-------
10. REGION X
Region X is projected to show an off-site capacity
shortfall for 1981. This deficit is not expected to be
large and planned new capacity for 1981 is small (estimated
at 2 thousand WMT). Several factors may cause the shortfall
to pose a problem for the region. The distances between
most Region X generators and off-site management facilities
in the neighboring regions are great. Therefore, it is
difficult for any significant volumes of wastes to be shipped
these distances. While a small volume of wastes is now
shipped to facilities outside of Region X, it will be
economically difficult for generators to pay the transporta-
tion costs of shipping significant amounts out of the area.
For 1981, the estimated volume of wastes requiring
off-site management will be 503 thousand WMT. This rep-
resents approximately 50 percent of the total 1024 thousand
WMT of hazardous waste produced annually in Region X. One
industry, nonferrous metals, is responsible for over 304
thousand WMT of wastes, or 60 percent of the total. Two
other large generators are transportation equipment (50
thousand WMT) and nonmanufacturing industries (42 thousand
WMT). These three industries account for almost 80 percent
of the projected off-site waste management demand.
Treatment facilities are highly concentrated in the
Seattle area of Washington and in northwestern Oregon.
Idaho has one facility. (See Exhibit IX-12). Existing
off-site capacity in the Region is projected to be 318
thousand WMT for 1981.
This chapter presented a regional assessment of supply
of and demand for hazardous waste management capacity in 1981
This has been a snap-shot of the dynamic process of supply
and demand interactions. Only Region V appears to have a
significant capacity shortfall for 1981, however 1981
planned additions to capacity in the region may be adequate
to offset the potential shortfall. Obviously, one must also
look beyond 1981 to consider the demand for and availability
of hazardous waste capacity. Factors that will have an
influence on future shortfalls or surpluses are discussed
in the following chapter.
IX-27
-------
4J
G
0)
C
(0
s
X C
(C
ro C
r-4 O C
1 -H O
Ss
a2
-
-j CB S
5 2 S 5
III; i
'2 - « 5 =«
E ^ H
I 1 1 2 1 5
2 2 u -
I11S1Q
£
I
D
USVM
6*
H
OS 03
!-l
0)
CQ 0
63
0)
4J
en
3 (0
CQ 3
ea
as
01
3
O «as
^
u J
Si
03 3 :
N S
E §
5 £
= i£
s la
i Ii
- s S
t» S S
s -2
* a S3
3 2 3 * ™
BE S * 2 *
ssss:
S 5 i*< u —
Ifiill
liilil
3-siai
IX-28
-------
X. IMPORTANT FACTORS FOR ASSESSING OFF-SITE
CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS BEYOND 1981
There is considerable uncertainty over the demand for
and availability of off-site capacity for managing hazardous
wastes beyond 1981.
Further extrapolation of the data in this study beyond
1981 is of little value, considering the uncertainty of the
effects of the major variables that will influence the
demand for and supply of off-site capacity. This chapter
discusses a number of these variables that may affect supply
of and demand for off-site capacity. This discussion also
shows the complexity of analyzing these variables, which
include conflicting regulatory, economic, and social forces.
1. GOVERNMENTAL REGULATORY ACTIVITIES AND INDUSTRY'S
ACTIONS TO ADJUST TO THE RCRA PROGRAM WILL DETERMINE
THE DEMAND FOR OFF-SITE CAPACITY
Although predicting the post-1981 demand for off-site
capacity is difficult, two major forces will dominate the
situation: First, governmental actions to control the
harmful releases of hazardous substances and second, the
responses of waste generators to effectively manage their
costs and to deal with the various risks a post-RCRA C
environment imposes. It is unclear how industry's response
to the RCRA C program will affect future off-site demand
because the complexity of the adjustment process for
thousands of waste generators must be considered.
(1) Off-Site Capacity Demand Will Increase as the
Government's Coveraga of Materials Requiring
Proper Management as Hazardous Wastes Expands
By describing the characteristics of hazardous
wastes and listing specific hazardous waste streams,
the Phase I RCRA C regulations provide an initial
definition of which wastes are hazardous. Several
states have similar schemes for defining hazardous
wastes. The Federal RCRA C program will continue to
expand its list and identify wastes it believes are
hazardous. State-operated programs will have the
X-l
-------
same opportunity if they wish to control substances
beyond those specified under RCRA. The increasing scope
of the definition of a hazardous waste will increase
the quantities of wastes requiring off-site disposal.
Furthermore, government air and water pollution control
.programs will lead industrial facilities to reduce the
dispersion of their pollutants in these media by in-
stalling equipment to collect and concentrate them in
waste streams that EPA or states may consider hazardous.
The Phase I regulations already list as hazardous many
sludges resulting from treating wastewater and dusts/
sludges produced by controlling air emissions.! Also,
the Toxic Substances Control Act empowers EPA to direct
the disposal of toxic substances produced during the
manufacture and use of chemicals. Already EPA has made
limited use of this authority with PCB regulations,
which require special disposal of this chemical as a
hazardous waste.
(2) Off-Site Capacity Demand May Also Increase Because
Congress May Soon Enact Legislation for Federal
Cleanup of Hazardous Wastes at Abandoned Sites
Besides managing waste generated in the future, EPA
believes that the hazardous waste management industry may
be needed to treat or dispose of waste from the Federal
cleanup of abandoned sites. Congress is now considering
several legislative proposals to create a "Superfund" to
finance this cleanup for at least the next 4 years.
Although the emphasis should be on on-site treatment
and containment, two types of sites will require off-site
actions: abandoned storage or treatment facilities
containing drums of waste that will need off-site
disposal, and land burial sites leaking wastes for
which the only acceptable environmental solution
will be to excavate the site and transport the material
to off-site facilities. Although EPA has not deter-
mined the extent to which these sites may increase
demand and cannot yet predict the timing of most of
the cleanup activity, it realizes their potential
significance.2
The May L9, 1980 RCRA regulations list 22 wastewater treatment
sludges and 3 air emission dusts/sludges in the 85 generic and
process waste stream listings.
Based on an interview with William Hanson of the Office of Water
and Waste Management, EPA.
X-2
-------
(3) Demand For Off-Site Capacity Will Increase Because
The Government Has Augmented Its Regulatory Efforts
To Halt Inadequate On-Site Waste Management Practices
In assessing future off-site demand, government
regulatory efforts to halt inadequate on-site management of
•hazardous waste must be considered. Currently these efforts
exist through Federal and state enforcement programs. In
the future, EPA will also handle this problem through the
RCRA C waste manaaement facility permitting process.
On-site treatment, storage, or disposal operations
that EPA or state regulatory officials find improper for
managing hazardous wastes may be subjected to enforcement
actions that may close down these facilities. . In many
instances, off-site disposal may be the only alternative
for these waste generators—for example, when no additional
land is available for building a secure landfill after
a poor facility is closed.
Through the permit process, EPA and state officials
will allow the continued use of adequate on-site facilities
and the use of those that could be upgraded to safely
manage the wastes they are designed to contain or destroy.
However/ for certain facilities, especially disposal sites,
retrofitting may not be technically or economically feasible,
e.g., the natural geology under a landfill is so poor that
the costs to engineer an adequate site would be exorbitant.
These facility operators face off-site disposal as their
only alternative. In addition, new industrial plants may
find that the permit process for siting a waste management
facility on site is too lengthy and may decide to dispose
off site to be able to begin operations sooner.
(4) The Industry Needs Time To Comprehend the Scope of
the RCRA Regulations and To Make Adjustments
The hazardous waste management program is a very
complex regulatory scheme that requires considerable time
to comprehend. The Phase I regulations are effective
in November, and a transition by industry towards better
practices of managing hazardous wastes is underway.
Despite the deadline, the transition depends more on how
well the industry realizes which wastes are in the RCRA
C system—particularly which of its wastes exhibit the
characteristics and are therefore hazardous although not
listed—and its acceptance of the program which will in
part be based on its expectation of and experience with an
X-3
-------
active enforcement program.1 The slower the transition
to better waste management practices, the later any
expected future demand for off-site capacity will occur.
(5) 'The Post-RCRA C Regulatory Environment Provides
Several Incentives for Waste Generators To Produce
Less Hazardous Waste
Three factors provide incentives to generators of
hazardous wastes to reduce the total volume produced or
to reduce the volume that requires off-site disposal:
The increased disposal costs associated with
proper management of hazardous wastes manage-
ment under RCRA C
The liability risks of inadequate handling of
the wastes
The danger of attracting bad publicity.
As pointed out in Part I of this report, when waste
disposal prices increase significantly, some industries
will likely make material substitutions to remove
hazardous constituents from their waste streams and render
them nonhazardous. They also will likely reduce the waste
volumes they produce by engineering better process designs,
recylcling more of their by-products, and segregating
hazardous and nonhazardous waste streams because of the
wide differential in their disposal costs.^ In addition,
before sending waste off-site for disposal, industrial
facilities will give increased consideration to the
economic advantages of neutralizing and dewatering some
of the hazardous wastes they produce to reduce the volumes
that need off-site disposal. Those who already dewater
some of the wastes will consider the RCRA-induced increases
Part I shows the importance of industry's understanding and use
of the RCRA C waste characteristics by indicating that at least
51 percent of the waste that contractors estimated to be hazardous
in 1980 are not placed on EPA's waste list, but have at least one
of the characteristics.
Booz, Allen estimates it currently costs $5-10/metric ton to dispose
of waste at a sanitary landfill, whereas disposal at a secure
landfill costs $20-400/metric ton. A chemical treatment facility
charges $15-500/metric ton and an incinerator charges S50-1000/
metric ton.
X-4
-------
in disposal costs and judge if more sophisticated de-
watering practices are economical.1 There is uncertainty,
however, over how quickly any significant waste reduction
will occur.
'The overall effect of industry's attempts to reduce
'waste volumes could be diminished to some degree as many
industries continue to grow and have additional generators
producing hazardous wastes. Part I of this report
indicates that the hazardous wastes generated each- year
would increase by 3.5 percent, if the current industrial •
growth rate continued and industries did not operate
differently in the future because of RCRA.
(6) The Influence of Shifts in On-Site/Off-5ite Disposal
Practices Will Be Critical to the Potential for
Off-Site Capacity Shortfalls
The first chapter of this volume relied on the critical
assumption that the historical ratio of on-site to off-site
disposal would remain the same during the initial period of
the RCRA C program. EPA has commonly accepted this rate
to be about 4 to 1, on site to off site.2 However,
this assumption may be invalid after 1981.
All other factors remaining the same, a small
change of this ratio could dramatically affect the
capacity situation. If in 1981, generators were to
send to off-site facilities 5-10 percent of the wastes
now expected to be managed on-site, the requirements
for off-site capacity would increase 17-34 percent.-3
The significance of such a change in the ratio must not
be viewed in isolation. If a significant number of
industrial waste generators were reducing their
Based on discussion with Dr. Douglas Shooter, Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
the primary RCRA C ISS Economic Impact Analysis contractor, who
indicated that many facilities currently employ simple rotary drum
dewatering devices to dewater sludges. Increases in waste disposal
costs could lead these plants to purchase more sophisticated devices
such as filter presses.
Chapter II estimates 23 percent of the hazardous waste produced in
1981 will be disposed off-site.
For 1981, we forecast 32,956 thousand metric tons managed on-site
and 9,738 thousand metric tons managed off-site.
X-5
-------
quantities of waste, a possible shift to a greater
percentage of waste going off-site could occur without
a great shift in the volume of waste going off-site.
Because of the present uncertainty regarding
generators' future decisions to manage waste on- or
.off site, it is difficult to judge the likelihood and
timing of a significant shift from on-site to off-site
disposal. A recent study by Booz, Allen and Hamilton, of
generators in the Delaware River Basin, indicates that
when generators decide how to manage their wastes,'such
factors as off-site management reliability, the flexibi-
lity of off-site services available, public image, and
the management of a plant or corporation's overall
liability have greater importance than relative on-site/
off-site disposal costs.1 If this were assumed to be
generally true for all industry in the near term, one
would need much more information than is currently
available to determine what will happen in the future.
The relatively low importance of economics in current
decisions for managing hazardous wastes in the Delaware
River Basin may be largely due to the insignificance
of waste disposal costs compared to total industry
production costs today.2 Where RCRA's existing and
forthcoming regulations alter this situation, economics
should become a much greater factor. In that instance,
RCRA-induced economies of scale that favor large-scale
operations over small 'facilities could influence rela-
tively smaller waste generators to shift from disposing
their wastes on-site to using larger off-site disposal
operations. This shift, however, may be mitigated by
price increases in areas where shortages of off-site
capacity develop. Importantly, EPA is concerned about
any shift to off-site disposal that results in rapid,
large price increases that could produce a hardship for
some plants and the possibility of their noncompliance
or closure.
Support document for the Hazardous Waste Management Capacity
Development in the Delaware River Basin and New Jersey; A Program
Strategy, Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc., April 1980.
In the preamble of the Phase I RCRA C regulations published May 19,
1980 in the Federal Register, EPA pointed out that for 17 industries
it studied, the annual cost of compliance for the Phase I standards
was less than 0.2 percent of the value of sales.
X-6
-------
2. THREE MAJOR FACTORS WILL DETERMINE OFF-SITE SUPPLY
Expected profits, government regulatory efforts, and
public involvement in the facility-siting process will affect
the availability of off-site capacity. Again, the variables
will have conflicting effects that make long-range predictions
difficult.'
(1) The Possibility of Large Profits in Operating
Hazardous Waste Facilities Successfully Should
Spur Investment in Additional Capacity
A number of strong incentives may influence exist-
ing facilities to expand their operations and to
construct new facilities. These include:
The presence of a large and growing Federal
and state regulatory program for managing
hazardous wastes
The economies of scale that commercial
facilities could achieve in managing
hazardous wastes
The current limited number of facilities and
uneven geographical distribution throughout
the country.
Some insight into the influence of expected profits
is provided through Part II's forecasts of increases
of capacity in 1981 and 1982. By the end of 1982,
incineration capacity is predicted to increase by
122 percent from 1980, and chemical treatment capacity
will increase by 50 percent. Landfills will experience
additions of about 8.8 million wet metric tons (WMT),
so that the net capacity (assuming the continued cur-
rent utilization rate or a 5-year lifetime for land-
fills, whichever is highest, on a regional basis) will
be at least 25.1 million WMT by the end of 1982.
(2) Government Regulatory Actions Could Reduce the
Number of Existing Facilities or Dampen the
Incentive To Develop New Types of Off-Site
Capacity
EPA and state standards for managing hazardous
waste facilities may drive up the cost of operating or
building new facilities, and strict enforcement of the
RCRA C regulations may lead to the closure of some
existing facilities.
X-7
-------
Although incinerator construction is already a sub-
stantial capital investment, there are large risks
associated with the additional investment in a permit
and operation of a site that could be subjected to
future liability claims.-'- Landfill operations face
.the same liability risks. Additional cost requirements
under RCRA Phase II regulations for these already risky
forms of investment could result in fewer facilities
being developed.
It is important to note that chemical treatment
is not as expensive a capital investment and does not
appear to bear the same degree of siting risk.2
Depending on how the technical standards relatively
affect various management options, the result may be
that government standards and the general operating
environment for the industry will shift investment to
less costly and less risky types of facilities, e.g.,
from landfills and incinerators to chemical treatment.
The capacity forecast section of this report indicates
that the industry is already moving in this direction.
Final judgments must await the technical standards
that are under development for the Phase II regulations.
Strict enforcement of RCRA may lead to the closure
of some of today's existing off-site capacity for
managing hazardous wastes. Currently, the Federal
government has an enforcement case against one of the
127 facilities mentioned in Part II of this report, and
the State of Massachusetts is taking legal action
against another. Also, the RCRA permitting process for
these facilities could result in capacity reductions
if state or Federal officials uncover reasons to prohibit
or restrict the uses of these facilities.
(3) Public Opposition During the Facility-Siting Process
Is the Major Obstacle to the Addition of Off-Site
Capacity
If current public opposition to new facilities
continues, the siting of these facilities will be hind-
ered. The waste management industry reports that this
In Part II, a 20,000 WMT capacity incinerator was stated to have
a capital investment cost of 510 million,
A 50,000 WMT capacity chemical treatment facility was stated to
have a capital investment cost of $2 million.
X-8
-------
opposition is its greatest problem in developing
additional capacity. The current RCRA C new facility
permitting process will actively involve the public.
The opposing public have often found many avenues to
delay or prohibit the operation of new facilities in
certain areas.
Several states have efforts underway to reduce
the public's concern about properly designed hazardous
waste facilities, to develop schemes that will help
the siting process, and to participate in developing
new sites.
The success of these efforts is important. The
1981, 1982, and 1985 capacity estimates made in Part II
are based on obtaining Federal and state permits. They
are based upon industry's own assessment of this situa-
tion and other factors. Because of public opposition,
increases in landfill capacity are expected to be
insignificant after 1981.
The factors that affect the future demand for and
availability of off-site capacity for disposing of hazardous
wastes are complex. When deciding how to regulate hazardous
wastes, EPA and the states will need to weigh these factors
carefully, to protect the public health while reducing the
possibility of shortages that would make the price of off-
site disposal prohibitively costly or induce noncompliance
with RCRA. EPA's awareness of all the factors discussed
above and its sound judgment in implementing the RCRA
hazardous waste program through a period of transition to
better national waste management practices will be very
important.
X-9
-------
REFERENCES
1. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Leather Tanning and Finishing Industry, SCS Engineers,
Inc., 11/76.
2. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practice,
Special Machinery Manufacturing Industries, WAPORA,
Inc., 3/77.
3. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Electroplating and Metal Finishing Industries — Job
Shops, Battelle Columbus Labs, 9/76.
4. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Storage and Primary Batteries Industries, Versar, Inc.,
1975.
5. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry, Calspan
Corp., 1977.
6. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Electronic Components Manufacturing Industry, WAPORA,
Inc., 1/77.
7. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Management
Practices, Petroleum Rerefining Industry, John W.
bwain, Jr., a/'/b .
8. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Petroleum Refining Industry, Jacobs Engineering
Co., 6/76.
9. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste.Practices,
Paint and Allied Products Industry, Contract Solvent
Reclaiming Operations, and Factory Application of
Coatings, WAPORA, Inc., 9/75.
10. Pharmaceutical Industry Hazardous Waste Generation,
Treatment, and Disposal, ADL, 1976.
11. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Rubber and Plastics Industry, Foster D. Snell, Inc.,
3/78.
R-l
-------
12. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices/
Inorganic Chemicals Industry, Versar, Inc., 3/75.
13. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and Explosives Industries,
TRW Systems Group, 4/75.
14. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Textiles Industry, Versar, Inc., 6/76.
15. Unpublished data in support of Economic Impact Analysis,
Pope Reid Associates, 3/80.
16. Unpublished data in support of Economic Impact Analysis,
ADL, 2/80.
17. Subtitle C, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976. Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
Appendices, MITRE Corp., 1/79".
18. Technical Environmental Impacts of Various Approaches
for Regulating Small Volume Hazardous Waste Generators,
Vols. I, II, TRW, 12/10/79.
19. 1977 Census of Manufactures, Selected Statistics for
Industry Groups and Industries: 1977 and 1972, Bureau
of the Census, MC77-5-KP).
20. Personal Communication with E.C. Jordan.
21. Census of Manufactures, 1972, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Vol. II Area Statistics,
8/76.
22. Draft Economic Impact Analysis Subtitle C, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976/ ADL, 1/79.
23. 1979 U.S. Industrial Outlook, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Industry and Trade Administration, 1/79.
24. U.S. Statistical Abstract, Bureau of the Census.
25. Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 98, 5/19/80.
26. A Study of the Economics and Environmental Viability
of a U.S. Flag Toxic Chemical Incinerator Ship,
Global Marine Development, Inc., 12/78.
27. Cost of Complying with Hazardous Waste Management
Regulations, Draft, Battelle Columbus Labs, 12/77
R-2
-------
28. Economic Impact Analysis of Hazardous Waste Management
Regulations on Selected Generating Industries, Energy
Resources Co., Inc., 6/79.
29. Potential for Capacity Creation in the Hazardous Waste
- Management Service Industry, Foster D. Snell, Inc., 8/76
30. Alternatives to the Management of Hazardous Wastes at
National Disposal Sites, ADi,, 5/73."
R-3
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
ESTIMATION OF INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS
WASTE GENERATION, 1980 AND 1981
This appendix presents more detailed tables of hazardous
waste generation estimates as well as the methodology used
to develop these tables. It is intended as a reference'
showing where and how the data included in Chapter III were
developed. The major portion of the appendix is a series
of "industry summaries" that describe the derivation of the
1980 hazardous waste estimate, the disposal practices, and
the regional distribution of total waste and those disposed
•off-site (or unknown as the case might be) for each industry
generating hazardous waste. This appendix is organized into
three parts:
A discussion of the methodology used to select
and adjust the waste generation quantities
A brief discussion of the limitations of the data
A guide explaining how the hazardous waste and dis-
posal volumes were derived, which includes summary
tables showing 1980 estimated hazardous waste gen-
eration by industry and by waste category (Exhibit
A-l); summary tables of 1980 and 1981 industrial
hazardous waste generation showing disposal practices
by industry and by EPA region (Exhibits A-2 and
A-3); and industry summaries of hazardous waste
generation (Exhibit A-4).
1. THE METHODOLOGY PROVIDES A COMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW OF
GENERATION AND REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE QUANTITY
OF INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE IN THE NATION
The methodology used during the course of the study
seeks to provide an in-depth analysis of particular industries
and develop the most reliable data base available concerning
hazardous waste generation in the United States. The follow-
ing approach was used to collect, analyze, and organize
existing information into estimates for the volume of hazard-
ous waste generated and the quantity of off-site disposal
demand.
(1) Specific Waste Stream Volumes Were Identified for
All Industries for Which Information Was Available
The sources of information used to quantify and
characterize the waste streams from the industries
A-l
-------
included in the study are shown in the bibliography.
The principal references used were the:
Draft Economic Impact Analysis (DEIA) Sub-
title C, Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) of 1976, Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
January 1979.
Unpublished data compiled in support of the
final Economic Impact Analysis of RCRA,
February and March, 1980. Referred to
throughout the remainder of the methodology
as the EIA backup.
Subtitle C, Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976, Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and Appendices, MITRE Corp., January
1979.
Technical Environmental Impacts of Various
Approaches for Regulating Small Volume
Hazardous Waste Generators, Vols. I & II,
TRW, December 10, 1979.
EPA-sponsored assessment reports of industrial
hazardous waste practices of 14 industries
by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
categories.
The detailed industry-by-industry and waste stream-
by-waste stream analysis developed for the economic im-
pact analyses of RCRA was used as the primary source
of information. In cases where portions of an industry
were not analyzed as part of the EIA, data from the Draft
RCRA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or the Small
Generator Study references were used to fill in the gaps.
(2) The Waste Streams Identified Were Assigned to
the EPA Waste List or Characteristic Category
as Appropriate
The waste list was based on a March 1980 listing
that contained the May 19, 1980 listings, the planned
Summer of 1980 listings (Appendix A of the preamble
to the rules) and the planned Fall of 1980 listings
(Appendix B of the preamble to the rules). In addition
to these listings, wastes may also be hazardous if they
exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or EP toxicity. Wastes judged to exhibit
these characteristics although not listed were placed in a
second category entitled Characteristic Waste.
A-2
-------
A third category of hazardous waste was used for
the study which included waste streams where sources
of information did not identify specific characteristics
of the waste stream, or in some cases, did not define
quantities of wastes by waste streams. A special "un-
known" category is used for these industrial waste
streams or portions thereof.
(3) Disposal Practices and Regional Distribution
of Each Waste Stream Were Determined
Utilizing the information contained in EPA-sponsored
industrial hazardous waste assessment reports, the type
of disposal and the regional distribution of each
waste stream was determined.
EPA regional distributions of the wastes were
also determined by different methods, depending upon
the availability of the data for each industry.
The three methods used were:
Waste Stream Basis. Hazardous wastes were
regionally distributed at the waste stream
level according to information presented in
EPA assessment reports, and then aggregated
to the industry level.
Industry Basis. Hazardous wastes were region-
ally distributed at the industry level (or
subindustry level for those reported separately)
as identified in the EPA assessment reports.
Allocation. In cases where a regional
distribution was not available, industry-
wide hazardous wastes were allocated to
regions based on the number of employees
from the SIC within each EPA region as
reported by the Bureau of Census in the
1972 Census of Manufactures.
(4) The Industries and Sub-Industries for Which There
Was No Hazardous Waste Volume Information Reported
in Primary Sourcgs Were Identified
Where there is a lack of information regarding
quantities of hazardous waste generated by a particular
industry, the RCRA EIS and TRW Small Generator Study
were reviewed and generation volumes were selected to
A-3
-------
fill the gaps. In general, the EIA was used when data
for a complete industry were not available (e.g., SIC
317). The Small Generator Study was used to identify
the types of waste when this was not available from
primary sources. In cases where the information com-
piled to support the RCRA EIA (EIA backup analysis)
considered only a portion of an industry, the genera-
tion rate for the total industry was developed by
calculating the ratio between production worker employees
hours from these segments to the total industry.
(5) The Volumes of Industrial Hazardous Wastes Were
Adjusted and Were Aggregated to Industry Totals
and EPA Regional Distributions
After developing industry totals for hazardous
waste generated by each industry, the'totals were ad-
justed for coverage and growth. Many of the industry
analyses focused on only those plants in a particular
SIC code that produced a product as its primary output.
However, other plants may also produce the same product
but be classified in other SIC codes. To account for
this problem, the Bureau of Census adjusts the data
utilizing a coverage ratio factor. The coverage ratio
(CR) as defined by the Bureau of Census "is the propor-
tion of primary products shipped by the establishments
classified in the industry to total shipments of such
products by all manufacturing establishments."
Coverage ratios were applied to the industries to avoid
underestimating the quantity of hazardous waste gener-
ated by a particular industry; however, the coverage
ratio could not be used for all industries included in
the study. The coverage ratio was applied only in
instances where the waste estimates were based upon the
census industry structure and available at the appro-
priate level (usually at the four-digit SIC level).
Since some industry estimates may already account for
total wastes from primary and other manufacturing
operations, coverage ratio use may allow for hazardous
waste generation to be somewhat overstated.
1972 Census of Manufactures, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of Census, MC72 GS-1, November 1975.
A-4
-------
In order to estimate the quantities of hazardous
waste to be generated in 1980 and 1981, growth pro-
jections were also used to adjust the total volume of
hazardous waste generated by each industry. Several
diffBrent methods for estimating growth were used:
Assuming that the growth in volume of
hazardous waste generated is proportional
to the industry's growth, projections in
real growth in value of shipments by an
industry reported in the U.S. Department
of Commerce's 1979 U.S. Industrial Outlook
(25), were applied at the four-digit SIC
level.
For those SIC categories where U.S. Indus t r i a 1
Outlook data were not available, growth
projections were based on those reported
for hazardous waste growth in the EPA-sponsored
industrial assessment reports (see references
(1) through (14)) .
Growth projections were also used as reported
for the growth in the number of production
worker hours between 1972 and 1977 by the
. 1977 Census of Manufactures. (See reference
(19)) .
Growth rates were applied at either the waste stream, sub-
industry or industry level, depending on the available
data. The source(s) used for projecting growth in hazardous
waste generation are included where appropriate in the
"industry summaries" contained in Exhibit A-4.
In addition to adjusting the estimates for coverage
anc growth, accuracy ranges for hazardous waste generation
estimates are given. Only a few of the existing sources
of information provided accuracy ranges concerning their
estimates. Therefore, several telephone interviews were
conducted with specific contractors involved with technical
analyses developed in support of the RCRA EIA. The tele-
phone interviews with these contractors and our professional
judgment provide the basis for establishing three levels of
accuracy:
+ 10% - Applied to estimates based on most recent
comprehensive industry analysis reviewed, generally
those used in the EIA backup analysis.
A-5
-------
+25% - Applied to estimates based on relatively
older specific industry analysis conducted for
RCRA DEIA and drawn directly from original assess-
ment reports.
+50% - Applied to estimates based solely on Small
.Generator Study and RCRA EIS that relied on state
waste generator survey data.
There were two industries that required unique
range estimates, SIC 26 Paper and Allied Products
and SIC 22 Textile Mill Products. The reason.for
the unique range selection is explained in the
individual summaries for these industries.
2. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LIMITATIONS INHERENT IN THE DATA
Shortcomings inherent in the data which could not be
accounted for in estimating the quantity of hazardous waste
can be divided into three main areas:
Definition of hazardous waste
Determination of generation rates
Physical condition of the wastes.
The following is a brief discussion of these major
limitations of the data.
(1) The Definition of Hazardous Waste Was Changing
Throughout the Course of the Study
Some of the industry analyses and surveys were
completed without a clear-cut, uniform definition of
a "hazardous waste". In fact, the fully operational
national definition of what was legally a hazardous
waste was not published until May 1980. It is not
clear whether this situation results in understatement
or overstatement of hazardous waste volumes.
(2) Several Different Sources Are Used for
Determination of Hazardous Waste Generation Rates
Two basic waste generation estimating approaches
are employed. One, using the EIA study, relies on the
"model" plant or process approach to develop representa-
tive operating characteristics of a particular industry.
Individual plants within an industry may, however,
generate and dispose of wastes quite differently from
the model; that is, some may pretreat wastes or use
different disposal practices. This could cause in-
accuracies in any or all of total volume estimates,
on-site versus off-site disposal ratios, and regional
distributions.
A-6
-------
In addition to assuming the representativeness of
a model plant, the analysis also assumes that plants
would be in compliance with the Air and Water Pollution
Control Regulations by the 1977-1981 time frame, thereby
increasing the estimated generation volumes to account
for wastewater treatment and air pollution control
•wastes. This may not be the case; in fact, one estimate
indicates that in aggregate, industry currently is only
70 percent in compliance with the Water Pollution
Control Regulations.
The second approach uses data from state surveys
to develop industrywide generation rates. One source
(EIS) focused at a very high level of aggregation
(two-digit SIC) and lost some of the inherent process
differences within an industry. For example, SIC 31
(leather and leather products) has 11 subgroups. Of
these, only SIC 3111 (leather tanning and finishing)
generates any significant quantity of hazardous wastes.
The other survey based study (Small Generator Study)
focused on small volume generators of hazardous waste.
Industrywide estimates in this study are developed,
for the most part, by extrapolating the generation
rates of small firms. In most cases, one would not
expect small firms, which represent only 1-3 percent
of the waste volume, to be truly representative of the
industry.
(3) The Solid Content of the Wastes Is -Not Reported
Consistently
Another factor that could have a major impact on
the estimated volumes of waste for particular industries
is the condition of the waste at the point the volume
was estimated. The EIA cites estimated waste generation
in "as disposed" condition, that is, in the form in
which it would be most economical to handle and dispose
of the materials (e.g., dewatered to 20 percent solids).
This is the appropriate way to quantify the waste
generation as it represents the wastes in a condition
that would actually be sent to a disposal facility.
The condition of the wastes in the sources based
on state surveys from the EIS is not available.
A-7
-------
3. THE 1980 HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION ESTIMATES WERE
DERIVED FROM INDUSTRY SUMMARY DATA
Exhibit A-l presents summary tables showing 1980 estimated
hazardous waste generation by industry and by waste category;
Exhibits A-2 and A-3 present summary tables of 1980 and 1981
industrial hazardous waste generation showing disposal practices
by industry and by EPA region; and Exhibit A-4 presents indus-
try summaries that provide an overview of hazardous waste
generation, disposal practices, and regional distribution of
waste for 11 two-digit SIC industries. In addition, the following
industries are also presented in more detail :
SIC 28 - Chemicals and Allied Products
SIC 29 - Petroleum and Coal Products
SIC 33 - Primary Metals
SIC 36 - Electric & Electronic Equipment
Following the presentation of the 1980 volumes is an
explanation of the sources and assumptions used to develop
the estimates, including:
Source of generation estimate
Accuracy range
Coverage ratio
Growth projection.
The total 1980 hazardous waste generation volume for
each industry is calculated using the following relationship:
1980 HWG = x (1 + GR)n
t-K
where:
1980 HWG = 1980 Hazardous Waste Generation!
Basis = Amount of waste generated in base year
from the referenced source
CR = Coverage ratio factor
GR = Annual growth rate
n = Number of years between base year and 1980.
In addition, the industrial summaries include information
related both to where and how the wastes are disposed and
the EPA regional distribution of disposal practices (see
Exhibit A-4) .
In many cases it is not possible to reconstruct the I960 hazardous
waste generation figure by simply applying the coverage ratio and
growth rate to the basis number in the "industry summaries." The
reason for this is that many of the numbers are "built up" from
industrial waste streams or sub-industries and both the coverage
ratio and the growth rate presented in the industry summary are
rounded composites. A-8
-------
EXHIBIT A-1(1)
1980 Estimated Industrial Hazardous
Waste Generation by Industry/ by Waste Category
(Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
Waste
Industry
Catec
HEX
Total
Percent.
of
•natal
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
TCflM,
SIC 22
Textile MLH
Products
SIC 24
Lumber and
Wood Products
Total
EPA Waste List1
Characteristic Waste^
Unknown3
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
41,235
8,344
20,874
12,017
203
0
203
0
87
0
0
87
100
27,765 53,864
0 203
44 131
SIC 25
Furniture and
Fixtures
SIC 26
Paper and
Allied Products
SIC 27
Printing and
Publishing
Total
SPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
36
0
0
36
1,295
0
0
1,295
154
0
0
154
c. 1
18
54
0 1,943
77 231
EPA Waste List - wastes listed on the EPA Waste List published on May 19,
1980 and announced on that date to be listed in the Summer 1980 and Fall
1980.
Characteristic waste - wastes identified as hazardous by RCRA characteristics,
but not included on the EPA waste list.
Unknown - wastes not identified specifically enough (either by type or
quantity) to determine their waste category.
Source: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett
A-9
-------
EXHIBIT A-K2)
Industry
Waste
Category
•total
Percent.
of
Total
Lower
Bound
Ufcper
Bound
SIC 28
Chemicals and
Allied Products
SIC 281
Industrial
Inorganic
Chemicals
SIC 282
Plastics
I-feterials,
Synthetics
SIC 283
Drugs
Total 25,509
EPA Waste List 4,243
Characteristic 'waste 17,902
Unknown 3,364
Total 8,072
EPA Waste List 1,056
Characteristic Waste 7,016
Unknown 0
Total 769
SPA Waste List 0
Characteristic Waste 769
Unknown 0
Total 106
EPA Waste List 73
Characteristic Waste 33
Unknown 0
62
13,292 32,728
SIC 284, 2871, 2891 Total 3,364
Other Chemicals SPA Waste List 0
Characteristic Waste 0
Unknown 3,364
SIC 2851
Paints and
Allied Products
Total 125
EPA Waste List 110
Characteristic Waste 15
Unknown 0
SIC 286, 2879 Total 13,066
Industrial Organic EPA Waste List 2,997
Chanicals and Characteristic Waste 10,069
Agric. Chanicals Unknown 0
N.E.C.
12S7 excludes 2879, Agricultural Chemicals, NBC? 289 excludes 2892, Explosives,
A-10
-------
EXHIBIT A-l(3)
industry
Waste
Category
Ttotal
Percent
of
Ttotal
loose Upper
SIC 2892
Explosives
Total 7
SPA Waste List 7
Characteristic Waste 0
Unknown 0
SIC 29
Petroleun
and Goal
Prodir±s
SIC 2911
Petroleun
Refining
SIC 2992
Petroleun
He-refining
SIC 30
R;i3ber and
Miscellaneous
Plastic Products
Total
EEA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Ttotal
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EEA Vfeste List
Characteristic Vfeste
Unknown
2,119
407
1,712
0
1,590 2,649
1901
407
1494
0
218
0
218
0
249
0
0
249
125 374
SIC 31
Leather and
Leather Tanning
Total
SPA ttaste List
Characteristic >festa
Unknown
474
455
19
0
427 521
SIC 32
Stone, Clay
and Glass
Products
Total
EPA Tteste List
Characteristic V&sta
Unknown
17
0
0
17
26
A-ll
-------
EXHIBIT A-l(4)
Industry
SIC 33
Primary Metal
Industries
SIC 331,332,339
Ferrous Metals
SIC 333, 3341
335, 336
Ifcn-Ferrous
Metals
SIC 34
Fabricated
Ntetal
Products
SIC 35
Machinery,
Except
Electrical
SIC 36
Electric and
Electronic
Equipment
Waste
Category
Ibtal
EPA Waste List
characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
E?A vvaste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
SPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
SPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Percent
of
Ibtal Total
4,061 10
2,010
905
1,146
2,330
1,858
249
223
1,731
152
656
923
1,997 5
624
46
1,327
322 <1
74
0
248
1,093 3
531
37
475
Range
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
3,046 5,077
1,498 2,496
161 483
663 1 , 519
SIC 361-368
Electronic
Ccnponents and
Other Electric
Equipment
Total 609
EPA Waste List 49
Characteristic Waste 85
Unknown 475
A-12
-------
EXHIBIT A-l(5)
Percent Range
Waste of Lower Upper
Industry category Total Tbtal Botpd Bouad
SIC 3691, 3692 Total 484
Batteries EPA Waste List 482
Characteristic Waste 2
Unknown 0
SIC 37 Total 1,240 3 620 1,860
Transportation EPA Waste List 0
Rjuipnent Characteristic Wast a 0
Unknown 1,240
SIC 38 Total 90 ^ 1 45 135
Instruments EEA Waste List 0
and Belated Characteristic Waste 0
Products Unknown 90
SEC 39 Total 318 / 1 159 477
Miscellaneous EPA Waste List 0
N&nufacturing Characteristic Waste 0
Industries Unknown 318
Ifon-iranufacturing1 Total 1,971 5 986 2,957
Industries EPA Waste List 0
Characteristic Waste 0
Unknown 1,971
Non-manufacturing industries include:
SIC 5085 Drun Reconditioners
SIC 07 Agricultural Services
SIC 5161 Chemical Warehouses
SIC 40 Railroad Transportation
SIC 55 Alternative Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations
SIC 72 Personal Services
SIC 73 Business Services
SIC 76 Misc. Repair Services
SIC 80 Health Services
SIC 82 Educational Services
A-13
-------
*.
c
O cn
•H CU
-P O
(0 -H ^-»
s-i jj cn
cu o c
C iO C O
cu M o £•«
U 04 -H
&i O
CU rH CU -H
JJ (0 CK V4
-^ cn cn jj
rH (0 O < CU
— s acu s
CN cn 03
i cn -H jj
< 3 Q >i CU
O US
E-> T3 C
M U 3 > 14-1
03 iO O •>! O
M N C r-l
x x c cn T:
H D 3 C
rH 'tS 10
(0 T3 C W
•H C rH 3
S-i IT3 O
JJ ^"i i— *
cn cu .Q E-<
3 JJ —
^3 *r4
c en
M 1
<4-4
O U-4
00 O
CJN
rH
q
H
c?\
00
^
vo
in
*
i
1
C*l
CN
H
H
4J
e
J
J
ffl
fl
O O O
o o o
o o o
o o o
vo m o
O vO O
,— 1
CN CTi O
rH
•rf m O
^* !/^ O
CN iH
-
r- vo o
CN -H
cn CN o
O CN
CN rH
CN
Total l
Off-site
Unknown^
rH
Q) 4J
CN r-J O
«N -H a
. -»J "H
y ^ s
w fJ a,
rH O -H
CN CN
o\ o c^
CN O ;n
CN r-l r-l
0) 0) CO
-PC -PC -PC
•H § .H 3 -H §
rH«0 iHWO r-j'J30
3«i 5 J3««!4 S 3^5
ess ess ess
cn
•S 8 -p
(8 ^? C
0 (0 Iji
aj 'TJ !^ c
y cn c cu T -H
3 X' iO C .C
m4Ju vo "0 r*«-Hco
CN-H3 CNUO) fN -P — '
G JJ 5 " J C rH
y^« Uu4r-i y-iHo
to-2'tl cncu<: cac-d
ca
•H
c
•H
S
c
c
•H
•^
UJ
0
"^~
jj
-H
OJ
5
u
rC
u
•H
ne
^
U4
^
u
Jj
CO
3
g
.H
-------
in a
00
vfl
in
m
£'
03
O 03 000 vg
ooo ooo
en O 22°
en <-H
CM
,00 000
v O
-t — O
,-4 \fl O 23 03 O
en
*-*
— in O 03 O3 O
gj° 58°
oo.no ggjo o2
en
a
T3
CO
0)
5.
1
S?
12
^* I
S 1
CM fl
'.1 03
3 --;
11
en
CM
CM
CO
H
X.
X
in
CM
03
m
CM
2
«-»
r-4 0)
£4
32=
ooo
CO
4->
•H
^
-------
^
ro
CN
1
<
03
M
S
X
H
O
H
<3\
t-
CO
•>
vO
m
*
en
in
r-l
J ^
*rt 5
r-i (Q 0
P 0 =
cn
•S
.5
4-1
f
*SIC 291
Petroleu
•tf --f O
-i O O
—1 rH
^* ^t* C^
Tj> ^ O
CN 3J O
T CO
-H m o
vo m
Z> 0 0
co to
CO CN O
— 1 — 1
'O -I O
O O O
CO 00 0
CN -H
•^ 5
•^ i
i-t M 0
eSI
CM S -5
*SIC 299
Petroleu
Re-nifin
CN CN O
CN r-I O
CN CN
CN CN O
-i O O
i-H — t
P» O O
-* 1-1
3^°
C^ P~ O
m co
CN -( O
CN CN
CO r^ O
CN CN
CN -1 O
CN CN
rj o
in ro
••o P~ o
•n co
TT «* O
^ CN
^)
. J ^
—i co 0
P 0 S
?
•rX
ii
u u
SJJi
Jj 4-'
U TJ r
w d5 a
W ,-5 ^
§
Q
IT?
S
0
Jj
•^
jj
In
c
.-i
jj
.-i
'•3
CN
r?
Jj
^J
-------
CM
00
33
in in
a
in
vn o
C3 CM in -r;
fn CM ff 03
«-vi __i !*•»
CM
^1 CM
rp m CM vo CM c> ^
*r in r^ <* m CN
• I
CM CO O
CO r-4 CD
(C
in
0
O -1
5 8S° $£S
vO -4
(N vjO
-> 3
o\ -t
01
CM
CO
r-l
fl
s
01
§
M
a
I
2
S
r^
jj 03
(0 JJ
S-33
a|a
w & &«
i_J
•R
1
ea
, ^j
&S
3) -i-l
in c vj
w^ ti
O t3 5
S a --i
cn S w
d
A
ta— *
^^
B*
5 o
H'O
•rt \J
vO VJ VJ
m *J -Jj
M $ '5
3££
• r-l
^>
•*»
5
>T3
U3
1)
jj
^\
X
8
•K
A-17
-------
in
CM
I
"M
(._,
M
CQ
M
£
X
ia
o
H
ON ,
CO
^
vO
vn
*
en
(N
rH
-3
^S
£
Industry
m _i CM
r-» in p
in f-i *r
co in CM
CM CM
fH Vfl <3"
m CM
O CM m
^^ CO CO
rH ^"4
r» in O
C*» r-4 VO
CM 01 CO
vO -4 T
PO on ro
C
•H 3
sis
£Sl
S1
"k
3
o
Non-Manufa
Industries
m co r-t
^ in — ^
m m -j
co in m
CM
CO '^5 --
^ O vo
CO |t^
<-> CM m
co '>n f^
CM CM CM
— i
VO CT "3*
m CM CM
in o m
O -i
CO O ^
c*5 f^ ?n
^* rn *^
\^ ,.4 (— ^
^^ co ^^*
in — i r»-
CO Cft VO
o
r-^
•* -* -o
in o r>
m \o ^*
m CM o
•—4 in ^*
— ^ vo in
^* C^ CO
^ 0^ VO
rH CM m
i— i
mil S
CM O r-4
••^ vo m
•<*
t)
iH CO 0
31 C
1^1 g
fi ^ ~
1
1)
ij
a
^
?
IT>
3
5
^^
1
Q
0
4J
ra
CM
a
3)
2
M
a
A-18
-------
c
o en
•H (U
4J 0
r4 4J —>
eu o en
c
*•"* 2 fii Cu cu
m en H 2
i en -H
< 3 Q >i-P
o ,Q TJ C S
M in 3 -
CQ 03 O >lMH
H N C r4 O
S (3 ,id -P
X S c tn en
H D 3 T3
rH T3 C
^3 'O C fO
•H C H en
SH (0 3
4J >i O
3 -U EH
13 -H •—•
c en
M 1
. i HI
^1 ^^
oo O
rH
S
•
en
CO
p»
vO
in
^*
n
CM
-<
»H
1
a
1
OOO rHOrH rH Q rH ^Q rH O <*! O <*1
CM CN CN
ooo O^OCT^ mo^o ocno crj o f
CN -H rH
OOO CNOCN OOO mrHO 'TOrT
rH V
OOO mocn CNOCN mrHO 1~1^5^
vono OOOOO CNOCN C^CNO OOO
r~ rH rH
0*^0 O o o r*~ o r** ^* rH o c^ o &
(— i -H ^H ro rH m en
n
rMe^o OOO cj^ocr^ rHinO OOO
CO P"- CM CM '^ CNCN
rH rH
^* rT) r^ PH, ^J p*s ^< ^^ ^* ^* ^j* ^J ^} ^^ "^
rO r\j {"sj
rH
^d* in co ^n CD en ^* 3 TJ
rH o 10 "52
••-j 'G 3 O H3 J<
2 C ^ ^ 'n M c
to (30 VJCD ecu rri-iH
-i 30) ro c£
(NrHtj ^ucu mjJu vo TJ r^'-im
fN-H^ fNS CM-H3 (NSnCD CM4J--I
03 E-I cu en J S us & £ cacu< w a. a.
en
•H
C
.3
4J
2
5
s
**^
- 0)
-U
. j
;jj
0
jj
•rl
2
0
€
'^i
^
u
O
MH
3 -r
"m t!
en CQ
UH 3
u-i -r
0 C
'C
^ 1)
«*7j
•"
n* s,
C --H £
° ^ rr-
4J en 13
fl -H -L>
CU "" W
C t3 "J
55 -H c
71 *§ &
flj
+j D y u
en -u jj a
(0 en en _,
3 ^ rt5 jj
s 'i L,
CO £
11!"
/^ S W rn
S 5 5 ^
£ 2 J fl
•r4 O O C
^ >i N 2
en j-i 4J • £
n -H -H v 3
^3 ^J Jj rH .?
C 2 C ^2 ^
•iH fC t^ (C
3 3 ^H
r-! cr CT-H j,
jj (T3 o
e P ?! i
rH CN m 3 5
A-19
-------
^^^
CN
m
I
H
03
M
E
X
fc3
S
en
00
p.
*
vn
^
en
CN
H
"3
jsj
1
vo m o
CN ^
0 rf CN
^^ r^ ^*
^*
iH
-4 -4 O
r-> o c3>
vo m
in
O O r->
en CN CO
GO ^^ ^^
^^ *^ ^*
0\ rH r-l
CO CN vO
m in r^
OenCN
r?§0
VOr,^
r- in co
t O -H
m ~* ~4
rH
3 CN CN i— 4 O '"'VOO
r-l
ooo ooo omo
iH r-l m
°,°°. S20 3$°
r-l r-4 t*~
m o u"> coino 3** cj^ o
O O CO CN
CN CN vO
COOOO CN vO O OCOO
0^ Cn rH P") ,— fl
<*
mo'n [••• in o *n *o O
—4 p-4 in m r-i CN
i— i i— i vO
CO CO ?n Tj* CO ^J ^Q ^^0 ^
PO m en
— i
OOO r-icOO r^r^iO
CN CN r-i (5 o rr
CO 00 '-' en r^
m
co , CO S-i 01 -4.)
# O. (n « O * O
r- r^ O
aor- o
!~>4 ^^
r-l r-l O
CO CO O
00 CO O
Sfi =
^^ o o
CM OJ
-I O O
r-l rH
O CJs O
CN -^
en en O
O m o
m CN
2
•— i "to 5
jJ 'W 5
P O 0
•8
*SIC 2851
Paints and Alii
Prcxiicts
*
rtj
1
(0
en
/^
0
jj
£
en
c
•rJ
Jj
•*•*
•O
1
CN
J!
4J
.5
•s
y
•5
>,
jj
en
1
•r4
k
CO
eo
CO
CD
I
*
A-20
-------
en
— '
en
I
^t
««
£-•
H4
03
r«lH
r<
o
H
i
&
u
C*
r-H
r-l
in
en
O
'5
vO
m
s
r-4
vn
en
c^
•*
CM
CM
<3N
?-n
in
-4
P»
CM
p^^
r^
o
r-|
a
r-
«
rn
r-4
r-4
I
CT>
r^
co
«
%
\rt
QO
CN
a
*w
^ ^*
en CM
r-H
O O
en — '
V
in rJ
eft ^*
CM
en CM
r-4
CO -1
P- "<
in
w
r-l < •
« 2
•3 4
M •
4J • •
9 § i
"3 JJ 3J
f* (-H r*
56o
o o o
r-4 r^ O
V
o o o
o o o
0 0 O
CM rH O
V
CM -f O
V
CM rH O
\J
o o o
o o o
r- -H O
1)
-P C
•H 3
r-l tD O
3^5
O «t4 C
POD
03
n ^«
000
r* in O
m r-4
CM CM
0)
4J C
•H 3
r-l 03 O
3^4 5
.2SS
r-i
2
{S e -H
SI 3 C
3\ a) -H
CM r-J «4
0
U C
•'-' 3
rJ 03 C
3^5
£S3
o
fi
• r-l
C
•2 =
C T>
5 P
u u
p-l 0) 0)
"5£
au
ca j i
5
fl
(0
— 1
•0
jj
Q
jj
>
Lr
_)
33
f^
C
._!
Jj
.—I
5
T3
1
CM
2
oJ
r-
• r?
pr*
3
T3
D
r-l
>,
_)
tn
^
r*
•^J
I
/^
•?»
5
**
• W
03
0)
Jj
5
/
A-21
-------
m
1
<
H
CQ
S
X
w
s
0V
00
-
*
in
^*
Ot O 3 O
(*• ^* — 4
CN O CN \5 \O *~* CO ^* O
V0 O *"H O
O ^n CN -sO vO
00 *H ^O
CNQOJ OCQfn C-HO
^ ^r i-t oj F*
— * ^
MQ^ CSr^Q COO
t** or** r^^r*"* — 4^-jo
^4 r-4 \£ vO ^* gQ CM
••^ <™M n ^^ CN
•* rH CN
2 c ^ g 5 c
**H 3 'vM 2 •i*^ §
r-lOlO i-IOJU r^tOO
t-OD POD 6-0-5
9
ft
"5
io co • to
•»J H C* r-4
£ 3 JJ CO 4J
(0 rrj nj rjj m
M J_| *r^ ^4
Cu J*i ^ rn OT
oi <. en u ij co 3
m fl) CQ ^o (0 to O
cm 2 3 U ij
rjos W'^'a " ^
cowo caajM *S
mm^ CN0303 Tf — . i m OOOSCN
rf CN
O O O 03tno CiNvocN mcN1*
in tn i— ( o^fcN CN CN in^yj
3CNQO c^oo^ '.D—Jin m i— ' ^j*
^ CN CN rH
'^ o ^1* 3 r^* ^* — < ^» '^3 o in ^n
^^ ^J* p*^ ^^ CN '^J ^M f**^ C^ ^3
ZOCNf-4 OCOf^ ^ninc3> COC^vO
-HCNCO ^f CO — •* f^ (^ ^2
03
r-> JJ
t3 f— ! —a . 0-t
^^ flj ^j y ^f
S B ^ W 'gfi'
• 0 0 >i (tj —4
rovou *JM CTo uc
^) PO J^ ftj ^ 3) '^4 »fJ Q
n ro *3) ^j* u o ^^ G M *^ ^ M
•M rn-na prj-f^jJ n-u-3
u»i u1* .no uri
fi m c u ^ 5 u t; *>
CO
^
CO
0)
Jj
a
,a
A-22
-------
ui
^*^
ro
1
<
E-1
M
cn
i— i
HP*
X
ta
o
r4
ON
00
r*
vO
in
v
m
CM
H
^
•S3
^j
B5
Industry
CO r-l CN
CN VO ^*
CO r-* Vfl
U^-tTf
o m co
CO CN
ro vo **O
ro CN
-1 Tf CM
CO ro t
r-l r-l
CM V0 ^t*
CO r-l \O
vQ co -^
vo r4 in
*TJN 0^ CO
C3^ f*4 [^
O ro ^
vO i— i in
O *f r*
in CM o
vo t-4 m
H
03
jJ C
•H §
—1 03 0
B 1 C
-P *w -2
o u-i c
P 0 S
?
•^
JJ
Non-Nbnufac
Industries
CO [^* C^
CM in "3*
O ro CM
r-l
in CM ^
CN in ro
CN m in
in co CM
ro ~* ""
— ' r> co
ro in ^
CN CM CN
in 5\ JJN
CN IP Tj*
S3un
r-l CO ^
-H vfl O
vo ro v-0
V£ r^ r-4
P* Q VQ
CTi ^" O
vo c^ r^
^5
-H
r~- 'N *N
C CM ON
in ^ T?
^*
l^ ro ^3"
r-4 [^» \.0
CN vo m
ro
i—1 ro in
ro o CO
— i ro ro
^* -u U^
as m c>
VO CN CO
CM ^o m
a)
jJ C
|||
$05
TOTAL
O
>
B
a
rrt
,_!
-n
0
^j
• i
•^
"O
i
CN
a;
.^
•g
m
3
• r-l
V.
cn
3
_S
'i
'M
Deujtes a
A-23
-------
FXHIBIT A-4(1)
Industry Summaries
SIC 22.— Textile Mill Products
SIC 24 — Lumber and Wood Products
SIC 25 — Furniture and Fixtures
SIC 26 — Paper and Allied Products
SIC 27 — Printing and Publishing
SIC 28 — Chemicals and Allied Products1
SIC 281— Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
SIC 282— Plastic Materials, Synthetics
SIC 283— Drugs
SIC 284, 287 (ex. 2879), 289 (ex. 2892)
— Other Chemicals
SIC 2852 -Paint and Other Allied Products
SIC 286, 2879
— Industrial Organic Chemicals and Agricultural
Chemicals, N.E.C.
SIC 2892- Explosives
SIC 29 — Petroleum and Coal Products1
SIC 2911- Petroleum Refining
SIC 2992- Petroleum Re-Refining
SIC 30 — Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products
SIC 31 — Leather and Leather Tanning
SIC 32 — Stone, Clay & Glass Products
SIC 33 —• Primary Metalsl
SIC 331, 332, 339
— Ferrous Metals
SIC 333, 3341, 335, 336
— Non-Ferrous Metals
SIC 34 — Fabricated Metal Products
SIC 35 — Machinery, Except Electrical
SIC 36 — Electric & Electronic Equipment1
— 361-368 Electric, Electronic Equipment
— 3691,3692 - Batteries
^1980 Hazardous waste generation summary only.
A-24
-------
EXHIBIT A-4(2!
SIC 37 — Transportation Equipment
SIC 38 — Instruments & Related Products
SIC 39 — Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
SIC — Non-Manufacturing Industries
A-25
-------
SIC 22 — TEXTILE MTT.T. PRODUCTS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 203
EPA Waste List: 0
Characteristic Waste: 203
Unknown: 0
Range: 0 - 203
Basis Quantity(Source/Year): 203 (EIA backup [ 15 ] - 1978)
The 6 hazardous waste streams identified consist of WWT
sludges and waste solvents.
Range: -100% (It is possible that the
predominant wasta stream,
WWT sludge from woven
fabric finishing, may not
be hazardous)
Coverage Ratio: Not applied (as PRA estimates
include all generators)
Annual Growth Rate( Source) : 0% (EIA backup [ 15 ])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: 60%
Disposal Methods: Lagoon, landfill, POTW
Source: EIA backup [ 15 ]
198O Regional Distribution
Total :
Off site:
1
27
16
2
24
15
3
4
3
4
132
79
5
10
6
6
6
3
7
0
0
3
0
0
9
0
0
10
0
0
Method(Source): Waste stream basis (OSW Assessment Study [14])
A-26
-------
SIC 24 — LUMBER AMD WOOD PRODUCTS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 87
EPA Waste List: ISA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 87
Range: 44 - 131
Basis Quantity(Source/Year): 80 (EIS [17] - 1975)
Wastes include wood residues saturated with treating
chemicals? WWT sludges; tank residues (creosote, penta-
chlorophenol); paint sludges; solvents; coating/glueing
cleanup wastes. There is one EPA listed waste stream
(5117).
Range: ±50%
Coverage Ratio: Not available
Annual Growth Rate( Source) : 1.6% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: Unknown
Disposal Methods: Landfill, incineration
Source: Small Generator Study [18]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Unknown :
1
4
4
2
3
3
3
7
7
4
20
20
5
10
10
6
8
a
7
3
3
8
2
2
9
9
9
10
21
21
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-27
-------
SIC 25 — FUSMJLTUKE AND FIXTURES
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
198O Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 36
EPA Waste List: SA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 36
Range: 13-54
Basis Quantity(Source/Year): 36 (Small Generator Study [18]
1977)
Most generators are small (none larger than 5,000
kg/moj. Wastes include paint sludges and solvents.
Range: ±50%
Coverage Ratio: Not available
Annual Growth Rate(Source): 0% (Bureau of the Census [19])
Current. Disposal Practices
Offsite: Unknown
Disposal Methods: Landfill
Source: Small Generator Study [18]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Unknown :
1
2
2
2
4
4
3
4
4
4
9
9
5
7
7
6
2
2
7
2
2
8
0
0
9
5
5
10
1
1
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-28
-------
SIC 26 — PAPER AMD ALLIED PRODUCTS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
198O Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 1,295
EPA. Waste List: JJA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 1,295
Range: 0 - 1943
Basis Quantity(Source/Year)-. 1,220 (BAT Contractor Estimates
[20] - 1978)
Generally WWT sludges? detailed waste stream information
has not yet been developed.
Range: +50%
-100% (It is possible that some
or all of the wastes from
this industry may not be
hazardous)
Coverage Ratio: Not available
Annual Growth Rate(Source): 3.0% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: 3%
Disposal Methods: Lagoon
Source: BAT Contractor Estimates [20]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Off site:
1
130
4
2
272
3
3
130
' 4
4
156
5
5
324
10
6
77
2
7
52
1
8
13
<1
9
117
3
10
25
1
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-29
-------
SIC 27 — PRINTING AMD PUBLISHING
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 154
EPA Waste List: NA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 154
Range': 77-231
Basis Quantity (Source/Year): 130 (EIS CL7J - 1975)
Wastes include solvents, dyes, inks, oils, other organic
compounds, and photographic chemicals.
Range: ±50%
Coverage Ratio: Not available
Annual Growth Rate(Source): 3.4% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: Unknown
Disposal Methods: Solvent recovery, landfill, incineration,
chemical treatment, POTW
Source: Small Generator Study [18]
1980 Regional Distxibution
Total :
Unknown :
1
11
11
2
25
25
3
19
19
4
19
19
5
38
38
6
10
10
7
11
11
8
4
4
9
13
13
10
3
3
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-30
-------
SIC 28 — CHEMICALS AHD ALLIED PRODUCTS
(A.11 Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 25,509
EPA. Waste List: 4,243
Characteristic Waste: 17,902
Unknown: 3,364
Range: 18,292 - 32,728
Note: The following individual segments are presented
SIC 281
SIC 282
SIC 283
SIC 2851
SIC 286, 2879
SIC 2892
SIC 284, 287, 289
1980 Regional Distribution
1 2 3 4 5 6789 10
Total: 185 1497 2515 8763 1870 3577 553 1 1426 123
Offsite: 12 101 104 342 115 306 30 1 71 5
Unknown: 31 'ill 99 202 133 170 80 40 38
Method(Source): See individual industry segments following.
A-31
-------
SIC 281 — INDUSTRIAL IHORGAHIC CHEMICALS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 8,072
EPA. Waste List: 1,056
Characteristic Waste: 7,016
Unknown: 0
Range: 6,054 - 10,090
Basis Quantity(Source/Year): 1,595 (SIA backup [16] - 1978)
4,471 (SIA backup [153 - 1978)
Tonnage estimates are available for the following EPA
listed waste streams: 2010, 2011, 3003, 2013, 2014, 2015,
2006, 2007, 2004. No tonnage is available for: 2012,
2008, 2009, 2005, 5118. Eleven waste streams have been
categorized as characteristic waste.
Range: ±25%
Coverage Ratio: .80
Annual Growth Rate( Source): 2.9% (LJ.S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: 3.7% (Excludes 2,395 103 MT of ocean
dumped waste
Disposal Methods: Landfill, lagoon, ocean dumping, deep-well
injection.
Source: EIA backup [16], [15]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total:
Off site:
1
0
0
2
13
<1
3
510
19
4
5723
214
5
646
24
6
64
2
7
323
12
3
0
0
9
794
30
10
0
0
Method(Source): Waste stream basis (OSW Assessment Study [12])
A-32
-------
SIC 282 — PLASTIC MATERIALS, SYNTHETICS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
198O Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 769
EPA Waste List: 0
Characteristic Waste: 769
Unknown: 0
Range: 577 - 961
Basis Quantity(Source/Year): 558 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
Waste consists largely of miscellaneous organics
(phenols, resins), solvents, and WWT sludges.
Range: ±25%
Coverage Ratio: .82
Annual Growth Rate(Source): 5.6% (U.S.I.O [23] when
available; OSW Assessment
Study [11] for others.)
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: Unknown
Disposal Methods: Landfill, incineration
Source: SIA backup [16]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Unknown :
1
31
31
2
108
108
3
92
92
4
192
192
5
131
131
6
131
131
7
a
8
3
0
0
9
38
38
10
38
38
Method(Source): Industry basis (OSW Assessment Study [11])
A-33
-------
SIC 283 — PROGS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 106
EPA Waste List: 73
Characteristic Waste: 33
Unknown: 0
Range: 80 - 133
Basis Quantity (Source/Year) : 70 (EIA backup Q.6] -
Tonnages are available for three nonspecific EPA Waste
List streams: 3002, 4000, 4301. There is no tonnage
estimate for Waste List 6151. The remainder of the
wastes have been assigned to characteristic waste and
include solvents/ heavy metals, and organic chemical
residues.
Range: ±25%
Coverage Ratio: .73
Annual Growth Rate(Source): 5.0% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: 60%
Disposal Methods: Landfill, incineration
Source: OSW Assessment Study ClO] and SIA backup
[3]
Total :
Of fsite:
1
4
3
2
54
33
3
11
&
4
a
5
5
22
14
6
0
0
7
2
1
8
0
0
9
4
3
10
0
0
Method(Source): Industry basis (OSW Assessment Study ClO])
A-34
-------
SIC 284. 287 (ex. 2879), 289 (ex. 2892)
CHEMICALS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 3,364
EPA Waste List: NA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 3,364
Range: 1,682 - 5,046
Basis Quantity (Source/Year): 3,355 (Small Generator Study [18]-
1977)
Wastes include solvents, miscellaneous organics, miscella-
neous inorganics, acids and alkalies.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source):
±50%
Not available
0% (U.S.I.O [23] when
available; Bureau of the
Census [19] for others)
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite:
Disposal Methods:
Source:
4% (SIC 28 average offsits
disposal)
All methods
Small Generator Study [18]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Offsite:
1
138
6
2
614
26
3
430
13
4
638
29
5
699
29
6
360
15
7
13
1
6
8
0
0
9
239
10
10
66
3
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-35
-------
SIC 2851 — PAHSTT AMD OTHER ALLIED PRODUCTS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 125
EPA Waste List: 110
Characteristic Waste: 15
Unknown: 0
Range: 94 - 156
Basis Quantity (Source/Year): 111 (EIA backup Q.6] - 1978)
Following are listed waste streams: 4911, 2016, 5950,
5700, and 2017.
Range: ±25%
Coverage Ratio: .96
Annual Growth Rate(Source): 4.0% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current: Disposal Practices
Offsite: 95%
Disposal Methods: Landfill, incineration, POTW
Source: Draft EIA [233 and ZIA backup D.6]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Offsite:
1
3
3
2
19
13
3
11
10
4
20
19
5
37
36
6
a
a
7
3
3
a
i
i
9
17
16
10
1
1
Met hod (Source) : Industry basis (OSW Assessment Study [9])
A-36
-------
SIC 286, 2879 — INDUSTRIAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL
AND AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS, N.B.C.
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 13,066
EPA Waste List: 2,997
Characteristic Waste: 10,069
Unknown: 0
Range: 9,800 - 16,330
Basis Quantity(Source/Year):
922 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
10,815 (EIA backup [15] - 1978)
Waste streams with tonnage estimates included on the EPA
Waste List are: 3021, 4102, 3009, 5181, 5123, 3012, 3023,
3006, 5120, 3007, 3014, 2018, 4302. A large number of EPA
listed waste streams have no tonnage estimates available
(3020, 5130, 3004, 3008, 3010, 3011, 5124, 5126, 5128,
3018, 3019, 5132, 5133, 3022, 2019, 5144, 5145, 5146,
5147, 5149, 5154, 5156, 5157, 5158, 5163, 2020, 5166,
5167, 5168, 6152, 6153, 5169). There are 20 other
hazardous waste streams.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source):
±25%
.99
5.0% (U.S.I.O. [23] when avail-
able; OSW Assessment Study
[21] for others)
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: 3.5%
Disposal Methods: All methods
Source: EIA backup [15] , [16]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Of fsite:
Unknown :
1
9
<1
<1
2
689
24
3
3
1459
51
7
4
2130
74
10
5
333
12
2
6
8014
280
39
7
81
3
<1
3
0
0
0
9
333
12
2
10
18
1
<1
Method( Source) : Waste stream basis (OSW Assessment Study [13])
A-37
-------
SIC 2892 — EXPLOSIVES
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation; 7
EPA Waste List: 7
Characteristic Waste: 0
Unknown: 0
Range: 5-9
Basis Quantity(Source/Year): 7 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
All waste included on the following SPA listed waste
streams: 6300, 2049, 7200, 4051. SPA Waste List streams
4103 and 3025 have no waste quantity estimates.
Range: ±25%
Coverage Ratio: .99
Annual Growth Rate( Source) : 0% (OSW Assessment Study [13.])
Current. Disposal Practices
Offsite: 15%
Disposal Methods: Open burning
Source: OSW Assessment Study [13] and SIA backup
[16]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total:
Of fsits:
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
2
<1
4
2
<1
5
2
<1
6
0
0
7
0
0
3
0
0
9
1
«:!
10
0
0
Method(Source): Waste stream basis (OSW Assessment Study [13])
A-38
-------
SIC 29 — PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 2,119
EPA Waste List: 407
Characteristic Waste: 1,712
Unknown: 0
Range: 1,590 - 2,649
Note: The following individual segments are presented;
SIC 2911
SIC 2992
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Of fsite:
12345 6 78 9 10
0 122 165 90 384 878 99 61 258 61
0 64 58 47 152 289 33 21 34 21
Method(Source): See individual industry segments following.
A-39
-------
SIC 2911 — PETROLEUM REFINIHG
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 1,901
EPA. Waste List: 407
Characteristic Waste: 1,494
Unknown: 0
Range: 1,426 - 2,376
Basis Quantity(Source/Year): 1,882 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
Includes four waste streams on the EPA Waste List: 2023,
2024, 2025, and 2026. The remaining nine streams consist
of spent feedstocks, miscellaneous sludges, and tank
bottoms.
Range: ±25%
Coverage Ratio: .99
Annual Growth Rate(Source): 0% (Bureau of the Census [19])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: 30%
Disposal Methods: Lagoon, landfarm, landfill, deep-well
injection
Source: OSW Assessment Study [8 ] and EIA backup
[16]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Offsite:
1
0
0
2
76
23
3
152
46
4
57
17
5
323
97
6
836
251
7
95
29
3
57
17
9
247
74
10
57
17
Method(Source): Industry basis (OSW Assessment Study [ 8 3)
A-40
-------
SIC 2992 — PETROLEUM
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 218
EPA Waste List: 0
Characteristic Waste: 213
Unknown: 0
Range: 164 - 273
Basis Quantity (Source/Year) : 81 (SIA backup [16] - 1978)
The three waste streams include acid and caustic sludges,
and spent clay.
Range: ±25%
Coverage Ratio: .44
Annual Growth Rate(Source): 9.0% (OSW Assessment Study [7 ])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: 90%
Disposal Methods: Landfill
Source: OSW Assessment Study [7 ]
1980
Total :
Off site:
1
0
0
2
46
41
3
13
12
4
33
30
5
61
55
6
42
38
7
4
4
8
4
4
9
11
10
10
4
4
Method(Source): Waste stream basis (OSW Assessment Study [7 ])
A-41
-------
SIC 30 — RUBBER AND MISCELLANEOUS PLASTICS PRODUCTS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 249
EPA Waste List: NA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 249
Range: 125 - 374
Basis Quantity (Source/Year) : 220 (EIS [17] - 1975)
The wastes generated by SIC 30 include solvents, paint
wastes, contaminated floor sweepings, APC dust, etc.
Range: ±50%
Coverage Ratio: Not available
Annual Growth Rate(Source): 2.5% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: 95%
Disposal Methods: Landfill
Source: OSW Assessment Study [11]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Of f site:
1
22
21
2
28
27
3
22
21
4
39
37
5
83
79
6
17
16
7
11
10
8
2
2
9
22
21
10
2
2
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-42
-------
SIC 31 — TrRATHER
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 474
EPA Waste List: 455
Characteristic Waste: 19
Unknown: 0
Range: 426 - 521
Basis Quant it/(Source/Year) : 434 (3IA backup D5] - 1978)
The following SPA Waste List streams are included: 2044,
2045, 2047, 2048, 4750. No tonnage is known for the EPA.
listed waste stream 2046.
Range: ±10%
Coverage Ratio: .98
Annual Growth Rate(Source): -2.0% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current. Disposal Practices
Offsite: 56%
Disposal Methods: Landfill, landfarm.
Source: EIA backup [15]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Of fsite:
1
156
87
2
57
32
3
24
13
4
14
3
5
137
76
6
0
0
7
38
21
8
5
3
9
38
21
10
5
3
Method(Source): Industry basis (OSW Assessment Study [1])
A-43
-------
SIC 32 — STONE, CLAY & GLASS PRODUCTS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Was-te Genera-toon
Total Generation: 17
EPA. Waste List: NA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 17
Range: 9-26
Basis Quantity (Source/Year) : 16 (Small Generator Study [18] -
1977)
The typical wastes include solvents, alkalies, and acetic
wastes.
Range: ±50%
Coverage Ratio: Not available
Annual Growth Rate(Source) : 2.7% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current. Disposal Practices
Offsite: Unknown
Disposal Methods: Landfill.
Source: Small Generator Study [18]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Unknown :
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
4
3
3
5
4
4
6
2
2
7
1
1
8
1
1
9
2
2
10
1
1
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-44
-------
SIC 33
PRIMARY METALS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 4,061
EPA Waste List: 2,010
Characteristic Waste: 905
Unknown: 1,146
Range:
3,046 - 5,077
Note: The following individual segments are presented:
SIC 331, 332, 339
SIC 333, 3341, 335, 336
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Of f site:
Unknown:
1
2
1
0
2
185
47
13
3
791
134
27
4
434
159
53
5
1348
226
45
6
452
219
79
7
74
39
14
8
109
28
8
9
101
33
10
10
565
249
87
Method(Source): See individual industry segments following.
A-45
-------
SIC 331, 332, 339 — FERROUS METALS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 2,330
EPA Waste List: 1,858
Characteristic Waste: 249
Unknown: 223
Range: 1,748 - 2,9L3
Basis Quantity (Source/ Year) : 2,017 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
209 (Small Generator Study [18]-
1977)
The EPA Waste List streams include: 2027, 4551, 2028,
4913, 4912, 4050, 2032, 2031, and 2030. Only one EPA
Waste List stream, 2050, has no associated tonnage. There
are tvvo characteristic waste streams, tin plating sludge
and waste from ferrous foundries.
Range: ±25%
Coverage Ratio: Not applied
Annual Growth Rate(Source): 2.2% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current: Disposal Practices
Offsite: 9%
Disposal Methods: Lagoon, POTW
Source: EIA backup [163 and Small
Generator St udy [18]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Offsite:
1
0
0
2
117
11
3
652
60
4
163
15
5
1118
104
6
47
4
7
0
0
3
70
7
9
47
4
10
116
11
Method(Source): Waste stream basis (OSW Assessment Study [ 5 ])
A-46
-------
SIC 333, 3341, 335, 336 — NOH-FERROUS METALS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 1,731
EPA Waste List: 152
Characteristic Waste: 656
Unknown: 923
Range: 1,298 - 2,164
Basis Quantity (Source/Year): 210 (EIA backup [16] - 1978),
525 (EIA backup [15] - 1978)
865 (Small Generator Study [18]-
1977)
The waste streams on the EPA Waste list are: 2034, 2051,
2036, 2037, 3024, 2051. The EPA Waste List streams which
have no associated tonnages are: 2033, 2035, and 2u38 .
The characteristic wastes include sludges, dusts,
residues, and slag.
Range: ±25%
Coverage Ratio: Not applied
Annual Growth Rate(Source): 3.2% (U.S.I.O, [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: 53%
Unknown: 20%
Disposal Methods: Lagoon, landfill, POTW
Source: Small Generator Study [18]
Total :
Of fsite:
Unknown:
1
2
1
0
K 2
68
36
13
3
139
74
27
4
271
144
53
5
230
122
45
6
405
215
79
7
74
39
14
a
39
21
8
9
54
29
10
10
449
238
87
Me thod( Source) : Waste Stream basis (OSW Assessment Study [ 5 ])
A-47
-------
SIC 34 — FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 1,997
SPA. Waste List: 624
Characteristic Waste: 46
Unknown: 1,327
Range: 1,498 - 2,496
Basis Quantity (Source/Year) : 613 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
1,196 (EIS [17] - 1975)
EIA backup estimates are used for SIC 3471. Two waste
streams from this segment are captured by the EPA Waste
List (2002, 3000). There is one characteristic wasta
stream. Eatimates from the SIS were used for the
remainder of the industry. The wastes consist of
solvents, paint wastes, acids, heavy metals, etc.
Range: ±25%
Coverage Ratio: Not available
Annual Growth Rate(Source): 2.5% (U.S.I.O. [23] when
available; OSW Assessment
Study C 3 ] for others)
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: 27%
Disposal Methods: Chemical treatment, landfill, incinera-
tion, POTW
Source: Draft EIA [21] and EIA backup [16]
198O Regional Distribution
Total :
Of fsite:
Unknown:
1
204
55
103
2
212
57
125
3
172
46
132
4
172
46
132
5
731
210
513
6
137
37
110
7
96
26
62
8
28
3
15
9
164
44
117
10
31
3
IS
Method(Source): Industry basis (OSW Assessment Study [ 3 ]) and
Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-48
-------
SIC 35 — MACHINERY/ EXCEPT Kt.ECTRICaL
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 322
SPA Waste List: 74
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 248
Range: 161 - 483
Basis Quantity(Source/Year):
65 (SIA backup [16] - 1978)
218 (PH8 Estimates - 1978)
SIA backup estimates are used for 3IG 355 and 357. All of
the waste from these industry segments are included on the
SPA Waste List. The listed waste streams are: 3000,
3002, 4000, 4301, 4800, 2002, 4905, 2000, 4300. To
estimate tonnage for the remainder of 3IG 35, the employee
hours for SIC 355 and 357 are ratioed to employee hours
for the total industry. Tonnage is increased using this
factor. The estimate therefore is based on the assumption
that the generation rates for SIC 355 and 357 and the
remainder of SIC 35 are the same.
Range: ±50%
Coverage Ratio: .97
Annual Growth Rate( Source) : 5.1%
(U.S.I.O. [23] when avail-
able; OSW Assessment Study
[2 ] for others)
Current Disposal
Offsite:
Unknown:
Disposal Methods:
Source:
21%
76%
Chemical treatment, landfill, incineration
OSW Assessment Study [ 2 ] and SIA backup
[16]
A-49
-------
SIC 35 - MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL
(continued)
1980 Regional Distribution
-,_1 2 3 4 5 678 9 10
Total:
Offsite:
Unknown:
Method( Source) : Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
26
5
20
31
7
24
28
6
21
29
6
22
127
27
97
24
5
18
20
4
15
6
1
5
28
6
21
4
1
3
A-50
-------
SIC 36 — ELECTRIC AMP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMEMT
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 1,093
EPA Waste List: 531
Characteristic Waste: 37
Unknown: 475
Range: 668 - 1,519
Note: The following individual segments are presented
SIC 361-368
SIC 3691, 3692
1980 Regional Distribution
123456789 10
Total: 67 156 183 82 334 65 28 5 145 27
Offsite: 15 59 91 18 139 28 5 1 59 17
Unknown: 48 73 48 60 133 24 22 4 60 2
Method(Source): See individual industry segments following.
A-51
-------
SIC 361-368 — ELECTRIC AHP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 609
EPA Waste List: 49
Characteristic Waste: 35
Unknown: 475
Range: 305 - 914
Basis Quantity (Source/Year) : 91 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
426 (PHB estimates - 1978)
EIA backup estimates are used for SIC 367. All 'out-one
waste stream, WWT sludges, are captured by the following
EPA list waste streams: 3002, 4000, 4301, 4905, 2000, and
4300.
To estimate hazardous waste generation for SIC 361-366 and
368, the employee hours from 367 are ratioed to total
employee hours for the industry. This factor is then
applied to the waste quantity from SIC 367 to obtain the
total above. The estimate therefore is based on the
assumption that the generation rate for SIC 367 and the
remainder of SIC 3b are the same.
Range: ±50%
Coverage Ratio: .97
Annual Growth Rate(Source): 6.7% (u.S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: 19%
Unknown: 78%
Disposal Methods: Landfill, chemical treatment, incineration
Source: OSW Assessment Study [6 ], Draft EIA [21],
and EIA backup [16]
A-52
-------
SIC 361-368 — ELECTRIC AHD ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
(continued)
198O Regional Distribution
Total :
Offsite:
Unknown:
1
62
12
48
2
93
18
73
3
62
12
48
4
77
15
60
5
170
32
133
6
31
6
24
7
28
5
22
8
5
1
4
9
77
15
60
10
3
1
2
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-53
-------
SIC 3691, 3692 — BATTERIES
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 484
EPA Waste List: 432
Characteristic Waste: 2
Unknown: 0
Range: 363 - 605
Basis Quantity (Source/Year) : 442 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
There are three EPA listed waste streams from the
manufacture of batteries, 2039, 2040, and 2041. Waste
estimates are available for one of these waste streams,
2039. The characteristic waste streams consist of WWT
sludges and manufacturing scrap.
Range: ±25%
Coverage Ratio: .99
Annual Growth Rate(Source) : 4% (OSW Assessment Study [ 4 ])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: 65%
Disposal Methods: Landfill, POTW
Source: Draft EIA [20 and EIA backup [16]
198O Regional Distribution
Total :
Offsite:
1
5
3
2
63
41
3
121
79
4
5
3
5
164'
107
6
34
22
7
0
0
8
0
0
9
68
44
10
24
16
Method(Source): Waste stream basis (OSW Assessment Study [4 ])
A-54
-------
SIC 37 — TRANSPORTATION BQOIPME8T
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
198O Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 1,240
EPA Wasta List: NA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 1,240
Range: 620 - 1,860
Basis Quantity (Source/Year) : 940 (EIS D-7] - 1975)
Wastes include solvents, paint wastes, alkalies, cyanides,
and metal containing compounds.
Range: ±50%
Coverage Ratio: Not available
Annual Growth Rate(Source): 5.7% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current: Disposal Practices
Offsite: Unknown
Disposal Methods: Chemical treatment, landfill, incineration
Source: Small Generator Study [18]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Unknown :
1
36
86
2
73
73
3
80
80
4
106
106
5
464
464
6
80
80
7
80
80
a
13
13
9
199
199
10
60
60
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-55
-------
SIC 38 — INSTRUMENTS & RELATED PRODUCTS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 90
EPA Waste List: NA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 90
Range: 45 - 135
Basis Quantity (Source/Year) : 65 (SIS [17] - 1975)
Wastes include solvents, metal containing compounds,
acids, alkalies, paint wastes, cyanides, and miscellaneous
organics.
Range: ±50%
Coverage Ratio: Not available
Annual Growth Rate( Source) : 6.7% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: Unknown
Disposal Methods: Chemical treatment, landfill, incinera-
tion.
Source: Snail Generator Study [IS]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Unknown :
1
14
14
2
21
21
3
8
8
4
6
6
5
21
21
6
3
3
7
3
3
a
2
2
9
11
11
10
1
1
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-56
-------
SIC 39 — MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Har^r^"*^ Waste Generation
Total Generation: 318
EPA. Waste List: NA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 313
Range: 159 - 477
Basis Quantity (Source/Year): 270 (EIS [17] - 1975)
Wastes include solvents, paint wastes, acids, metal
containing compounds, cyanides, and alkalies.
Range: ±50%
Coverage Ratio: Not available
Annual Growth Rate( Source): 3.3% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current. Disposal Practices
Offsite: Unknown
Disposal Methods: Chemical treatment, landfill, incineration
Source: Small Generator Study [IS]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Unknown:
1
48
43
2
66
66
3
24
24
4
42
42
5
72
72
6
18
18
7
12
12
3
7
7
9
24
24
10
6
b
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-57
-------
SIC — NON-MMiOFACTURING INDUSTRIES
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation:
EPA '.taste List:
Characteristic Waste:
Unknown:
Range:
1,971
NA
NA
1,971
968 - 2,957
Basis Quantity(Source/Year):
547 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
1,245 (Small Generator Study [18]-
L977)
The industry segments included in the non-manufacturing
waste generation estimate follow. (The tonnage estimates
are for 1980).
5085 Drum Reconditioners 78
07 Agricultural Services 503
5161 Chemical Warehouses 5
40 Railroad Transportation 556
55 Automotive Dealers and
Gasoline Service Stations 126
72 Personal Services 321
73 Business Services 39
76 Misc. Repair Services 306
80 Health Services 30
82 Educational Services 6
Wastes include solvents, acids, biological wastes, heavy
metals, paint sludges, radioactive wastes and miscella-
neous organic and inorganic chemicals.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source):
±50%
Not available
3.6% (Average industry growth
rate applied)
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite:
Disposal Methods:
Source:
70%
Landfill, landfarm, incineration, lagoon.
EIA backup C16] and Small Generator Study QS]
A-58
-------
SIC — NON-MMTOFACTURING INDUSTRIES
' '' ^
Total:
1 2 _3
4 5
6 T * 9 ^
276 59
193 41
A-59
-------
APPENDIX B
METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING MOST
PROBABLE OFF-SITE DEMAND
IN 1981
As explained in the text, it is not possible to
ascertain the disposal category for a large portion of the
total estimate for hazardous waste generation. This
appendix shows how wastes in this "unknown disposal" cate-
gory are allocated between on-site and off-site disposal.
Exhibit B-l presents the assumptions used for each industry
as well as the rationale for using the assumed off-site
percentages of unknown disposal quantities. These assumed
percentages of off-site demand are also applied to unknown
disposal quantities at the regional level.
B-l
-------
,
CO
CTi
i— 1
i
C fl S-4
0 O &
c a cu
C -H IB
3 Q a
'.
o
M
;
I
r-l F-> r-l
•0 -O T3
33 3
4J 4J 4J
tn cn cn
i-l i4 i-l
0 0 f> 0
(B (B i-l (B CU
' M W 4J W CP
cu cu cn cu IB
c c CN 3 c* i-i u") in u"i in in in
cu cu cu T3 cucucucucucucucu
Cn CT* 4J C Cy^4J4J4J4J4JJJ
1 1 (B H^ 1 I I fB (B (B IB IB CT3 (T3 '
-i -H s -H g g g g g g
5 S CO O 54JCflC,QC/3C/lC.QC.Q
cncn OJ-H cncnajajaJOJOJO)
S 2
^ ^ Q. ^^ ^ ""^ *^* *^" ^ """" T1 "™"
E^£i »dcj E-IMCUCU&OJCUQ.
CN 00 0^ O O ^ ** ^* G^ U^ ^0 P* w^ 00 w* f^. c*sj ^
C^^frj^iQQ^cO^LO O^r^r^ui^rf^vOro
f~H ^^ r^ c*^ c^ ro ^o c^J 00 ^D CN ^*
» *.•>•&•>
r-( r-* iH r-» (-4
O4 ^D ^D ^2 ^3 " *^ ^^ ^* ^H ^D ^^ ^^ pH ^1 ^3 ^3 ^^ ^3
CN «• ^N 00 ^* ui ^0 ^* p* u^ ro
p-t «-(r^cNCNfHLn^r ^T
/—*,—* r—
^2 CO d^ ^D ^^ 1<«Q ^3 ^3 ^D '-O ^ft 00 CO i^ Cft ^^ ^* CD
r™i O4 CO f^O CN GO CD ^3 ^* ^^ ^D
CN O ^N ^ O r-j
r-* rH
OO OT OOOOOOCO
1 £«sj QQ i jjj^ ill ^O ^0 CO CO CO CO CO 00 i
O CO vO O G^ '\jO O O O ["**• r** O O p*- ^ ^O CO ^
CO f*l ^^ CO *^ ^* ^0 ^0 ^3 ^^ 0^ ^^
(—4 CO (*1 f"O r^J tO PO ro
„ ^
!— t 1— •
;
!-U
cN^ru^or^'COJiC^-4 r-jTo -^ m o r- co -Tt £
' * L,
3
1
C3
ro
cn
tH
in
CM
-
00
TT
r"
1
m
cn
ro
«
m
1
r— 1
fl
P
r^
.B
o
•r-l
2
f—
CJ
cu
E-
c
•r-1
13
cu
^
•r-l
!B
c
o
0
cn
cu
•H
^4
4J
cn
3
TJ
c
• H
cu
cn
cu
1^.
0
U-l
cn
cu
CJ
•H
4J
O
.13
a
in
3
cn
T3
0
0
4J
>M
•r"
i_i
cn
i
(B
£
0
cn
c
h- 1
.-^
^3
4J
M
CU
g
c
0
M
. J
>
C
W
•
cn
0
cn
r-l
O
r— i
U
CU
J4
£
CU
U
cu
o
*
2
c"
M
H 1
M
•
cn
r— i
0
^
-
cn
^4
0
•r-l
B
' CU
i C
CU
o
cu
rj
.,«
ij
.^
.B
a IB
• r-
r- i-r
B 4J
c —
a ^
cn c
•r- HI
'C
14-1
S. 0
•CJ
2
• J= CU •
cu 3 •'• cn
r- > CU
os- - 0 C
US- 'o -t-l
4J a cu s-i
cn cn 3
3 r- (3 JJ
T3 iB .3 CJ
= 4J CT3
.H CU 4J '4-r
g 4J 3
r- CU C
CT3 '"Q ^ fQ
CJ CU 4J =
•H 4J ^
g B >B U
CU O 23 ,B
f— ^ *^ w
i-i (13 B .«
• 0 ^ cn
1) *4
4J -s\ cn ^
•it CU 3 01 4J
cn cn o > -i-i
1 -, 1 .2 = cn
B cu •*- » cn 2 ir
4J i-i cn cu cn 2
•HOI CD "-I 0) ~
x: a "4-1 ^ o cn
u cu «- i; ^ cn -
< as O 3 ^4 < -
2
4J
^*
CN ro ^>
CU
CJ
U
3
0
Y.
3-2
-------
APPENDIX C
PROJECTED 19ab INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS
WASTE GENERATION BY INDUSTRY
Exhibit C-l presents a 1985 projection of the range of
hazardous wastes that may be generated. The high estimate
is based on the industry growth rate used to calculate 'the
1980 and 1981 estimates. The low estimate is based on a
reasonable estimate of the potential reduction in waste
generation. It was impossible to obtain reduction estimates
for each industry. A survey of technical contractors used
to support EPA RCRA regulation development indicated, how-
ever, that a 20 percent reduction was reasonable. The low
estimate represents a 20 percent reduction from the 1985
high estimate.
It is not our purpose to provide a projection of what
the growth in hazardous wastes might be, but rather to show
the effect of a range of growth rate assumptions on volumes
of hazardous waste.
C-l
-------
EXHIBIT C-l
Projected 1985 Hazardous Waste
Generation by Industry
(Thousands of wet metric tons)
Industry
SIC 2 2 -Textile Mill Products
SIC 24-Lumber S Wood Products
SIC 25-Furniture S Fixtures
SIC 26-Paper S Allied Products
SIC 27-Printing & Publishing
SIC 28-Chemicals S Allied
Products
SIC 29-Petroleum & Coal Products
SIC 30-Rubber S Misc. Plastic
Products
1980 Estimate
203
87
36
1,295
154
25,509
2,119
249
i
SIC 31-Leather S Leather Tanning
SIC 32-Stone, Clay S Glass
Products
SIC 3 3 -Primary Metal Industries
SIC 34-Fabricatad Metal Products
SIC 35-Machinery, Except
Electrical
SIC 36-Electric S Electronic
Equipment
SIC 3 7 -Transportation Equipment
SIC 3 8- Instruments & Related
Products
SIC 39-Misc. Manufacturing
Industries
Nonmanufacturing Industries
TOTAL
474
17
4,061
1,997
322
1,093
1,240
90
318
1,971
41,235
1985 Projection
Low-L
162
75
29
High''
203
94
36
1
1,201
145
24,564
1,789
1,501
182
30,705
2,236
226 282
342 : 428
15
3,699
1,307
330
19
4,624
2,259
413
1,145 i 1,431
1,309
1,636
i
99 124
1
i
299
1,882
39,118
374
2,352
48,899
1985 volume projections based on the annual industry growth rate
(see individual industry summaries) and adjusted for 20% source
reduction.
1985 volume projections based on the annual industry growth rate.
Source: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett
C-2
-------
APPENDIX D
HAZARDOUS WASTE LIST
This waste list is based on a March 1980 listing that
contained the May 19, 1980 listings, the planned Summer 1980
listings (Appendix A of the preamble to the rules) , and the
planned Fall 1980 listings (Appendix B of the preamble to
the rules).
D-l
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLDJ
NEW 2
Hazardous Waste
3000
F001
Spent halogen.* tetl te t racliloiroe tliy lene', carbon
tetrachlocldu, routhylenu chloride, trlchloro-
ethylene, 1 , I , i- t r lull loiroo t liunu , trlchloro-
f luo romu thanu and Clio ulud^u.s fruia the re-
covery of these solvent* Crun degreaslng
operations
4905
2000
4300
4800
3001
FQ17
F018
F014
F015
Paint wastes (such as latex sludge, spent
so Iveuta )
Water-based paint wu.-id:/;
Waste paint and vtintLtih fc
Spent or wutita cyauldu ;i.ilt Kululloas or
sludges
Spent or wuutiu
sludges
cyauldu MO In t Ions or
4000
4301
3002
F003
F004
F005
F002
Non-halogeua t ed uolvjuCu and solvent
recovery still buLtoiau (.specific solvents
will be listed)
Non-halogena t
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
Hazardous Waste
OLD
NEW
2002 F006
FOOT
F008
F009
F010
F011
F012
F013
5101
5102
5103
5104
Electroplating wastewater treatment sludges
Spent plating bath solutions from electro-
plating operations
Plating bath sludges from the bottom of
plating baths from electroplating operations
Spent stripping and cleaning bath solutions
from electroplating operations
Quenching bath sludge from oil baths from
metal heat treating operations
Spent solutions from salt bath pot cleaning
from metal heat treating operations
Quenching wastewater treatment sludges from
metal heat treating operations
Flotation tailings from selective flotation
from mineral metals recovery operations
Reactor clean up wastes from the chlorina-
tion, dehydrochlorination or oxychlorination
of aliphatic hydrocarbons
Fractionation bottoms from the separation
of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons
Distillation bottoms from the separation
of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons
Washer wastes from the production of
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons
D-3
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
3502
F016
Spent en C a I y H C from L lie production of
chlorinated aliphatic hyd coca cbo us
Reactor clean-up waste.-; from the chlorl-
nacLon or oxychlocInat Ion of cyclic allphat
hydrocarbons.
• FractlonutIon bottom:; from ch« separation
of chinr Inatcd cy«:ll«: aliphatic hydrocarbon
I) I II I I I t il f I it ii tut 4. I HIM:: I' r mil I In- u •• )».» r .» t I Oil
of c It I i> r L u a I <:e n c c u c .1 t y a t l i 'in i U.: ji c mini- L I mi o C
cUlocluatcd cycll«: .«LljiU.»Llc liyd roca r lioua
Butch real j>c ro o I y m e r u
llenctor clcan~up want'in Croi:i C lie uepuratlon
of chlorinated aromal. Ic hydrocarbons
F rac t lona t ton boccoiau frum the reparation
of chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbuna
Distillation bottoms I roci tin: separation of
chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbuna
Washer wastes from tin* production of chlori-
nated aromatic hy«l ror a r lions
I'o I yell lor I n a ted It I pin- ny Is (I'Clt) and I'CU
Items aa de lined In /»<) CI-'K Part 7 (> I
Dewatered air pollution control scrubber
sludges from coke ovens and blast furnaces
D-4
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers Hazardous Waste
OLD NEW
6925 Containers oc Inner line 05 ciiiaoved frutn a
con r. a L u»» r that dan bor. ti triple flutied Co hold
any hazardous uu»t<: ll:art,
unless the container h.i:; been triple rinsed
using a solvunC oiip.ihLi: u E removing the
hazardous wutitc oc li.i:; lu;ot\ cli r-t , or by testa conducted
by the gene fa tor, to achieve mpilvulent
remova1.
I Comment: The hazard code to be used by the
generator for de I LaU I mj conl aLneru or Inner
lineru will be the same a:i tlie hazard code
of the hazardous wasti-. which Is removed from
the container or Inner liner.)
D-5
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
7000
7001
7002
7003
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
2003
5117
K070
Sub-- ore from untie rg round and sur fac« ml. a ing
of uranium, overburden fcrcim surface mining
of uranium and wa.-iLci ro«:k from undo r g round
mi u Lay of ur.iuLuin with a radlum-226 a'ctlvity
In excess of 5 p C I / j;
Leach zone overburden and dl.s carded phosphate
ore from phosphate ii u ir f r L r. acid
Wool f .1 1» r I <- i| y I it )• .1 ii. I r I ii I :i It I ii n wa ti C it w.-> 1 1! r
c r»:a Lmo u i: M I ««d i;»; :;
Woven fabric
t coat me at
KOO:
i; ,nid I L i> L s U L up, wuatuwatar
Hull. I i> l> r 1 *'
Carpet dyi»»i; and finishing. wastuwaLer treut-
in e n t a 1 u d {; e a
Wool scouring wau t ewa L •: c (.rcatmenC sludge a
Bottom tied I me ut Hliidj-i! from wnoil- t rca t lujj
process
D-6
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
2004
K071
2005
5118
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
K072
K073
K074
K075
K076
K077
K005
Mercury bearing sludges from brine treat-
ment and mercury bearing brine purification
muds from the mercury cell process In
chlorine production
Wastewater treatment islndge from diaphragm
cell procesa using graphite anodes In
production of chlorine
Chlorinated hydrocarbon bearing wautua from
diaphragm cell procossj using graphite anodes
In chlorine production
Wastewater treatment .-sludges I row the
production of T li>2 |> I ;».iu«.'at o»lng chromium
bearing ores by tho chloride process
Wastewater treatment Kludges from the
product' Ion «»f Tl'>-> p I gnu'n I using r.hrumlum
be a r I it); o C c u by I he :i u I I .1 I is |« i •»«', o :i :•
Arsenic bearing sludgen from thu purification
process In the product ID a of antimony oxide
Antimony bearing wautcwater treatment
sludges from the pur I f Lcat Ion process In Che
production of antimony oxide
Uastewater treatment sludge from the manu-
facture of chrome t'L^uu iili'ment
2011
2012
K006
K008
Waatewater treatment nluili;c: from thu manu-
facture of cliromo oKldt* gruen pigment
(anyhdcuus and hydr.ited)
Oven residue from tho manufacture of chrome
oxide green
D-7
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
3003
2013
2014
2015
6151
5700
4911
5950
2016
K007
K002
K003
K004
K084
K078
K079
K080
K081
2017
3004
3006
5120
K082
K009
K010
K011
K012
WautewaLur treatment :»luil|',e from the manu-
facture of Icon blue plj'iuentH
WaatewaLer L r«sa tine ill .sludge frota the manu-
facture uf chrome ye I low and orange pigment a
Watitewater L re a tun- n i; sludge from L lie manu-
facture of molybdali- iir-iii;; e p I J;HICII t «
WastewaCer t run tmcii c slu«l|;e from the manu-
facture' of •£. I ac y<:l lov; \t i j;mo u L s
Arsenic or ur^auo-a r sun I c con t a I n I nj; waaLe-
watar treatment sluilj-.cs from produce Ion of
ve te r Laa ry plia nnac.uu t L<-. a L s
Solvent cleaning uuiite.-i I rum jiulnt (truductlon
Water cLeunLmj wudteu fr(jm |>aLnc pcoductLon
'H trum |>alnt
Caustic cleaning waud'
pruduc t Ion
Waatewater treatmenl .s
pruduc t Ion
fr
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
Hazardous Vvaste
OLD
NEW
3007
K013
K014
3008
3009
K083
K085
K015
3010
3011
5123
5124
3012
5126
5128
2018
K016
K017
K018
K019
K021
Bottom stream from the aceconitrile column
in the production of acrylonitr ile
Waste stream (column bottom:*) from
acetroui tc I Le pur I £ lea t Lou Ln production
of acrylonltrlle
Still bottoms from aniline production
Distillation residues from separation oE
ch loco benzenes
Still bo'ttoms from the distillation of
benzyl chloride
3014
Heavy endsi or d 1 i: i. I I I n I. Ion rortlUvica from the
carbon Lc t each I o r l«lu ( r ,u: L Loua U Lou towo.r
Uautc f r uiu t hti iu.> nit I .1 1: 1. 11 r c i> C
chlo cop roi>;iuti (l)HCI')
Heavy et»ila (at II I IxiLtmas) Ci'ota the EractLou-
utor In Lhe p r oiluo L 1.) n a I; <.>|> Lclilo cohy d r Ln
Heavy euila Crum f r.ic i: Lona t Ion Ln ethyl
chloride \*r o»luc L I on
Heavy ends firoiu Ll»c il I j t L L la t ton of utliylene
dicUlorlde Ln ethylenc tllchloclde ^ruductlon
Spent cutaLyut EC«>M i U«; fluorlnatlon reactor
In tlie production of I Luo rume thanea
Heavy ends from the production oE glycerine
from allyl chloride
Lead a lag fi'ou Lead alkyl production
Vacuum utlll Jnic turns from t»»e production of
m a 1. c L c a u li y d f L
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD NEW
Hazardous Waste
3018
3019
3020
3021
5130
4302
4102
5132
5133
3022
5181
3023
K022
K023
K024
K025
K026
K027
K028
K029
K030
K020
Heavy Cars from tin- production of phenol/
ace Co tie from cumene
Distillation residues from Che production of
phtliallc anhydride from naphthalene
Aqueous effluent frow «><: rulihl ng of spent
acid in nlcrobenzene production
Pur 1 f lea C ion column w.iute.s from the pro-
duction of til t robe n/.c ne
Sell I hoc Coins from tin: p r otluc C Liiu of
p e a t a c h i o r o n 1 C r o l> e u /. i • n e
t IK: producCion of
nu atlLJ c ;» I I :,
methyl ethyl jiy r 1 r <• h I u r oe I li y t c nc.
II c.i v y e n d ;i I r urn (In- d I :; t I I I .1 1 I on o 1 vinyl
chloride in Lli4j pruduci Inn of vinyl chloride
from ethylene d I c h I o r I ;l u
D-10
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
2019
5144
5145
5146
5147
K031
K032
K033
K034
5149
5154
5156
5157
5158
5163
2020
K035
K043
K036
K037
K031
By-products salts l>» the production of
cao.odyllc acid
Uautewater treatment •: Indies ftum'the
production of r. h I it ril;i n<»
Wa :i t cw;i L e r .tad i;ciul> w.iinr I rum t. liu clilorlna
Clou of cy c Lop uu L'iid I «• ii •: In |i K ad tic. L L on of!
ell lordu no
Filter fjoll-lu from tin-, f I I t'r n t Ion of htsxa-
c li I » IT oo y c I » |>o. n I it • in* I ii i ItK |> r a Lint; u I ;« I ml |«»s :i lr
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
5166
5167
5168
6152
6153
5169
6300
2049
7200
4051
4103
3025
K038
K039
K040
K041
K042
K044
K046
K045
K047
Liquid mid noild waste* from Lin; wa till
stripping and filtering of phorate In
phorate production
Filter cuke from th<> filtration of dlethyl-
phos pho cod i t ho r Ic acid la the p roduc t Lou of
pho rate
Wastewater treatment sludges from the
production of phorite
Filter cake from th«j filtration of toxa-
phene aolutlon In production of toicaphene
Waatewater treatment .Hindi* us from the
production of toxaphcne
Heavy e ud H of d I :i I: I I I a I I it u r r M I dun :: f r om t hf>
dlut L L lat Inn at t >: I r.u- li I u fohun/.unc In Cltu
production of 2,A,b-T
WajCiiwaUiiC L rt-a t mo u I s I ud i;<>n from tlur inaiui-
facturo of u x [i I t».«i I v«: s and ji r ujio I I a n t
compounds
Waatewati-r treatment sludges from i.hu pro-
duction and LAI' Initial. Ln^ compouiuls
Uaateu fr om a «•. i; t I o. ;> eld r c i: o v u r y In t IK:
production of RUX/IIMX
Catch bauln maturlals In IIUX/IIMK production
Spent carbon columns n.<; oil In the treatment of
waatewater LAP opei.i
Red water and pink water .sludge « from TNT
production and LAP o j»o r .» t Inns
D-12
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
2021
K086
2022
5900
2023
K048
2024
K049
2025
K050
Sludges/wastes from tuli washes derived from
Ink formulae loit a con La I n i HB feedstocks- or
pigments of lead, c. \\ r OHI i urn , barluut, cadmium,
arsuuic or mercury
Wash water/aludijcss from ink |>ir lul I UB
equipment clean-up r.mi c .1 I n I »(• feedstocks
oc pigments of a r n n n I •'. , li.irluw, o:id« I um ,
cUroialutn, lead o c «u:ri:ury
UauCu f cr r Ley a u td e l>l<>;irlt, d Loll roua Ce bleach,
color develo|)«ii' lil«:.u-li tin .iml .10. Ld uoluCLou
from photo)* ra |>li f «• (»••••••«•;'. ••; I 'M'.
Dissolved air f lotal l<»u (l)AK) float from
treatment of the oily water uewcr Lit a
petroleum refinery that produces te.traethyl
lead containing products or tines chroialum
In their cooling tower water
Slop oil emulsion uolld.'i resulting from
treatment of oily water sewer In a
petroleum refinery that produces tetra-
ethyl lead containing products or uses
chromium in their cooling tower water
Petroleum re fin in jj exchanger bundle cleaning
solvent
2026
K051
API separacor sludge from the Al* I separator
handling the oily wastewater sewc.r In u
petroleum ruflneiry that produces tetra-
ethyl lead cone a I u I \\\\ pioilucLs or uses
chromium In tlielr cooLlni; tower water
D-13
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
KQ52
2044 K053
2045 K054
2046
2047
2048
4750
4912
4050
4913
2027
4551
2028
K055
K056
K057
K058
K059
K087
K060
K061
K062
K063
Tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum
refining industry
Chrome (blue) t C I mm I ii|> :i I: row I. i: at her
tana I ii i; and f Lit 1 u i« I »>)'. "i"'1"'1 ''•««
Chrome rtliiivltigti from I <>..i I ho r tanning ami
finishing o|ie ra L liMii.
Buffing d»i at from leather L.inn ing and
finishing o p e r a t I u n *i
Sewer screenings frou IttaCliur tunning and
finishing
WaaCowalec treaCmunt: slviilj-c Troia leather
Canning ami t i n ish I nj', «MJI: r.it Ions except
for iluha i r ing
Wautc water L ran tmo nl sl«t«l|'i: from 1 c cu/a iudgc
Coking: Caustic n« u r. ra 1 1 /.a t ion waste
Cok I n |f : Ammoit la ;; I I 1 I II UK- :: \ ml )•<•
Emlrt.sion cooli'ul dti;: I / ;: I ml i;e s i rout the
electric furuace |> cutlnc L I on o f a tec I
Steel Finishing: Wa ;> t: <: ji I c Ic I »t liquor
Steel Finishing: Wa.-ii.it |il.:kle liquor treat-
ment sludge
D-14
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
2030
2031
2032
2050
2033
2034
2051
2035
2036
2037
3024
K090
K091
K092
K089
K064
K065
K066
K067
K068
K088
2038
2051
K069
Emission control dun I. / ;; I u«l (-,« from Cerro-
c h r omen I I I. c o it ( !•' e II r S 1 ) \t r o d u c. Lion
Em iti si on control dns l: / a lucl ye from ferro-
clt route (I'eCr) p rodac t Ion
Emission control ilu:i t / a ludi't! from ferro-
ma n(ja n»; ;se (Ft* Mil) p r odtir I. I on
Lend -be a r liij; wuatewat.-ir t rea ti«c nf s lud
from gray Iron
Kintuulon control /
primary zinc product. Ion
from
Cadmium plant lcaclial:it. Ion from acid leaching
of cmlsalon control dus r. / a lud n
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
Hazardous Waste
OLD
NEW
2039
2040
2041
Wn a t uwa It! r I run LIIU- til ;; In .i/iti>
p r oil »ic t I on f r mil 1 <• .til ii- I <1 li.t ( t i> r y p r «it(uc t I on
Wll u L i* W'l I i* r I 1° i* .1 I iin- u I i I ii 1 1 )• «• :; I i ' l( f I ~
cadmium hutCury prixlut I Lou
D-16
-------
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW TOPICS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEJ1ENT FACILITY OPERATORS
Type of Data
Detail Requested
Facility description
Volumes treated or disposed
Current capacity
Future capacity
Critical factors
influencing expansion
Innovative technology
Financial
Services offered
Wastes processed/refused
Storage capability
Compatibility with proposed
ISS standards
By waste management option
Ultimate disposition
By waste management option
Capacity utilization
Factors related to maximum
utilization
Capacity not meeting ISS
By year (1981-1985) and
degree of commitment
By waste management option
New facilities
Expansion at existing
facilities
Technical
Financial
Legal
Social/political
Emerging technologies
Advantages and disadvantages
Current R&D effort
Economics
Commercial viability
Prices by waste management
option
Sales (if not proprietary)
E-l
-------
APPENDIX F
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING VOLUMES AND
• CAPACITIES OF NONRESPONDENT FIRMS
Data on volumes and capacities for 90 of the 127
identified hazardous waste management facilities were
obtained through both personal and telephone interviews.
Volume and capacity data for the remaining 37 facilities
were estimated using the following three-step process:
Identify the services offered and the waste
streams accepted from the list of identified
industry participants provided by EPA.
Identify a proxy facility, for which volume
and capacity data was collected in the same
EPA region, which most closely parallels the
services offered and waste streams accepted
by the facility to be estimated. If there
was not a similar facility in the same region,
then a facility from an adjacent region was
used.
Assign the volume and capacity data of the
proxy facility to the facility for which
data were not available.
This approach was selected because it relied on current
data for facilities faced by similar market conditions.
Furthermore, no alternative current data exists in either
an aggregate or disaggregated form.
For example, of the eight facilities identified in
Region I, six provided data on volume, capacity, type
of waste management services offered and types of wastes
handled. The remaining two facilities were contacted but
did not respond to inquiries. The data for these two
facilities were estimated through the following three-step
process:
The facility descriptions provided by EPA
identified both facilities as resource re-
covery operations accepting solvents and
providing chemical treatment of wastewaters.
F-l
-------
A similar facility was identified in Region I
to estimate the volumes and capacities for
resource recovery operations. For the chemical
treatment operations, no similar facility existed
in Region I, but a suitable proxy facility in
Region II was identified.
The data for the similar facilities were used
to estimate the volumes and capacity data for
the two nonrespondent facilities.
F-2
-------
APPENDIX G
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SIX MAJOR TYPES
OF HAZARDOUS TREATMENT/DISPOSAL PRACTICES
Chemical, physical and biological treatment includes a
host of different processes which are designed to either
transform the hazardous waste into a non-hazardous material
and/or reduce the volume of hazardous waste to be ultimately
disposed. The choice of the appropriate process depends on
the chemical composition of the waste, the relative economics
and the relevant state and Federal regulations. For simpli-
city, the term chemical treatment is used to refer to all
treatment processes. Exhibit G-l, on the following pages,
provides a capsule summary of some of the various treatment
techniques in use.
The second waste management option considered in this
study—resource recovery—is closely related to chemical
treatment techniques. The only distinguishing characteristic
is that the hazardous "waste" is partially transformed into
a usable raw material rather than a non-hazardous waste.
Solvent recovery operations and waste oil re-refiners were
included in this study only if -they also performed some
other waste management service. In practice, there are
believed to be hundreds of other firms and individual entre-
preneurs involved with buying, selling and recovering waste
that will probably be classified hazardous.
The third waste management option considered is inciner-
ation. Incineration of hazardous materials involves the
controlled burning of solids, liquids or gases. The thermal
destruction of the hazardous waste yields carbon dioxide,
water vapor and an inert ash as the primary outputs. The
types of wastes incinerated are generally classified as
autogenous and non-autogenous materials depending on
whether auxiliary fuel is required for sustained combustion.
Typical types of wastes which are incinerated include
oily wastes, chlorinated hydrocarbons, solvents and pesti-
cides. Several basic incinerator designs are used and
numerous configurations and design adaptations have
been developed by waste management firms. Incinerators
which are capable of burning solids typically combine a
rotary kiln with a secondary combustion chamber.
G-l
-------
EXHIBIT G-l(l)
Types of Chemical, Physical and Biological Treatment
Type of
Treatment
Description
of Process
Examples of
Wastes Treated
Chemical Treatment
Neutralization
Oxidation
Coagulation
Precipitation
Reduction
Neutralizing agents
are reacted with
wastes to adjust
the pH level
Mixing of an oxi-
dizing agent with
waste to combine
with another com-
pound
Destabilization and
aggregation of
smaller particles
to make settling
easier
Addition of chemi-
cals to cause sep-
aration from a sol-
ution or suspension
Reduce the oxida-
tion state of a
material
Acids and alkalines
from chemical, pe-
troleum and metal plat-
ing industries
Reduced ferrous iron
from steel industry
Heavy metals
Electroplating wastes
Hexavalent chromium
salts
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
G-2
-------
EXHIBIT G-K2)
Type of
Treatment
Description
of Process
Examples of
Wastes Treated
Physical Treatment
Sedimentation
Distillation
Evaporation
Flotation
Removal of settled
suspended solids
Boiling a mixture
of liquids to exr
tract a vapor of
the lower boiling
components
Concentration of
solids by boiling
off the solvent
Floating materials
to the surface by
attaching them to
air bubbles and then
skimming the surface
Biological Treatment
Aerobic
Anerobic
Microorganisms which
require oxygen for
their existence are
used to treat wastes
Microorganisms
which do not require
oxygen for their
existence are used
to treat wastes
Dissolved solids
Halogenated and non-
halogenated solvents
Rinse waters from
metalplating
Organics
Sludges
High strength
organic waste
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
J-3
-------
One of the major problems faced by incinerators is
their ability to meet current air emissions standards.
Typically, incinerators must be equipped with trace toxic
contaminant removal equipment and operate at very high
combustion temperatures.
Deep-well injection is the fourth waste management
option considered. This option involves pumping liquid
wastes into underground porous formations isolated from
potable water and mineral bearing strata. The material.is
intended to be permanently stored in these formations.
This practice has been used extensively by the petroleum
industry to dispose of brines produced and separated from
the oil. The applicability of deep-well injection to
hazardous waste disposal is somewhat controversial. Pro-
ponents argue that deep-well injection is a safe option for
a diverse variety of wastes. However, some states have
strict limitations on the types of wastes which can be
injected via deep wells, limiting such wastes as chlorinated
hydrocarbons.
Secure landfill is similar to deep-well disposal in
that the hazardous nature of the material is not changed,
rather it is isolated from human contact. Land burial, by
definition, includes sanitary landfills and secure landfills.
Secure landfills, by definition, are those which have been
designed with the intent of accepting hazardous waste. These
facilities have an almost impermeable barrier such as
a liner', and a leachate collection and monitoring system.
Land treatment, land farming or land spreading is a
form of biological treatment through soil incorporation.
The application of this technology was pioneered in the
petroleum industry. The liquid wastes are applied onto or
beneath the soil and periodically mixed to aid in aerobic
decomposition of the organic material. Plots can be rotated
and reused. Land treatment and solar evaporation have been
combined into one category for purposes of this study because
of the sometimes inseparable nature of these processes. For
example, some hazardous waste treatment facilities use ponds
for physical separation such as oil skimming and dewatering
by solar evaporation. Then after the sediment has settled
and the water removed, the bottoms of the ponds are dredged
and the material is spread on land for biological decomposition.
G-4
-------
APPENDIX H
1985 NATIONAL FORECAST FOR CAPACITY
BY WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTION
This appendix presents a forecast of off-site hazardous
waste management capacity for 1985. These data have been
included as an appendix because the quality of these fore-
casts are not as good as the 1981 and 1982 forecasts.
The industry is changing so rapidly and there are
so many uncertainties involved that forecasting to 1985
becomes very imprecise. The expansion plans reported by
the interviewed firms reflected a "wait and see" attitude
because of uncertainty over final RCRA requirements.
Furthermore, most firms interviewed reported that they did
not plan beyond 1982. This limited planning horizon may
introduce a significant downward bias in the capacity fore-
cast. To attempt to account for this, upper bounds on
the forecasts were developed extrapolating the 1980-1982
growth rate out to 1985. Exhibit H-l presents the national
forecasts of capacity and Exhibit H-2 shows the regional
breakdown of these forecasts. The methodology used to
develop these forecasts is described in Appendix I.
H-l
-------
EXHIBIT H-l
1985 National Forecast for Capacity
By Waste Management Option
(Million Wet Metric Tons)
c
_o
-i-J •£
-------
r-4
>1)-I C
1-100
-U 4-1 -H
U] 4J
3 -P Cli
T: tn o •—
c fa tn
H O -P C
, 0) C 0
•I-1 S-i CU £1
cos.
-H
1 CU r- 1 (0 s^
S CTi ITS C 4J
(0 C (B CD
&H c o s s
H (0 -H
03 2 CTi ,-r-l
i— i j2 i— t
tn l-r-t
0 tO 4-> S
t3 CD -H ^*
5-1 0
i— i
>4
a
Ed
>
8
^
2
EI
z
Ed
§
rtl
w
2
EH
O
M
E*
*5
X
Ed
Z
M
CJ
M
EH
1
EH
<
£H
a
z
fl
CN
H- 1
H
jvt
Q
<.
M
LO iH VO
r-i ^n va
i i i i • i i i i •
o ^ ^
^
— ^ en o "fl* m en
rJ IT) r-l O •V CN
...lllll r>
••••'I II II
O O O O O r-l
kOcnr-nOvO'VfiTOTC^
'5*r~r-4vDcD(yl'-lO':l''-^QO
Or-lr-lOfNr-lOOCOCD
\jOnro(NcNO r— ' r**
CrHi-tcNmcn " co
oooooo c _^
o ^o ^ c^ en
ro o en O ^
1 1 1 1 1 1 ....
r-l r-l m
ro f> rO
cNcriinc^-TcnLn inr-~r-4
O^rOCDrHmo ro o en
ooomocNo ocx
•1
H- 1
H <
M MM EH
Mr-i> MMMX O
MMMM>>>>HX=-
"C
CD
jj
ITS
•r-l
CJ
0
33
en
03
>
_j
c
•rl
ia
jj
M
CD
U
C
3
CD
rH
rJ
<0
rl
cu
T3
•rl
en
c
0
CJ
en
• r4
CU
SM
*J
s
JJ
JJ
X
cu
JJ
cu
.c
JJ
c
• r-4
>.
rH
r-4
3
'J—
CU
^1
0
T3
CD
f*.
•ri
^
CJ
tn
0)
T3
eo
<
r-I
•
31
JJ
en
.
1
in
w
0
C
0
•rl
JJ
(0
M
•n
r-J
•rl
JJ
3
O
CO
en
r— i
0
TT
CJ
en
ro
J2
CD
jj
S3
!-
C
c
—4
Jj
fl
N
•r*
r— *
• r*
^
-^
r-4
rH
3
U-l
T3
C
fl
r4
umes
31
33
<
CN
33
•r4
£
JJ
T3
CD
en
JJ
0
CD
rl
«!
en
r— 1
r^
• r-4
T!
C
(0
r^
uu
^J
31
CJ
£
cr
•rl
—
33
•r|
U
CU
>
CJ
.c
o
• l-f
*-•
3
CU
2
• rl
J.'
CD
a-
• rl
pM
es will be underestimates.
jj
2
B
• r*
JJ
31
CJ
>
U
•^
CJ
a
'"! ,
(0
o
CJ
f~
JJ
fc
>
r-H
J4
o
• r*
3
T
>—
Q
• r4
CT
CD
'~i
CD
JJ
C
•rl
r-4
r-\-
•rl
U
T3
10
rH
0
JJ
U-l
•H
"en
>
03
JJ
2
JJ
CD
er>
.TJ
u
rl
0
en
j
r-4
•H
U-l
03
5
r-t
03
^
resei
•">
cu
•V*
-n*
u
r- 1
^-
0
JJ
r— '
-H
C
•Tj
~*
•^
C
cu
r-l
<
^
M
0
Q
22
tt
CD
CJ
3
0
CO
H-3
-------
APPENDIX I
METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING CAPACITY FORECASTS
This appendix to the report discusses the methodology
used to develop the required capacity forecasts by treatment/
disposal method and region for the 1981-85 time frame. The
capacity forecasts for 1981 and 1982 were presented in '
Chapter VI and the 1985 forecasts were presented in Appen-
dix H. The methodology encompasses both the development
of point estimates of future capacity and the representation
of the level of uncertainty associated with these point
estimates. Exhibit 1-1 presents an overview of the methodology.
The details are explained in the following paragraphs.
(1) Capacity Forecasts for the 1981-85 Tine Frame Were
Developed on the Basis of Reported Data on Expansion
Plans From Respondent Firms and Estimated Data for
Nonrespondent Firms
As depicted in Exhibit 1-1, reported data from the
firm interviews encompassed expansion plans in many but
not all cases. Of the 90 facilities where the survey
yielded reported data on most topics, no information
was available for 23 facilities with respect to planned
capacity expansion over the 1981-85 time frame. These
23 facilities were combined with those 37 facilities
where reported data was lacking on all topics.
The technique used to infer the additions to
capacity for each of these facilities required two steps:
Calculate the average capacity growth rate
for similar type facilities in the region
Apply this growth rate to the 1980 capacity
for the facility.
The capacity additions which had to be estimated
by this technique are reported separately in Chapter VI
under the category inferred additions.
(2) Upper and Lower Ranges of Capacity Levels Were
Developed To Reflect the Major Uncertainties
Implicit in the 1981-85 Capacity Estimates
As depicted in Exhibit H-l, a range was developed
for the capacity forecasts for the 1981-85 period to
1-1
-------
00
0) «H
> co
0 T3
4J O
•H
T3 S-l
0
M r-l M
03 O 0
M T3 U-l
0
en
ca 4J 4->
OJ tn
2 (0
o
u-i m
o n
o
3 ft-
0)
•H >,
> 4-1
-4 -rt
0) O
> IT3
O O.
(0
U
1-2
-------
appropriately reflect potential sources of error and
uncertainty implicit .in the original point estimates.
Upper and lower bound estimates were developed to encom-
pass three of the four major categories of potential
error -or uncertainty. These include the following:
Data deficiencies
Sampling data
Limited planning horizons of individual firms
Impact of other forces through time on the level
of uncertainty.
Each source of potential error is discussed below.
As previously discussed in Chapter IV, data
deficiencies are suspected in the 1980 capacity figures
reported by the surveyed firms and estimated for the
non-surveyed firms. Since these data served as the
basis for the developed capacity estimates for the
1981-85 time frame, the suspected or potential errors
will also be found in these capacity forecasts. There-
fore, the estimated error, +24 percent of baseline,
should be reflected in the capacity estimates for each
year of the 1981-85 period.
Estimation of the capacity levels over the 1981-85
time frame for nonrespondent firms on the basis of
reported data from respondent firms introduces a second
potential source of error. To the extent that the two
groups of firms (facilities) are dissimilar with respect
to future capacity expansion rates, the resultant
industry capacity estimates will be biased. Because
the conducted survey was based upon a voluntary as
opposed to scientifically selected sample, such as random
sample, the potential sampling error could not, of course,
be quantified. However, the importance of this potential
error source can be assessed by determining the sensi-
tivity of the resultant capacity forecasts to assumed
levels of sampling error. A maximum sampling error of
+20 percent was selected for the purpose of sensitivity
analysis. Since the sampling error cannot be accurately
defined, the data has been presented in such a way as
to facilitate the use of alternative assumptions for -the
sampling error. The assumed sampling error of + 20 per-
cent was applied to the annual growth rate estimates for
each waste management treatment disposal option. The new
growth rates (upper and lower bounds) were applied to the
nonrespondent firms. Because this 20 percent" sampling
error is only applied to the portion of capacity inferred,
1-3
-------
the impact on the error range for total capacity is
much less. For example, only 7 percent of landfill
capacity was inferred and the sampling error is calcu-
lated as follows:
/SamplingX _ /Inferred \/Sampling\
( error 1 ~ 'capacity ]( error j
\ / Vadditions/\ /
(0.014) = (0.07) x (0.20)
The limited planning horizon of most surveyed firms
introduces another potential source of error or
uncertainty in the developed capacity forecasts for each
hazardous waste treatment/disposal option. In essence,
we have developed capacity forecasts through 1985 while
most surveyed firms reported that their current planning
horizon for new and/or expanded facilities does not go
beyond 1982. To focus properly on the potential signifi-
cance of this source of uncertainty, we developed capacity
forecasts for 1983-85 based on two scenarios:
Scenario 1: Firms (facilities) were assumed to
have no capacity expansion above that which was
reported or inferred for the period 1983-85.
The baseline capacity forecasts incorporated
this scenario.
Scenario 2: Firms (facilities) were assumed
to expand capacity over the 1983-85 period at
the same rate shown for the 1981-82 period.
This scenario was employed to calculate the
extrapolated upper bound on the capacity forecasts
The fourth potential source of error cannot be
quantified and is generic to all forecasts. The un-
certainty associated with forecasts increases as a
function of time; therefore, forecasts for 1 year in
the future are more certain than for 3 years in the
future. We have also assumed that existing facilities
will continue to operate in the future. Clearly then,
the proper reflection of increased uncertainty over
time would entail a further widening per year of the
upper and lower limits on the capacity estimates from
1981-85. Although there is no theoretical or empirical
basis to quantify this uncertainity, the EPA contractor
recognizes this phenomenon and states that its potential
influence was not explicitly factored into the capacity
ranges presented.
1-4
-------
To quantify the range of error, the methodology
accounts for data deficiencies, sampling error, and
error due to the limited planning horizon as displayed
in Exhibit 1-2 on the following page. Using the esti-
mated growth rates presented earlier as the baseline
forecast, the upper bound of potential error is derived
in accordance with the following steps:
Data deficiency: Add 24 percent of base.line
Sampling error: Add 20 percent times the
inferred additions
Planning horizon error: Add an extrapolation
of growth rates for the 1981-82 period.
The lower bound of potential error is based on the
following calculations:
Data deficiency: Subtract 24 percent of
baseline
Sampling error: Subtract 20 percent times
the additions to capacity inferred.
1-5
-------
EXHIBIT 1-2
Impact of Error Source on Baseline
Capacity Forecasts
Capacity
Forecast upper
bound
Error due to
limited planning
horizon
Sampling error
Data deficiency
error
Baseline forecast
Data deficiency
error
Sampling error
Forecast lower bound
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1-6
-------
APPENDIX J
EMERGING HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES
Past reliance on land disposal of hazardous waste has
resulted in serious environmental and health problems through-
out the country. EPA estimates that perhaps 2,000 land
disposal sites could pose unacceptable threats to the neigh-
boring populations. The difficulties associated with simply
"storing" hazardous waste on these sites has stimulated
research toward development of new technologies that will
either destroy or detoxify the wastes.
This chapter will briefly discuss 13 of the more
promising technologies now emerging as a result of recent
research and development efforts. The technologies are
listed alphabetically below:
Cement kilns
Chlorinolysis
Co-mingling
Fluidized-bed incineration
Incineration-at-sea
Land treatment
Microwave plasma destruction
Molten salt combustion
Molten sodium decomposition
Ozonation
Solidification
UV radiation
Wet air oxidation.
The purpose of the chapter is to give some sense of
technology trends and how they might affect the future mix
of treatment and disposal methods. Although few quantitative
conclusions can be made on exactly how disposal capacity
might be increased as a result of the commercialization of
innovative technologies, the chapter provides a perspective
on this issue as a preface to the discussion of individual
technologies.
The approach applied has been to review the literature
and to rely on both phone and face-to-face interviews with
staff of waste management firms and U.S. EPA. A bibliography
and list of interviewees (beyond these people interviewed as
part of the other tasks on the overall assignment) are in-
included in Exhibit J-l.
Hazardous Waste Information, UoS, Environmental Protection Agency,
February 1980.
J-l
-------
EXHIBIT J-l
Additional Interviews Performed
To Identify Emerging Technologies
1. Thomas Baugh
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio
2. Barbara H. Edwards
Ebon Research Systems
Washington, D.C.
3. Gene Krumpler
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Washington, D.C.
4. George Rush
National Solid Wastes Management Association
Washington, D.C.
5. Kent E. Patterson
Environmental Resources Management, Inc.
West Chester, Pennsylvania
6. Irving Susel
Sobotka and Company, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
7. Leo Weitzman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cine innati, Ohio
J-2
-------
1. RECENT R&D EFFORTS HAVE BEEN AIMED TOWARD DETOXIFICATION
AND DESTRUCTION. ALTHOUGH MANY EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
SHOW PROMISE, MAJOR COMMERCIALIZATION IS QUESTIONABLE.
Hazardous waste technology research and development
(R&D) activities have increased substantially in the past
few years. Some waste management firms are actively pursuing
modified technologies but it appears that the principal actors
involved in R&D are the U.S. EPA-Cincinnati, universities,
and waste generators. In addition, a considerable amount of
research is being undertaken in Europe. In this country,
research activities conducted by the EPA will probably have
the widest applicability since waste generators typically
develop technologies (or perhaps more appropriately treatment
systems) which are designed to treat a very specific waste
stream. The EPA's technology program historically has
viewed wastes more generically than this. However, the EPA
program has received a recent change in emphasis. Future
efforts will focus on waste stream characterization as a
result of the promulgation of the RCRA Section 3001 regulations.
It is probable that because of this shift toward analyzing
and characterizing specific waste streams, the technology
development program will move more toward designing systems
to treat individual not generic classes of"wastes.
Typically, recent technology developments have been
driven by one underlying philosophy; no hazardous waste
should be buried without undergoing the maximum amount of
detoxification or destruction feasible. Thus, a variety of
traditional technologies (e.g., incineration) and more
exotic chemical and physical detoxification technologies
(e.g., microwave plasma) have received great emphasis.
Most technologies, however, are in the very early stages
of development. Exhibit J-2, on the following page, shows
that even some of the more traditional incineration technologies
(e.g., fluidized bed) have not been developed beyond demon-
stration scale for the treatment of hazardous wastes. The
more exotic and sophisticated technologies are even less
developed, most being tested presently at bench scale.
Although many technologies do show promise, there are
several factors that would lead one to believe that major
commercialization of innovative technologies is questionable.
Existing technology—Most major waste manage-
ment firms believe that existing technologies
will handle the great majority of wastes in
an environmentally acceptable fashion. These
firms believe that investments in other areas
(particularly siting) will be more lucrative.
7-3
-------
EXHIBIT J-2
Approximate Commercialization Status of
Emerging Hazardous Waste Treatment and
Disposal Technologies
Commercialization Status
Bench-scale
Technologies
Molten sodium decomposition
Chlorinolysis
Ozonation
Wet air oxidation
Microwave plasma destruction
Ultraviolet radiation
Pilot plant
Land treatment (except for
petroleum and pharmaceu-
tical wastes)
Cement kilns
Molten salt combustion
Demonstration facility **
Fluidized-faed combustion
Commercial operation
Solidification (in Europe)
Co-mingling (in California)
Incineration-at-sea
**
RSD at the laboratory stage.
Differs from pilot plant status in that the types of hazardous
waste handled at a demonstration facility represent actual rather
than simulated conditions (subject to the variability of incoming
types of wastes) and the major equipment is operated consistent
with commercialization goals (i.e., continuous processing if
applicable and sized at or near a commercial operations capacity).
Source: Booz, Allen S Hamilton Inc.
J-4
-------
Siting—Most new technologies will do little
to alleviate siting as the major issue sur-
rounding hazardous waste management. Although
the technologies do for the most part detoxify
the wastes, there is still the problem of
transporting the wastes to the site and the
problems associated with operating safety and
the probable inability to guarantee 100 percent
destruction.
Cost—It is probable that emerging technologies
will become somewhat more price competitive with
traditional disposal as RCRA design standards take
effect. However, it is unlikely that this will
happen within the 1980-85 time frame.
Waste purity—Unfortunately, as discussed later, many
of the technologies require very "pure" wastes to work
effectively. That is, the operation of the
physical or chemical process can be inhibited
or upset if a noncompatible waste is present
(e.g., organic materials present in a waste
being stabilized to cement-like consistency can
weaken considerably the strength of the
resultant solid). Thus, some technologies
require significant waste separation prior to
use. This reduces the applicability of the
method where waste separation is infeasible and
increases the costs where separation is feasible
and practiced.
Reliability—Reliability is a key factor in
considering the potential for commercializa-
tion of any technology. Unfortunately,
reliability can only be tested under actual
operating conditions. Since by definition there
are no historical reliability data for emerging
technologies, waste management firms are often
disinclined toward purchasing or developing a
particular technology given the extent of the risks
and the size of the investment.
J-5
-------
Timing—The difficulties in moving a technology
forward from a bench-scale operation to full
commercialization are many, and in some instances
have proven insurmountable. If municipal solid
waste resource recovery technology is any indi-
cator, many of the emerging technologies could
take 10 to 20 years before full-scale operation
is proven feasible.
In summary, there is a moderately promising future, for
emerging technologies. With the enactment and more recently
the implementation of RCRA, proper disposal techniques will
be in demand ever more frequently. Yet because most of the
emerging technologies are at very early stages of development
it appears that the more innovative technologies will not
penetrate the market to a significant degree in the next
5 years.
2. MANY OF THE EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES ARE HIGHLY WASTE
SPECIFIC, AND THEIR EVENTUAL MARKET POTENTIAL MAY BE
LIMITED
Thirteen technologies have been selected for review
because of their market potential. Some technologies are
exotic, some not, some were developed particularly for
hazardous waste disposal, and some were transferred from
other applications. The technologies are presented here in
alphabetical order making no judgments on ultimate worth or
commercialization success. As stated previously, the
technologies are designed principally for hazardous waste
detoxification or destruction. The reviews are designed
to be brief. The list of references in Exhibit J-3 provided
the basis for the findings and should be consulted for
further information.
(1) Cement Kilns
The Canadian government has demonstrated that
chlorinated hydrocarbons can be used as a boiler
fuel in the manufacture of cement. In 1974, at
St. Lawrence Cement Co. in Ontario, 330,000 gallons
of waste lubricating oils were successfully burned
in a cement kiln. In 1976, PCBs and other chlorin-
ated organic wastes were destroyed. Similar tests
in Sweden have demonstrated a PCB destruction
efficiency of 99.99998 percent. As a result, cement
kilns have received considerable attention recently
as a reliable method which can handle a variety of
wastes. However, because of liability issues there
is hesitancy on the part of the cement industry to
use the wastes. Moreover, local opposition is a
problem typically and it is not yet clear which
classes of wastes are compatible with the cement-
making process.
J-6
-------
EXHIBIT J-3
References Presenting Additional Details
on Emerging Technologies
1. Berkowitz, J.B., et al., Unit Operations for Treatment
of Hazardous Industrial Wastes, Noyes Data Corporation,
Park Ridge, New Jersey,1978.
2. Booz, Allen Applied Research, Inc., "A Study of
Hazardous Waste Materials, Hazardous Effects and
Disposal Methods," NTIS Report PB221466, July 1973.
3. Edwards, B.H. and Paullin, J.N., "Emerging Technologies
for the Destruction of Hazardous Wastes," presented at
the Sixth Annual Hazardous Waste Research Symposium,
Chicago, Illinois, March 1980.
4. "Hazardous Waste News," published by Business
Publishers, Inc., Silver Spring, Maryland, multiple
issues.
5. "Hazardous Waste Report," published by Aspen Systems
Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, multiple issues.
6. Henry, D.L., "Incineration at Sea," presented at six
Seminars on Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, sponsored
by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, November 1979-
March 1980.
7. Landreth, R.E., et al., "Promising Technologies for
Treatment of Hazardous Wastes," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Report PB 238 145, November 1974.
8. Maugh, T.H., "Hazardous Wastes Technology Is Available,"
in Science, Vol. 204, June 1, 1979.
9. Maugh, T.H., "Incineration, Deep Wells Gain New
Importance," in Science, Vol. 204, June 15, 1979.
10. Maugh, T.H., "Burial is Last Resort for Hazardous
Wastes," in Science, Vol. 204, June 22, 1979.
11. Novak, R.G. and Clark, J.N., "Impact of RCRA on
Hazardous Waste Incineration System Design," presented
at six Seminars on Disposal of Hazardous Wastes spon-
sored by the Chemical Manufacturers Association,
November 1979-March 1980.
J-7
-------
EXHIBIT J-3 (Continued)
12. Pojasek, R.B., "Solid Waste Disposal: Solidification,"
Chemical Engineering/ 86(17), pp. 141-145, August 13,
1979. •
13. Powers, P.W., How to Dispose of Toxic Substances and
Industrial Wastes, Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge,
New Jersey, 1976.
14. Ross, D., "The Burning Issue: Incineration of Hazardous
Wastes," in Pollution Engineering, August 1979.
15. "Technology for Managing Hazardous Wastes," a report
prepared by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute for the
New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation,
September 1, 1979.
16. Weitzman, L., "Alternatives to Land Disposal,"
presented at six Seminars on Disposal of Hazardous
Wastes sponsored by the Chemical Manufacturers
Association, November 1979-March 1980.
J-8
-------
(2) Chlorinolysis
Herbicide orange, still bottoms from organic
manufacturing processes, and pesticides can be con-
verted by chlorinolysis to carbon tetrachloride.
The technology involves adding chlorine to the waste
in a special nickle-stainless steel reactor under
certain temperatures and pressures. The severe
oxidizing and corrosive environment requires these
special reactor materials, increasing the cost of •
this method substantially. In addition, impurities
in the waste stream, particularly sulfur at extremely
low concentrations, can cause either unwanted by-
products or system poisoning. Further studies are
underway to determine the ultimate feasibility of
this technology.
(3) Co-mingling
The practice of co-mingling hazardous waste
with nonhazardous wastes in land burial sites has
been widespread for years. If done improperly or
arbitrarily severe problems can result. However,
in California the practice has been refined such
that only compatible wastes are disposed of together
and that in all other cases extreme steps are taken
to assure isolation. The results on this method
are not yet conclusive. California officials have
•.expressed some concern because the process kinetics
of the mingling and the ultimate disposition of the
hazardous wastes are not known for sure.
(4) Fluidized-bed Incineration
Fluidized-beds have been used in petroleum
refining since the 1920s, but it is only recently
that hazardous wastes have been combusted in them.
The process has been used to destroy oil refinery
wastes, carbon black, spent pulping liquor, chlor-
inated hydrocarbons, and phenol. This process
involves forcing the waste fluid or gas upward
through a bed of solid particles at a rate such
that the solids remain in suspension. The resultant
complete mixing enhances oxidation with a minimum of
excess oxygen and temperature. The most serious
disadvantage of this technology is the potential
for salt fusion and subsequent defluidization of the
bed. This is due to the formation of low-melting
point mixtures resulting from the incineration of
diverse materials. As with other incineration options
high construction costs are also a problem.
J-9
-------
(5) Incineration-at-Sea
There are now two functioning incinerator ships;
the Vulcanus and the Matthias II. The Vulcanus has
successfully destroyed chlorinated hydrocarbons and
dioxins. EPA monitored the tests and found destruc-
tion essentially complete with no hazardous by-products.
Since dioxin is among the most difficult wastes to
dispose of completely, and since air pollution control
measures are not required on these vessels, the success
of the first tests would seem to indicate a bright
future. However, potential regulatory problems with
discharges to the ocean (e.g., Clean Water Act Section
403 (c) criteria) and the fact that sizeable port
storage facilities are probably required, the promise
of this technology remains questionable.
(6) Land Treatment
Landfarming of oily refinery sludges has been
practiced in this country for over 25 years. Other
materials that have been successfully landfarmed
include sludges from paper mills and fruit canneries,
pharmaceutical wastes, and some organic chemical
wastes. The practice involves the spreading of or-
ganic wastes onto land and subsequently mixing the
waste with surface soil to aerate the mass and expose
the waste to soil microorganisms which will decompose
the waste. The technical requirements of RCRA will
probably constrict the use of landfarming to suitable
hydrogeological areas. Also, landfarming does require
large areas of land and the technology is not appro-
priate for wastes containing significant quantities
of heavy metals or other contaminants that are not
biodegradable.
(7) Microwave Plasma Destruction
Microwave plasma has been evaluated in the
laboratory as a means of destroying pesticides and
other highly toxic materials. Destruction rates
range from 99 percent to 99.9999 percent. In this
technology electrons are accelerated in a cavity
such that the average electron has sufficient energy
to dissociate a molecule or fragment on collision.
The problems with this technology are that it is
only in its early development and thus far, only
very small cavities can be constructed.
J-10
-------
(8) Molten Salt Combustion
In this process, waste and air are continually
introduced under the surface of molten sodium car-
bonate which is kept at a temperature of 800°C to
1,000°C. The intimate contact of the air and waste
with the hot salt produces immediate and complete
combustion. The process has been tested with a
variety of organic wastes and some low-level radio-
active wastes. Destruction rates greater than 99.99
percent have been observed. Unfortunately, the
technology is only in the experimental stage and
the costs could be prohibitive.
(9) Molten Sodium Decomposition
Scientists at the Franklin Research Center have
found that molten sodium metal, in the appropriate
solvent medium, can function as a broad-based chemical
reactant. In tests to date the technology has demon-
strated complete combustion of PCBs and experiments
are underway to study kepone destruction. This tech-
nology is also in its infancy.
(10) Ozonation
For years ozone (03) has been used as an oxidiz-
ing/disinfection agent in wastewater treatment,
particularly municipal systems in Europe. A procedure
for evaluating chemical compounds susceptible to oxone
oxidation has been developed by Fochtman and Dobfcrs. The
applicability of this technology to hazardous waste is
still being studied.
(11) Solidification
A great amount of private R&D has gone into
the chemical solidification of wastes—the develop-
ment of techniques to bind the wastes into a coherent
mass before burial so that leaching of toxic materials
into the groundwater is minimized. This method is
particularly appropriate for "dirty" inorganic wastes
such as industrial sludges. Four techniques are
available: cement-based techniques, lime-based tech-
niques, thermoplastic binders, and organic binders.
Solidification is used very little in this country
but has experienced greater utilization in Europe.
Unfortunately, long-term monitoring of this method
is needed to determine the ultimate disposition of the
solid material. In addition, organic contaminants
can weaken significantly the cement or other solid
material.
J-ll
-------
(12) UV Radiation
UV radiation has been used in conjunction with
other treatment technologies to destroy hazardous
wastes. The Atlantic Research Corporation has
developed a process for breaking and reducing car-
bon-halogen bonds in wastes. The compounds are
dissolved in methanol and treated with UV radiation
and hydrogen. A high percentage of destruction was
reported for kepone and PCBs. Wastes have also
been degraded successfully using ozone and UV
radiation together. Thus, UV radiation shows con-
siderable promise as a supplementary technology.
(13) Wet Air Oxidation
Wet air oxidation has been used largely as a
method of conditioning wastewater treatment sludges,
and to a limited extent for the treatment of waste-
water as well. It does, however, have the potential
to be used as an alternative to incineration for
certain types of wastes. Wet air oxidation is accom-
plished by adding air to an aqueous mixture of organics
under pressure and elevated temperature. This tech-
nology is generally suitable for streams containing
about 1-30 percent organics by weight. Laboratory
demonstrations thus far show good destruction of
cyanides and chlorinated organics.
The technologies presented in this appendix are not
meant to be a comprehensive compilation of all emerging
technologies or systems of technologies. Activated carbon,
ion exchange, and ultrafiltration are three examples of
other innovative technologies perhaps suitable for hazard-
ous waste. In addition, industrial waste exchanges have
shown some promise as a means to recycle or recover useful
components in waste. All of these technologies together
will form the future system of alternatives. The question
remains, however, as to the extent to which each technology
will penetrate the market.
ya 2004
SW-894
j-12
-------