used when a
substance is found to exist at successively higher con-
centrations with increasing trophic levels in ecosystem
food chains.
It should be noted that concentration factor is defined here as
the ratio of the concentration of the material of interest in
the organism to the concentration of that material in the environ-
ment or the preceding link in the food chain.2
Employing these definitions, the purpose of the screen is to
identify and designate as hazardous those wastes which display a
concentration factor in higher organisms, here defined as mam-
mals, fish, birds, mollusks, macrocrustacea, reptiles and
amphibians. The screen is not relevant to materials with cum-
ulative effects or materials for which substantial nutritional
requirements have been established. In general, bioconcentrated
materials as defined here are ones for which the detoxification-
excretion mechanism is either non-existent or extremely slow.
Bioconcentrative materials can be grouped into two categories
based on retention mechanisms. The first includes the heavy
metals such as mercury and lead. These materials, through a
'Kenip, T. J. and G. J. Lauer. Progress in Analytical Chemistry,
Galen Ewing, Inc., Plenum Press, New York, 1973.
2Polikarpov, G. G. Radioecology of Aquatic Organisms, Reinhold
Book Division, New York, 1966.
167
-------
strong affinity characteristic with sulfhydryl groups and disul-
fide bonds, are capable of inactivating or denaturing enzymes
and proteins, thus blocking normal metabolic pathways, inter-
fering with control mechanisms and crippling cellular integrity.
The second category of bioconcentrative substances is represented
by persistent organic materials such as DDT and PCBs. These
materials concentrate through an affinity for non-polar solvents
and low solubility in water. The contaminants quickly migrate
to fatty tissues or lipid cellular fractions where they typically
cause hepatic disorders (disorders of the functions of the liver).
Evaluating the data on bioconcentration can be very difficult
since no standard bioassay or testing procedure has been adopted
by which the bioconcentration potential of a material can be
consistently assessed. Present plans call for such a protocol
to be developed by the EPA.3 Until such a standard testing
procedure is developed, literature sources documenting environ-
mental build-up of a material or laboratory studies indicating
less than complete elimination or detoxification of a material
by one of the higher organisms of animal life one week after
exposure will be used to select substances under this criterion.
This evaluation is presently included in the selection procedure
proposed by the Division of Oil and Hazardous Materials (DOHM)
of the EPA for designation of hazardous substances. Use of
this criterion and any standard testing protocol devised by the
EPA will insure compatibility with related governmental activities,
Flammability
All waste streams qualifying as Category 4 flammable materials
by the National Fire Protection Association1* will be included
as hazardous wastes. Included in the Category 4 flammability
rating are
very flammable gases, very volatile flammable liquids, and
materials that in the form of dusts or mists readily form
explosive mixtures when dispersed in air.
Examples of pure compounds receiving the Category 4 flammability
rating are methyl ethyl ether and n-butane. Improper disposal
of materials such as these would constitute a public hazard.
3Personal communication. Analytical Quality Control Laboratory,
National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio,
February 1971.
^National Fire Protection Association. Fire Protection Guide
on Hazardous Materials, Boston, Massachusetts, 1972.
168
-------
Wastes may include a variety of constituents which in combination
qualify as Category 4 or whose interactive by-product qualify as
Category 4. In practice, wastes may or may not be readily
classified utilizing only data on the constituents in the waste
streams. The decision to classify materials as Category 4 is
a judgmental one. In general, materials qualify as Category 4
flammables if they are:
1. flammable gases;
2. flammable liquids with boiling points below 100ฐF
and vapor densities >_ 1.1 (density is measured as
the radio of the weight of a volume of vapor to an
equal volume of dry air under similar conditions);
3. flammable liquids with flash points below 100ฐF
and vapor-air densities >_ 1.1; and
4. spontaneously combustible in air.
The vapor and vapor-air density data are meant to account for
the hazard of vapors traveling along the ground to an ignition
source and then flashing back. This could be a real hazard in
landfill operations where heavy equipment exhaust or sparks
could ignite escaping vapors. The Category 4 rating is roughly
equivalent to a Grade 4 rating on the NAS fire hazard scale.5
Reactivity
All waste streams qualifying as Category 4 reactive materials
by the National Fire Protection Association6 will be included
as hazardous wastes. Included in the Category 4 reactivity
rating are those
...materials which in themselves are readily capable of
detonation or of explosive decomposition or explosive
reaction at normal temperatures and pressures.
Examples of materials in the Category 4 reactivity rating include
contaminated benzoyl peroxides and off-spec nitro-methane. Im-
proper disposal of materials in this category would constitute
a public hazard.
Judging the reactive hazard level of complex wastes will be a
difficult task. The major areas of concern will include:
5National Academy of Sciences. "Evaluation of the Hazard of
Bulk Water Transportation of Industrial Chemicals, A Tentative
Guide," Report to U. S. Coast Guard, Washington, D. C., 1970.
60p. Cit. 4.
169
-------
Detonation by Electrical Shock - Some materials can
be detonated by electrostatic charge and as such
pose a reactive hazard in various environments. Data
pertinent to this hazard can be found in the National
Electrical Code (NFPA No. 70).7
* Oxidizing Materials - Strong oxidizing agents such as
chlorates, perchlorates, bromates, peroxides, nitric
acid, nitrates, nitrites, and permanganates are highly
sensitive to heat, friction, and impact when in the
presence of combustible materials. Mixtures of oxi-
dizing and combustible materials should be considered
Category 4 reactive. This would include Grade 4 self-
reactive materials in the NAS rating system.8
Polymerization - Certain hazardous wastes are capable
of autopolymerization. By-product heat and pressure
increases present a danger. Wastes containing mate-
rials with this potential should be considered Category
4 reactive. The presence of inhibitors may not be
sufficient to reduce the hazard since biological,
chemical or thermal action may negate the inhibiting
effect. This would include Grade 3 self-reactive
agents in the NAS rating system.8
Explosiveness - Wastes containing primary high explo-
sives at any but dilute concentrations should be con-
sidered Category 4 reactive. Primary high explosives
are defined as those materials which detonate, releasing
energy very rapidly and creating very high pressures.
Detonation can result from friction, impact, shock or
heat. Primary high explosives are rated at 5 inches
or less on the Picatinny Arsenal scale.
Water or Air Reactive - Wastes may also be considered
Category 4 if they react violently when exposed to air
or water. This would include materials rated as Grade
4 water reactive in the NAS rating system.8
Many of these decision factors have not been quantified. The
NFPA selection committee relied largely on a consensus approach,
Their findings, however, on pure compounds should serve as
guidelines for extrapolation to wastes.
7National Electrical Code NFPA No. 70, National Fire Pro-
Tection Association, Boston, 1972.
80p. Cit. 5.
170
-------
Oral Toxicity
Waste streams found to have an oral LDso to man or rats less
than or equal to 50 mg/kg body weight are considered hazardous.
The LDso is defined as the dose at which 50 percent of the test
population succumbs. The level of 50 mg/kg was selected to
comply with existing EPA regulations (40 CFR Section 162.8) and
DOT advanced notice of proposed rule making (Docket No. HM-51,
Fed. Reg., Vol. 36, No. 30, February 12, 1971) designating sub-
stances either extremely or highly toxic. An LDso of 50 mg/kg
or less also matches the WAS toxicity rating of Grade 4.9 The
EPA Division of Oil and Hazardous Materials is also proposing
this threshold for designation of hazardous substances.
A large quantity of data on test organisms other than humans
or rats and on routes of administration other than oral are
available. Often these data may be extrapolated to estimate an
oral LDso value for man or rats. Table B-l lists comparative
toxic levels outlined by the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare10 which may be used for this purpose.
The oral ingestion route is selected to represent the potential
for leaching of landfilled materials into water supplies. Test-
ing procedures for oral toxicity should provide for single
dose administration followed by a 14 day observation period.
Further information on detailed test conditions can be found in
Title 21 of CFR, Section 191.10; the Federal Register, Vol. 36,
No. 30, February 12, 1971; and Title 40 of CFR, Section 162.8
Inhalation Toxicity
Wastes demonstrating an inhalation LCso ฐf 200 ppm or less as
a vapor or 2 mg/1 or less as a dust or aerosol are considered
hazardous. The LCso is the concentration at which 50 percent
of the test population succumbs. The levels selected comply
with those set by EPA regulations (40 CFR Section 162.8) and
DOT advanced notice of proposed rule-making (Docket No. HM-51,
Fed. Reg., Vol. 36, No. 30, February 12, 1971) to designate
extremely and highly toxic materials. The Division of Oil and
Hazardous Materials within the EPA is also proposing this
threshold for designation of hazardous substances.
Inhalation toxicity can be of importance for a variety of waste-
related activities including vapors escaping from landfills,
off gases from combustion processes, and operator exposure
during processing, shipment, and disposal. A great deal of
9 Ibid.
1ฐToxic Substances, U. S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, Rockville, Maryland, 1971.
171
-------
TABLE B-l
LIMITING DOSAGES DIFFERENTIATING TOXIC AND NONTOXIC SUBSTANCES
ACCORDING TO ROUTE OF ADMINISTRATION TO EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS
OF MAXIMUM SINGLE (ACUTE)1 DOSE CAUSING DEATH3
tsj
Oral
(orl)
SPECIES Rectal
(with list (rec)
designations)
mg/Kg
Mouse (mus), Hamster (ham). 2500
Frog (frg), GerbU (gib)
Rat (rat), Squirrel (sqli 50002
Mammal, unspecified (mam)
Rabbit (rbt) Guinea Pig 10000
(gpg). Chicken (ckn),
Pigeon (pgn). Quail (qal).
Duck (dck), Turkey (trk).
Bird (brd)
Dog (dog), Monkey (mk> i, 10000
Cat (cat) Pig (pig),
Cattle (ctl), Domestic
Animals: sheep, goat.
horse (dom)
ROUTES OF ADMINISTRATION (WITH LIST
Inhalation Skin
(ihl) (skn) Intraperitoneal
8 hi. (ipr)
Intrapleural
(ipl)
ppm mg/M mg/Kg mg/Kg
5000 1000 1400 1000
10000 2000 2800 2000
20000 4000 28002 4000
20000 4000 5600 4000
ABBREVIATIONS)
Parenteral
Subcutaneous
(scu)
Intraderma]
(idr)
Implant
(imp)
mg/Kg
5000
100002
20000
20000
Intravenous (ivn)
Intramuscular dms)
Ocular (ocu)
Intracerebral
(ice)
Intratracheal
(itr)
mg/Kg
750
1500
3000
3000
Other Unreported
(par) (unk)
mg/Kg . mg/Kg
1000 2500
2000 5000
4000 1 0000
4000 1 0000
Applies to those substances for which acute toxicity characterizes the response, fast-acting substances, irritants, narcosis-producing substances, most drugs, tli><". not jpply 'ป
substances whose characteristic response results from prolonged exposure, e.g., silica, lead, benzene, carbon disulfide, carcinogens. Concentrations mur- .ij>[>io|irialely
characterizing the toxicity of long- or slow-acting substances are derived Ironi long-term, chronic toxicity studies.
2From Hine and Jacobson, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assn. Ouarl. /.'>, 141, Iปป.S4.
Calculated from experimental data (Stokmgeil.
-------
information on exposure limits for eight hour working days has
been published as Threshold Limit Values (TLV's).11 While these
regulated levels are not of interest in the decision model it-
self, they are typically estimated on LC5Q data. These initial
toxicological findings should provide an excellent source of
data on pure compounds.
Tests to determine the inhalation toxicity hazards of wastes
should be designed around a 24 hour exposure time followed by
a 14 day observation period. Further information on testing
procedures can be found in Title 40 CFR, Section 162.8; Title
21 DFR, Section 191.10; and the Fed. Reg., Vol. 36, No. 30,
February 12, 1971.
Dermal Penetration
A waste with a dermal LD$Q of 200 mg/kg body weight or less is
considered hazardous. The LD5Q is defined as the dose at which
50 percent of the test population succumbs. The level of 50 mg/kg
was selected to comply with existing EPA regulations (40 DRF,
Section 162.8) and DOT advanced notice of proposed rule making
(Docket No. HM-51, Fed. Reg., Vol. 36, No. 30, February 12, 1971)
designating substanced either extremely or highly toxic. The
Division of Oil and Hazardous Materials within the EPA is also
proposing this threshold for designation of hazardous substances.
The dermal penetration route of administration must be considered
since a contact hazard exists both for landfill areas and dis-
charges into surface waters. Data on dermal penetration can be
found in classical toxicology manuals as well as in the reports
of Smyth, et al.12~19
^"Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants," American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1970.
12Smyth, H. F., C. P. Carpenter, and C. S. Weil. "Range-Finding
Toxicity Data: List IV," AMA Archives of Industrial Hygiene
and Occupational Medicine, 4:119-122, 1951.
13Smyth, H. F., C. P. Carpenter, C. S. Weil, U. C. Pozzani,
J. A. Striegel, and J. S. Nycum. "Range-Finding Toxicity
Data: List IV," American Industrial Hygiene Association
Journal, 30:470-476, 1969.
14Smyth, H. F., C. P. Carpenter, C. S. Weil, U. C. Pozzani, and
J. A. Striegel. "Range-Finding Toxicity Data: List VI,"
American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 23:95-107,
1972.
15Smyth, H. F., C. P. Carpenter, C. S. Weil, and U. C. Pozzani.
"Range-Finding Toxicity Data: List V," AMA Archives of Indus-
trial Hygiene and Occupational Medicine, 10:61-68, 1954.
16Smyth, H. F., C. P. Carpenter, and C. S. Weil. :iRange-Finding
Toxicity Data: List III," Journal of Industrial Hygiene and
Toxicology, 31:60-62, 19^9.
173
-------
Testing procedures for dermal toxicity should provide for one
hour of exposure followed by a 14 day observation period. Further
details for testing can be found in Title 40 CFR, Section 162.8,
No. 30, February 1971.
Dermal Irritation
Wastes scoring eight or better on the FDA skin irritation evalu-
ation are considered hazardous. This threshold represents moder-
ate or severe edema and erythema on rabbit skins after a 24 hour
exposure period. Tests are made on shaved and abraded skin as
prescribed in Title 21 CFR, Section 191.1. Additionally, wastes
rating Grade 8 or better on the irritation evaluation 10-grade
ordinal scale devised by Smyth, et al.,12~19 can also be classed
hazardous. Here, the material rating is derived as the severest
reaction obtained on any of five albino rabbits after a 24 hour
exposure of 0.01 ml of sample or solution in water, acetone, or
propylene glycol.
Grade 1 on the above scale indicates no irritation; Grade 2 is
evidenced by the least visible capillary injection from the
undiluted chemical. Grade 6 indicates necrosis when applied
undiluted; Grade 8 indicates necrosis after application of a
1 percent solution; and Grade 10 relates to necrosis from a 0.01
percent solution. A Grade 8 rating was selected for the threshold
because it represents severe irritant effects after a dilution of
100 to 1.
Aquatic Toxicity
A waste displaying a 96 hour TLm of 1000 ppm or less is con-
sidered hazardous. TLm refers to the median threshold limit,
or the concentration at which a material is lethal to one-half
of the test population. A limit of 1000 ppm was selected to
comply with thresholds now being proposed by the Division of Oil
and Hazardous Materials within the EPA. This justification is
based upon concentration levels likely to occur after 1, 3, and
6 hour discharges of tank truck, tank car, and tank barge quan-
tities into various sized streams. Employing a general dispersion
model, materials with a 96 hour TLm of 1000 ppm or less may per-
sist at those levels long enough to cause significant damage to
17Smyth, H. F., J. Seaton, and L. Fischer. "The Single Dose
Toxicity of Some Glycols and Derivatives," Journal of Indus-
trial Hygiene and Toxicology, 23 (6) :259-268, 1941.
18Smyth, H. F. and C. P. Carpenter. "Further Experience with
the Range-Finding Test in the Industrial Toxicology Laboratory,"
Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 30:63-68, 1948.
19Smyth, H. F. and C. P. Carpenter. "The Place of the Range-
Finding Test in the Industrial Toxicology Laboratory," Journal
of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 26:269-273, 1944.
174
-------
aquatic life. Materials with higher TLm values are not likely
to cause significant damage. The 1000 ppm or less level cor-
relates with NAS ratings of Grade 2-4 for aquatic toxicity.20
Aquatic hazards may result from landfill leachate or direct
dumping. The threat is of importance to various fish varieties
and fish food organisms.
Testing should follow accepted static or flow-through bioassay
techniques for a 96 hour exposure period. Detailed procedures
are available in Standard Methods.21 A great deal of data on
aquatic toxicity of pure compounds and wastes has been collected
by McKee and Wolfe22 and by Battelle-Columbus.23
Phytotoxicity
A waste displaying an ILm of 1000 ppm or less is considered
hazardous. The ILm is defined as the median inhibitory limit,
or that concentration at which a 50 percent reduction in the
biomass, cell count, or photosynthetic activity of the test
culture occurs when compared to a control culture over a 14
day period. The 1000 ppm level was selected for reason similar
to those for selection of the aquatic toxicity threshold.
Plant toxicity is of concern both from the standpoint of damage
to commercial operations and damage to aquatic plants which
form an important link in the food chain. Plants may be
threatened by landfill leachate or direct dumping into surface
waters or waters destined for irrigation use.
While no standard testing procedures have been published to
date/ personnel at the EPA National Environmental Research Center
(NERC) in Cincinnati will soon issue a manual containing the
necessary testing details.21* Data on phytotoxicity of pure
materials and wastes can be found in McKee and Wolfe,25 The
200p. Cit. 5.
21"Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,"
13th Edition, American Public Health Association, Washington,
D. C., 1971.
22McKee, J. E. and H. W. Wolf. "Water Quality Criteria," Califor-
nia State Water Quality Control Board, Second Edition, April 1971
23Battelle Memorial Institute. "Water Quality Criterion Book,
Volume III," Environmental Protection Agency, 18050 GWV, May
1971.
2''Op. Cit. 3.
J hOp. CM t . I.'..
175
-------
Water Quality Criteria Data Book, Volume 326 and the Oil and
Hazardous Materials - Technical Assistance Data System (OHM-
TADS) files maintained by the EPA.27
Genetic Effects
Wastes found to give positive results to standard genetic effects
tests are considered hazardous. Effects may be grouped into
three major subcategories:
Carcinogens - Standard tests for carcinogenic be-
havior have been promulgated and catalogued by the
National Cancer Institute.28 Any of the accepted
procedures described in various NCI publications
should be adequate for testing.
Mutagens - Standard mutagen tests have been developed
by Weissgunger at the National Cancer Institute.28
There are also several standardized procedures des-
cribed by Epstein and Legator.29 Mutagenic effects
in bacterial and plant cultures have never been
translated into impact on man, but mutagenesis in
any sector of the environment may utlimately be of
importance and should be considered hazardous until
potential correlations are more clearly defined.
Teratogens - Standard teratogenic potential tests
are quite well accepted. They are typically con-
ducted on pregnant New Zealand rabbits. Detailed
procedures can be obtained from the National Cancer
Institute.
Because genetic effects potential testing is both time-consuming
and costly, all wastes should not be subjected to a rigid bat-
tery of evaluations. Rather, tests should be required only of
those wastes in which known carcinogens, mutagens, or teratogens
are known to occur or are strongly suspected of occurring. The
National Cancer Institute publishes a list of known carcinogens.2
Similarly, Epstein has catalogued mutagens.29 Data on
250p. Cit. 23.
27
''Oil and Hazardous Materials Technical Assistance Date System.''
Division of Oil and Hazardous Materials, Office of Water Pro-
grams, EPA.
28Personal communication, Ralph Wands, Director of Advisory
Center on Toxicology, national Academy of Science, 1973.
29Epstein, S. S. and M. S. Legator. "The Mutagenicity of Pesti-
cides: Concepts and Evaluations," The MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1971.
176
-------
teratogens is somewhat more scattered, but can be found in
Volumes 1 and 2 of the Water Quality Criteria Data Book. 3ฐ ' 31
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare also identifies
genetic effects potential in their Toxic Substances publication.10
3""Water Quality Criteria Data Book, Volume 1," Arthur D. Little,
Inc., December 1970.
31"Water Quality Criteria Data Book, Volume 2," Arthur D. Little,
Inc., July 1971.
177
-------
REFERENCES
1. Kneip, T. J. and G. J. Lauer. Progress in Analytical
Chemistry/ Galen Ewing, Inc., Plenum Press, New York, 1973.
2. Polikarpov, G. G. Radio-ecology of Aquatic Organisms,
"Reinhold Book Division, New York, 1966,
3. Personal communication, Analytical Quality Control Lab-
oratory, National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati,
Ohio, February 1971.
4. National Fire Protection Association. Fire Protection Guide
on Hazardous Materials, Boston, Massachusetts, 1972.
5. National Academy of Sciences. "Evaluation of the Hazard of
Bulk Water Transportation of Industrial Chemicals, A
Tentative Guide," Report to U. S. Coast Guard, Washington,
D. C., 1970.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Op. Cit. 4.
National Electrical
tection Association,
Op. Cit. 5.
Ibid.
Toxic Substances, U.
Code NFPA No.
Boston, 1972.
S. Department of
70, National Fire Pro-
Health, Education and
Welfare, Rockville, Maryland, 1971.
11. "Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants," American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1970.
12. Smyth, H. F., C. P. Carpenter and C. S. Weil. "Range-Finding
Toxicity Data: List IV," AMA Archives of Industrial Hygiene
and Occupational Medicine, 4:119-122, 1951.
13. Smyth, H. F. , C. P. Carpenter, C. S. Weil, U. C. Pozzani,
J. A. Striegel and J. S. Nycum. "Range-Finding Toxicity
Data: List IV," American Industrial Hygiene Association
Journal, 30:470-476, 1969.
14. Smyth, H. F., C. P. Carpenter, C. S. Weil, U. C. Pozzani,
and J. A. Striegel. "Range-Finding Toxicity Data: List
VI," American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal,
23:95-107, 1972.
179
-------
15. Smyth, H. F., C. P. Carpenter, C. S. Weil and U. C. Pozzani.
"Range-Finding Toxicity Data: List V," AMA Archives of
Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Medicine, 10 :61-68 ,
1954.
16. Smyth, H. F., C. P. Carpenter and C. S. Weil. "Range-
Finding Toxicity Data: List III," Journal of Industrial
Hygiene and Toxicology, 31:60-62, 1949.
17. Smyth, H. F., J. Seaton and L. Fischer. "The Single Dose
Toxicity of Some Glycols and Derivatives," Journal of
Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 23 (6):259-268, 1941.
18. Smyth, H. F. and C. P. Carpenter. "Further Experience with
the Range-Finding Test in the Industrial Toxicology Labor-
atory," Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology,
30:63-68, 1948.
19. Smyth, H. F. and C. P. Carpenter. "The Place of the Range-
Finding Test in the Industrial Toxicology Laboratory,"
Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 26:269-273,
1944.
20. Op. Cit. 5.
21. "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-
water," 13th Edition, American Public Health Association,
Washington, D. C., 1971.
22. McKee, J. E. and H. W. Wolf. "Water Quality Criteria,"
California State Water Quality Control Board, Second Edition,
April 1971.
23. Battelle Memorial Institute. "Water Quality Criterion Book,
Volume III," Environmental Protection Agency, 18050 GWV, May
1971.
24. Op. Cit. 3.
25. Op. Cit. 22.
26. Op. Cit. 23.
27. "Oil and Hazardous Materials Technical Assistance Data
System," Division of Oil and Hazardous Materials, Office
of Water Programs, EPA.
28. Personal communication, Ralph Wands, Director of Advisory
Center on Toxicology, National Academy of Science, 1973.
180
-------
29. Epstein, S. S. And M. S. Legator. "The Mutagenicity of Pesti-
cides: Concepts and Evaluations," The MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1971.
30. "Water Quality Criteria Data Book, Volume 1," Arhtur D. Little,
Inc., December 1970.
31. "Water Quality Criteria Data Book, Volume 2," Arthur D. Little,
Inc., July 1971.
181
-------
APPENDIX C
POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
PRODUCING HAZARDOUS WASTES
183
-------
TABLE C-l
POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
PRODUCING HAZARDOUS WASTES
sic
01
08
10
Industry
Waste Stream
Hazardous
Constituents
Agriculture
Forestry
Mining
1021
1031
1092
1099
20
22
Copper Ores
Lead 4 Zinc Ores
Mercury Ores
Cadmium Ores
Food and Kindred
Products
Textile Mill
Products
2491
2499
26
2611
28
2812
2813
Textile*
Mood Preserving
Misc. Wood Products
Paper and Allied
Products
Pulp C Paper
Chemicals and Allied
Products
Alkalies and Chlorine
Products
Industrial Gas
Pesticide and Herbicide
Contaminated Containers
Pesticide and Herbicide
Containers
From Laboratories or
Plants using Lead
Waste Scavenging
Catalyst
Old or Contaminated
Thallium, Thallium
Sulfate or Rodenticide
Refinery Flues
Ore Wasting, Acid Wash
Extraction Wastes
Cadmium Ore Extraction
Waste Scavenging Catalyst
Waste Scavenging Catalyst
Refinery Waters and Brine
Waste From Chlorinated
Solvent Reclaiming
Operations
Chromate Wastes From
Textile Dying
Certain Textile Clean-
ing Wastes
Sludges and Effluents
Spent Wood Preserving
Liquid
Spent Wood Preserving
Liquid
Various Pesticides and
Herbicides
Various Pesticides and
Herbicides
Lead Carbonate, Lead
Acetate, Lead Nitrate
Copper Chlorides, Organics
(diphenyl ether)
Thallium and Thallium
Sulfate
Arsenic Oxides, Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Cadmium Amino Salts,
Ammonium Salts
Copper Chlorides, Organics
(diphenyl ether)
Copper Chlorides, Organics
(diphenyl ether)
Lead, Hydrochloric Acid
Sludge Containing Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon
Chromates
Mercury
Mercury, Aliphatic t Aromatic
Mercury Compounds, Creosote,
Chlorinated Phenollcs
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Refinery Waters and Brine Lead, Hydrochloric Acid
From Manufacture of Lead
Carbonate Paper
Waste Scavenging Catalyst
Dimethyl Sulfate Pro-
duction Still Bottoms
Waste Scavenging Catalyst
Refinery Waters and Brines
Waste From Chlorinated
Solvent Reclaiming
Operations
Chlorine Production Brine
Sludges
Waste Gases
Lead Carbonate, Lead Acetate,
Lead Nitrate
Copper Chlorides, Organics
(diphenyl ether)
Dimethyl Sulfate
Copper Chlorides, Organics
(diphenyl ether)
Lead Hydrochloric Acid
Sludge Containing Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
Mercury Salts, Aliphatic t
Aromatic Mercury Compounds,
Asbestos, Lead, Chlorinated HC,
Sulfuric Acid
Di, Penta, Decaborane, Nickel
Carbonyl, Chlorine Trifluoride,
Chlorine Penta-fluoride,
Arsine
185
-------
TABLE C-l (Cont'd.)
sic
2813
2815
2815
2816
2818
2818
Industry
industrial Gas
Industrial Organic
Chemical
Intermediate Organic
Industrial Chemicals
Inorganic Pigments
Industrial Organic
Chemicals
Organic Chemicals
Waste Stream
2819
2819
2819
Inorganic Chemicals
Industrial Inorganic
Chemicals
Industrial Inorganic
Chemicals NEC
2819
Industrial Inorganic
Chemicals
Acetylene via Carbide
Process
Fluorine Production Hastes
Acetaldehyde via Ethylene
Oxidation
Ethylene via Thermal
Pyrolyses
Chromates Wastes from
Pigments and Dyes
Methanol Production
Wastes
Off-spec Phenol
Dinitrophenol Pro-
duction Wastes
Organic Processes Using
Benzene - Cumene
Cumene Oxidation and Phenol
Production Wastes
Contaminated Tetranitro-
me thane
Diphenylamine Wastes
Liquid (off-spec) Toluene
Diisocyanate
Off Grade Maleic Anhydride
Organic Liquid Contaminated
Nitrobenzene
Still Bottoms from Maleic
Anhydride Manufacturing
Wastes from Manufacturing
of Nitrochlorobenzene
Waste Stream from Acrolein
Manufacturing
Formaldehyde Production
Wastes
N Butane Dehydrogenation
Cyanide Production Wastes
Contaminated Antimony
Compounds
Hydrogen Bromide Wastes
Manufacturing Wastes from
Ammonium Silicofluoride
Manufacturing of Lead
Nitrate, Acetate, and
Carbonate
Manufacturing of Sodium
Azide
Production Wastes Phosphor-
ous
Hazardous
Constituents
Calcium Hydroxide
Hydrogen Fluoride, Fluorine
Acetaldehyde Still Bottoms,
Organic Chlorides, Methyl
Mercury Chloride
Phenols, Organic Chlorides
Chromates (Cr ), Chromic
Hydroxide Sludge, Diphenyl-
amine, Dinitrotoluene, Nitro-
benzene, Nitroaniline,Phosgene
Organic Chlorides, Chromic
Sulfate, Zinc Chloride
Phenol
Dinitrophenol
Phenols, Benzene or Cumene
Dichlorobenzene, Nichloro-
benzene Tar
Tetranitromethane
Diphenylamine
Toluene Diisocyanate,
Toluene
Maleic Anhydride
Nitrobenzene, Aniline,
Chlorobenzene, Substituted
Aryl Amine
Maleic Acid, Tars, Maleic
Anhydride
Meta-nitrochlorobenzene,
Para-nitrochlorobenzene
Acrolein
Chromic Sulfate, Chloroform
Chromic Sulfate, Sodium
Sulfide
Sodium Cyanate, Sodium Cyanide,
Hydrogen Cyanide, Mercuric
Cyanide
Antimony pentafluoride
Hydrogen Bromide
Fluoracetic Acid, Ammonium
Silicofluoride
Lead Carbonate, Lead Acetate,
Lead Nitrate
Sodium Azide
White or Yellow Phosphorous,
Sodium Fluoride
186
-------
TABLE 01 (Cont'd.)
SIC Industry
2819 Industrial Inorganic
Chemicals
2819 Inorganic Chemicals
2819 Industrial Inorganic
Chemicals
2821 Plastics Materials
Synthetic Resins and
Non-vulcanizable
Elastomers '
2821 Polymers
2821 Vinyl Resins
2821 Plastics Resins
Elastomers
2821 Synthetic Polymers
2822 Synthetic Rubber
2822 Rubber Products
2822 Synthetic Rubber
2823 Cellulosic Synthetic
Fibers
2824 Synthetic Fibers
2824 Synthetic Organic
Fibers
Haste Stream
Hazardous
Constituents
Wastes from Fluoride Salt
Production
Sodium Dichromate or
Potassium Chromate Prod-
uction Wastes
Wastes or Contaminated
Perchloric Acid
Barium Compounds
Contaminated Fluorine
Arsenic Wastes from
Purification of
Phosphoric
Residues from Manufactur-
ing of Ethylene Dichloride,
Vinyl Chloride
Cadmium Selenium, Pig-
ment Wastes
Cellulose Ester Manufac-
turer
Vinyl Resins Manufactur-
ing Wastes
Urethane Manufacturing
Wastes
Liquid (off-spec) Toluene
Diisocyanate
Aqueous or Organic Liquid
or Slurry Adiponitrile
Urethane Manufacturer
Wastes
Aqueous or Organic Liquid
or Slurry Adiponitrile
Nitrobenzene from Rubber
Industry Wastes
Cadmium Selenium Pigment
Wastes
Contaminated Antimony
Compounds
Rubber Manufacturing
Wastes Retained Sludge
Rayon Fibers
Residues from Manufactur-
ing of Ethylene Dichloride,
Vinyl Chloride
Aqueous or Liquid Slurry
Adiponitrile
Ammonium Fluoride, Ammonium
Bifluoride, Potassium
Bifluoride, Sodium Fluoride,
Sodium Fluoride, Sodium Bi-
fluoride, Hydrofluoric Acid
Potassium Chromate, Potassium
Dichromate, Sodium Dichromate
Perchloric Acid
Barium Salts
Silicon & Carbon Tetra-
fluoride. Hydrogen Fluoride,
Fluorine
Arsenic Sulfide, Hydrofluoric
Acid
Various Amounts of Solvent,
Chlorinated and Non-chlorinated
Materials, Allyl Chloride,
Methyl Mercuric Chloride
Cadmium - Selenates, Selenium
Sulfuric Acid, Mercury Chloride,
Methyl Methacrylate
Phenols, Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Mercury, Aliphatic Mercury
Compound, Aromatic Mercury
Compounds
Toluene Diisocyanate,
Toluene
Adiponitrile Polymer Solids,
Hydrogen Cyanide, Phosgene
Mercury, Aliphatic Mercury
Compounds, Aromatic Mercury
Compounds
Adiponitrile Polymer Solids,
Water or Organic Solvent,
Hydrogen Cyanide, Phosgene
Nitrobenzene
Cadmium, Selenates, Selenium
Antimony Trifluoride, Antimony
Pentafluoride
Polychlorinated Biphenyls,
Selenium Diethyldithiocarbamate
Zinc Chloride, Cuprammonium
Rayon, 2-blue Waters Copper,
Sulfuric Acid
Various Amounts of Solvent,
Chlorinated and Non-chlorinated
Materials, Allyl Chloride,
Methyl Mercuric Chloride
Adiponitrile Hydrogen Cyanide,
Phosgene
187
-------
TABLE C-l (Cont'd.)
sic
283
Industry
Pharmaceuticals
Waste Stream
Hazardous
Constituents
2841
285
287
2892
Soap and Detergent
Manufacturing
Paints, Varnishes,
Laquers, Enamels,
and Allied Products
Agricultural Chem-
icals
Explosives
2865
Industrial Organic
Chemicals
Organic Pharmaceuticals
Wastes
Pharmaceuticals Arsenic
Wastes
Miscellaneous Pharmaceu-
tical Wastes
Soap and Detergent
Manufacturing Wastes
Solvent Based Paint
Sludge
Cadmium, Selenium,
Pigment Wastes
Water Based Paint
Sludge
Intermediate Agricultural
Production Wastes
Red Water Wastes, High
Explosive Contaminated
Solid Wastes and Waste
Explosives
Nitrocellulose Base
Propellant Contaminated
Solid Waste and Waste
Propellant, Smokeless
Powder
Contaminated Tetranitro
Methane
Primary Explosives Wastes
and Waste Explosives
Waste Nitroglycerin
and Manufacturing
Wastes
Waste Pyrotechanics and
Incindiary and Manufact-
uring Wastes
Manufacture of Matches
and Pyrotechniques
Dye Manufacturing
Wastes
Chromates, Wastes from
Pigments and Dyes
Acetonitrite, Benzyl Chloride,
Dichlorobenzene, Chlorobenzene,
Toluene, Methanol, Methylene
Dichloride, Pyridine, Tetra-
chloroethane, Trichloroethylene,
Benzo-Tri-Fluoride, Chloro
Sulfonic Acid
Inorganic Arsenates, Organic
Arsenates, Arsenylic Acid,
Sodium Chloride
Diphenylamine, Phosgene,
Mercury, Alphatic Mercury
Compounds, Aromatic Mercury
Compounds
Nickel Sulfate, Zinc Sulfate,
Hydrochloric Acid, Sulfuric
Acid
Lead, Chromium, Cadmium
Selenium, Cyanides
Cadmium Selenates, Selenium
Chromium, Mercury
Nitric Acid, Sodium Chromate,
Zinc Chloride, Hydrazine
TNT, HMX, TDX, PETN, TETRYL,
RDX, Dinitrotoluene
Lead and Mononltroresorcinate,
Nitrocellulose Alcohols,
Nitrocellulose Acetates,
Sulfuric Acids, Nitric Acid
Tetranitromethane
(DDNPY) Diazodinitrophenol,
(DPEHN) Dipentacrythritol-
Hexanitrate, Lead Azide
(dextrinated), Lead Styphnate
(2,4,6, trinitro resorcinate)
Mannitol Hexanitrate Mercury
Fulminate, Potassium Dinitro
Benzfuroxin (KDN BF), Silver
Azide, Tetrazine Sodium Azide
Sulfuric Acid, Nitric Acid,
Nitroglycerin
Phosphorous, Tungsten, Barium,
Chromate, Lead Chromate,
Potassium Perchlorate
Lead Carbonate, Lead Acetate,
Lead Nitrate, Barium Carbonate,
Barium Nitrate
Copper, Chromium, Phenols
Hydrogen Cyanide, Aniline,
Disulfonic Acid
Chromates (Cr ), Chromic
Hydroxide Sludge, Diphenylamine,
Dinitrotoluene, Nitrobenzene,
Nitroaniline, Phosgene
188
-------
TABLE C-l (Cont'd.)
sic
2865
2865
2869
2869
2879
Industry
Haste Stream
Hazardous
Constituents
Enamels, Inks
Wood Preserving and
Industrial Organic
Chemicals
Industrial Inorganic
Chemicals
Industrial Organic
Chemicals
Pesticides and Herbi-
cides Manufacturing
Cadmium - Selenium Pig-
ment Wastes
Spent Wood Preserving
Liquids
Contaminated Antimony
Compounds
Wastes from Manufacturing
of Tetraethyl and Tetra-
methyl Lead
Contaminated PCB
From the Manufacture
of Chloropicrin
Arsenic Pest and Herbicide
Wastes
Polychorinated Hydrocarbon
Pesticide Wastes DOD
Phenyl Urea Herbicides
Organophosphorous Pesti-
cide Manufacturing DOD
and Commercial
Phenoxyherbicide Hastes
Carbonate Pesticide
Manufacturing Hastes
Agricultural Pesticide
Arsenic Wastes
Benzoic Herbicide Pro-
duction Wastes
Chlorinated Aliphatic
Herbicide Production
Wastes
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Pesticide Production
Wastes
Miscellaneous Organic
Pesticide Manufacturing
Wastes
Mercuric Insecticide and
Fungicide Manufacturing
Wastes
Cadmium, Selenates, Selenium
Pentachlorophenol
Antimony Trifluoride,
Pentafluoride
Antimony
Tetraethyl Lead, Tetramethyl
Lead
Polychlorinated Biphenols
Chloropicrin
Calcium Arsenate. Copper Arsenate,
Lead Arsenate, Sodium Arsenate,
Zinc Arsenate, Manganese
Arsenate, Arsenic Salt Mixture,
Copper Acetoarsenite, Sodium
and Potassium Arsenite, Zinc
Arsenite, Lead Arsenite
Aldrin, Chlordane, Dieldrin,
Endrin, Heptachlor, Methoxyehlor,
Lindane, ODD, DDT, Solvent
(Benzene Xylene, Toluene),
Phosgene
Diuron, Monuron, Linuron,
Siduron, Chlorouron
Methyl Parathion, Parathion,
Demthon, Guthion, Mercaptans
and Hydrogen Sulfide, Xylene,
Phosphothioates. Malathion.
Abate, Tetraethvl Pyrophosohate,
Phosphorous Pentasulfide,
Phosgene
2,4-D, 2,6-D, Mono and Trichloro
Phenoxy Acetic Acids, Solvents,
2,4,5-T
Manganese Thiocarbonate, Zinc,
Bux Ten, Carbaryl, Carbofuran
Arsenic Trioxide, Arsenic Acid
Pichloram, Silvex, 2,3,6-TBA,
Propanil
Dalapon, Randox, Trichloracetic,
Acid (TCA), Trichlorobenzyl
Chloride, Aromatic Solvents
Aldrin, Chlorodane, Dieldrin,
Endrin, Heptachlor, Lindane,
ODD, DDT
4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol, 1,2-
Dibromo-3-Chloro-Propane
(DBCP), Nicotin, Pyrethrins,
Rotanone, Warfarin
Mercury, Aliphatic Mercury
Compounds, Aromatic Mercury
Compounds
189
-------
TABLE C-l (Cont'd.)
sic
2879
Industry
Waste Stream
Hazardous
Constituents
Pesticides and Herbi-
cide Manufacturing
2899
29
29
291
2911
2911
2911
2992
2999
3011
3021
Miscellaneous
Chemical Products
Petrochemicals
Petroleum Refining
and Allied Products
Petroleum Retining
Petroleum Refining
Petroleum Refining
Jet Fuels
Petroleum Refining
Lubricating Oils
and Greases
Petroleum Products
NEC
Tires
Footwear
Halogenated Aliphatic
Hydrocarbon Fumigants
Manufacturing
Old or Contaminated
Thallium Compounds or
Rodenticide
Manufacturing of
Cacodylates
Contaminated Antimony
Compounds
Miscelleanous Pesticide
Manufacturing
Pesticide and Herbicide
Contaminated Containers
Manufacturing of Elec-
trical Match Head Type
Fuses
Contaminated PCB's
Petrochemical Wastes
Petrochemical Wastes
Liquid Off-spec Isoprene
Copper and Lead Bearing
Waste
Petroleum Refining Alde-
hyde Wastes
Refining Spent Caustics
Petroleum Refining Sour
Wastes
Miscellaneous Petroleum
Refining Wastes
Wastes from Gasoline
Blending
Jet and Rocket Fuel
Storage and Wastes
Still Bottoms (stored)
Waste Brine Sludges
Reclaimers Residues
Off-spec Phenol
Rubber Manufacturing -
Retained Sludge
Rubber Manufacturing
Wastes retained Sludge
Ethylene Bromide, Methyl
Bromide, Methyl Chloride
Thallium and Thallium Sulfate
Cacodylates, Cacodylates
Dimethylarsenic Acid, Cacodylic
Acid and Sodium Salt
Antimony Pentafluoride, Antimony
Trifluoride
Isothalonite and Related
Nit riles. Organic Solvents,
Pyiethin, Sodium Fluoracetate
Various Pesticides and Herbi-
cides
Cuprous Acetylide
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Ethyl Benzene, Ethylene
Dichloride, Tar, Thallium,
Toluene, Chloric Acid, Nitric
Acid, Ethylene Oxide, Vinyl
Acetate, Formic Acid
Diphenylamine Tars, Toluene
Isoprene
Lead Cyanides, Lead Nitrates,
Copper Nitrate, Copper Cyanide
Acetaldehyde, Butyl Aldehyde,
Formaldehyde, Furfural
Dinitro-o-Cresols Mercaptins,
Phenol, Lead, Sodium Hydroxide
Hydrogen Sulfide, Mercury
Mercaptans, Phenol, Ethyl
Mercaptans, Cyanides
Benzene, Butadiene, Carbon
Tetrachloride, Ethanol,
Methanol, Allyl Alcohol,
Butanol
Tetraethyl Lead, Tetramethyl
Lead, Gasoline
Hydrazine
Arsenic Trichloride
Lead Salts, Mercury Salts
Lead Oxide, Tetraethyl Lead,
Cadmium, Tin, Antimony, Arsenic,
Chromium
Phenol
Polychlorinated Diphenyls,
Se'lenium Dlethyldithiocarbamate,
Ni trobenzene
Polychlorinated Biphenyls,
S'lenium Diethyldithio-
Carbamate, Nitrobenzene
190
-------
TABLE C-l (Cont'd.)
SIC
3031
3041
3069
31
321
322
323
3231
33
-
33
33
331
331
-
331
3312
-
3312
3315
3317
333
Industry
Reclaimed Rubber
Hose and Belting
Miscellaneous Rubber
Products
Leather and Leather
Products
Flat Glass Manufact-
uring
Glass Containers
Purchased Glass
Glass Products
Primary Metals
-
Primary Metals
Industry
Primary Metal
Primary Metals
Blast Furnaces
Steel Works,
Rolling and Finish-
ing Mills
-
Primary Metals
Coke Plant
-
Steel Works and
Rolling Mills
Steel Wire and
Related Products
Tube Manufacturing
Refining, Non-ferrous
Waste Stream
Rubber Manufacturing
Wastes - Retained
Sludge
Rubber Manufacturing
Wastes - Retained
Sludge
Rubber Manufacturing
Wastes - Retained
Sludge
Chrome Tan Liquor
Glass Etching
Wastes
Etching Wastes
Etching Wastes
Mirror Production
Wastes
Refinery Waters and
Brines
From Laboratories
and Plants Using
Lead
Waste Scavenging Catalyst
Waste from Chlorinated
Solvent Reclaiming
Operations
Metal Finishing Pickel
Liquor
Steel Plant Waste
Sludge
Iron Manufacturing
Waste Sludges
Cold Finishing Wastes
Coke Plant Raw Waste
Sludge
Stainless Steel Pickling
Liquor
Zinc Plating Wastes
Wire Drawing Wastes
Tube Manufacturing
Manganese Wastes
Old or Contaminated
Hazardous
Constituents
333
Metals
Non-ferrous Metals
Thallium Compounds
or Rodenticide
Brass Mill Wastes
Polychlorinated Biphenyls,
Selenium Diethyldithiocar--
bamate, Nitrobenzene
Polychlorinated Biphenyls,
Selnium Diethyldithiocar-
bamate, Nitrobenzene
Polychlorinated Biphenyls,
Selium Diethyldithiocar-
bamate, Nitrobenzene
Sodium Chromate
Hydrofluoric Acid, Hydrochloric
Acid
Hydrofluoric Acid, Hydrochloric
Acid
Hydrofluoric Acid, Hydrochloric
Acid
Chromic Sulfate
Lead, Hydrochloric Acid
Lead Carbonate, Lead Acetate,
Lead Nitrate
Copper Chlorides, Organics
(diphenyl ether)
Sludge Containing Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
Sulfuric Acid, Hydrochloric
Acid
Phenols Sodium Cyanide,
Sulfuric Acid, Chrome Sulfate,
Zinc Chloride, Hydrochloric
Acid
Phenol, Sodium Cyanide,
Ammonia
Sodium Cyanide, Sodium
Chromate, Zinc Chloride
Phenol, Sodium Cyanide, Tar
Acids, Ammonia, Thiocyanate,
Hydrogen Cyanide
Hydrofluoric Acid, Sulfuric
Acid, Chromium, Nickel,
Nitric Acid
Zinc Cyanide, Hydrogen Cyanide
Copper, Chromium
Potassium Permanganate,
Copper Sodium Hydroxide
Thallium and Thallium
Sulfate
Copper Sulfate, Zinc, Sodium
Dichromate, Sulfuric Acid,
Bright Dip Liquor
191
-------
TABLE C-l (Cont'd.)
sic
3331
331
332
3333
3339
3339
Industry
Waste Stream
Hazardous
Constituents
3399
3351
3351
3357
3362
3399
34
34
347
347
3411
Smelting and Refining
Nonferrous Metals,
Copper
Primary Copper
Smelting and
Refining Non-
Ferrous Metals, Lead
Smelting and Refining
Nonferrous Metals
Zinc
Primary Metals
Primary Metals NEC
Primary Metal Pro-
ducts NEC
Copper and Aluminum
Rolling
Copper Rolling and
Drawing
Nonferrous Wire
Drawing
Brass,Bronze and
Copper Foundaries
Primary Metal Pro-
ducts NEC
Fabricated Metals
Industry
Fabricated Metals
Products
Metal Finishing
Metal Finishers
Metal Cans
Smelting Wastes
Copper Tube Extruding
Waste
Smelting Wastes
Smelting Wastes
Selenium, Thallium
Production Wastes
Beryllium Production
Wastes
Nickel Ore Extraction
Nickel Alloy Manufac-
turing Sludges
Antimony and Antimony
Trioxide Wastes from
Smelting Industry
Wastes
Nickel Alloy Manufacturing
Wastes
Rolling Mill Wastes
Copper Tube Extruding
Wastes
Wire Drawing Wastes
Copper Tube Extruding
Wastes
Copper Tube Extruding
Waste
Tube Manufacturing
Manganese Wastes
From Laboratories and
Plants Using Lead
Waste Scavenging Catalyst
Finishing Effluents
Metal Cleaning Wastes
Plating Preparation
Zinc Plating Wastes
Arsenic Trioxide, Selenium,
Sulfuric Acid, Hydrochloric
Acid, Copper, Lead, Mercury
Antimony
Copper, Nickel, Hydrofluoric
Nitric Acid
Arsenic Trioxide, Selenium,
Sulfuric Acid, Hydrochloric
Acid, Copper, Lead, Mercury
Antimony
Arsenic Trioxide, Selenium,
Sulfuric Acid, Hydrochloric
Acid, Copper, Lead, Mercury
Antimony
Selenium, Thallium
Beryllium Powder, Beryllium
Carbonate, Beryllium Chloride,
Beryllium Hydroxide, Beryllium
Oxide, Beryllium Selenate
Nickel Sulfate, Sulfuric
Acid, Hydrofluoric Acid
Nickel Sulfate, Copper Sulfate,
Sodium Fluoride, Sodium
Hydroxide
Antimony, Antimony Trioxide,
Antimony Pentoxide
Nickel Sulfate, Copper Sulfate,
Sodium Fluoride, Sodium
Hydroxide
Copper, Chromium, Sulfuric
Acid, Bichromate
Copper, Nickel, Hydrofluoric
Acid, Nitric Acid
Copper, Chromium
Copper, Nickel, Hydrofluoric
Acid, Nitric Acid
Copper, Nickel, Hydrofluoric
Acid, Nitric Acid
Sodium Hydroxide, Potassium
Permanganate, Copper
Lead Carbonate, Lead Acetate,
Lead Nitrate
Organic Diphenyl Ether,
Copper Chlorides
Copper Cyanide, Nickel Cyanide,
Zinc Cyanide, Sodium Dichromate,
Chromic Hydroxide, Zinc
Ferrocyanide
Nitric, Hydrochloric, Sulfuric
Acidsi, Cyanide Chromium
Cadm;.um, Oxalic Acid
Chromium, Hydrofluoric Acid
Zinc Cyanide, Hydrogen Cyanide
192
-------
TABLE C-l (Cont'd.)
Industry
Waste Stream
Hazardous
Constituents
3471
Bolts, Nuts, Screws,
etc.
Plating
3479
3479
36
3612
3632
3662
3671
3672
3673
3674
3679
Coating Engraving
and Allied Services
Metal Coating
Electrical and Elec-
tronic
Transformers
Refrigerators and
Freezers
Radio-TV Trans-
mitting Signal
Detection Equip-
ment and Apparatus
Electron Tubes Re-
ceiving Type
Cathode Ray Tele-
vision Picture Tubes
Electron Tubes
Transmitting
Semiconductors
Electronic Components
NEC
Zinc Plating Wastes
Alumium Anodizing Bath
with t'rag Out
Brass Plating Wastes
Cadmium Plating Wastes
Chrome Plating Wastes
Cyanide Copper Plating
Wastes
Silver Plating Wastes
Acid Copper Plating
Wastes
Nickel Plating Wastes
Pyrophosphate Copper
Plating Wastes
Tin Plating Wastes
Phosphate Sludges from
Metal Coating Open
Aluminum Anodizing Bath
with Drag Out
Zinc Plating Wastes
Metal Finishing Pickel
Liquor
Phosphate Sludges from
Metal Coating Operations
Electronic Circuitry
Manufacturing Wastes
Contaminated PCS'a
Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing Hastes
Electronic Tube Production
Wastes
Electronic Tube Production
Wastes
Electronic Tube Production
Wastes
Electronic Tube Production
Wastes
Semiconductor Manufacturing
Wastes
Magnetic Tape Production
Hastes
Zinc Cyanide, Hydrogen
Cyanide
Chromium, Sulfuric Acid
Copper Cyanide, Zinc Cyanide,
Hydrogen Cyanide, Zinc
Phosphate, Zinc Chromate
Cadmium, Cadmium Cyanide,
Hydrogen Cyanide
Chromates (Cr ), Chromat-.es
(Cr+3), Sulfate, Chromic Hydroxide
Sludge
Copper Cyanide/ Hydrogen
Cyanide
Silver Cyanide, Hydrogen
Cyanide
Copper Sulfate, Sulfuric
Acid
Nickel Chloride, Nickel
Sulfate
Copper Pyrophosphate
Hydrogen Fluoride, Stannic
Chloride, Stannous Chloride
Lead, Manganese, Nickel
Chromoum, Sulfuric Acid
Zinc Cyanide, Hydrogen
Cyanide
Sulfuric Acid, Hydrochloric
Acid
Nickel, lead, Manganese
Potassium Ferrocyanide, Lead
Chromium, Hydrocyanic Acid,
Sulfuric Acid, Carbon Tetra-
chloride Chloroform
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Chromates, Heavy Metals,
Acids
Mercury, Barium Compounds,
Hydrogen Fluoride
Mercury, Barium Compounds,
Hydrogen Fluoride
Mercury, Barium Compounds,
Hydrogen Fluoride
Mercury, Barium Compounds,
Hydrogen Fluoride
Boric Acid
Ammonium Dichromate, Chromic
Oxide, Ethylene Dichloride
193
-------
TABLE C-l (Cont'd.)
SIC Industry
3691 Storage Batteries
3692 Primary Batteries
3555 Printing Machinery
3555 Printing Trades
Machinery
3573 Electronic Computing
Equipment
3579 Office Machines
3585 Refrigeration Machin-
ery
3721 Aircrafts and Parts
3724 Aricraft Engines
and Engine Parts
3728 Aircraft Equipment
NEC
4 Transportation
491 Utilities
Waste Stream
Battery Manufacturing
Sludges
Mercury all Wastes
Battery Manufacturing
Sludges
Graphic Arts Photography
Leather
Rotogravure Printing Plate
Hastes
Duplicating and Photo
Equipment Manufacturing
Wastes
Computer Manufacturing
Wastes
Duplicating and Photo
Equipment Manufacturing
Hastes
Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing Wastes
Aircraft Plating Wastes
Aircraft Plating Wastes
Aircraft Plating Wastes
Pesticide and Herbicide
Contaminated Containers
Railroad Engine Cleaning
Arsenic Wastes from
Transporation Company
Utilities and Electric
Station Hastes
Electronic Services and
Combined Utilities Steam
Supplies
Hazardous
Constituents
Cadmium Carbonate Hydroxide,
Lead Sulfate, Arsenic, Antimony
Mercury
Cadmium Carbonate Hydroxide,
Lead Sulfate, Arsenic, Antimony
Ammonium Chromate
Chromium
Selenium, Arsenic, Arsenic
Triselenide
Sodium Cyanide, Sodium Ferri-
cyariide, Sodium Ferrocyanide,
Hydrofluoric Acid, Cadmium
Chromate, Thallium
Selenium, Arsenic, Arsenic Tri-
selenide
Chromates, Heavy Metals, Acids
Cadmium Cyanide, Sodium
Cyanide, Sodium Hydroxide
Cadmium Cyanide, Sodium
Cyanide, Sodium Hydroxide
Cadmium Cyanide, Sodium
Cyanide, Sodium Hydroxide
Various Pesticides and Herbi-
cides
Sodium Chromate, Diesel Fuel,
Alkaline Cleaner
Arsenic Oxide Powder
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCB)
Arsenic Trichloride Scavenged
from Coal Power Plants
194
------- |