FEDERAL SURVEYS OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE
Presented at the
Solid Wastes Management Association
International Waste Equipment and Technology Exposition
Los Angeles, June 20, 1975
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1976
-------
FEDERAL SURVEYS OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE
by John P. Lehman*
All of you are intimately familiar with how trash and
garbage, also known as municipal solid waste, is generated and
collected, and most of you know how it is disposed of. You are
able to quote facts on what is in municipal solid waste, how much
is generated per person per day, and what disposal costs.
But what about industrial waste? This is an unfamiliar and
uncharted area for most of us, because industrial waste usually
has been handled by a private waste management system outside the
traditional municipal solid waste management system. Out of
sight and out of mind, so to speak.
How many of you can tell me what waste comes out the back
gate of an industrial facility, and how much? And where it goes?
And what it costs to take it there? And whether these wastes are
hazardous?
*Mr. Lehman is Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division,
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
-------
We all know that industry is cleaning up its industrial
wastewater effluents to our rivers and streams, often using
fairly sophisticated water treatment systems. And also, it is
cleaning up the air going out factory stacks, again using
scrubbers and precipitators of reasonably advanced design. What
happens to the pollutants we spend so much energy and money to
remove from industrial effluents? What is in those sludges, and
filter aids, and dust bags? How much waste is there? Where does
it go? How much does it cost to dispose of? And are the
disposal methods acceptable to our society?
There are many such questions, and precious few answers.
About four years ago, EPA ventured out in this uncharted area to
fulfill a Congressional mandate to study hazardous waste
practices in this country-. The results were unsettling. We
found that about ten percent of all industrial waste is
potentially hazardous, and that most of it is disposed of on the
land, generally in an inadequate fashion. Also, we estimated
that industrial and hazardous waste generation is growing at a
rate of five to ten percent per year. This early work whetted
our desire for more knowledge about industrial waste in general,
and hazardous waste in particular. Last year we launched new
-------
studies in these two areas. In what follows, I'll report our
progress and findings to date.
Industrial Waste Study
In mid-1974, we conducted a six-months-long, in-house study
of industrial residues. We gathered and evaluated all available
information concerning industrial waste; no new information was
generated.
Before quoting facts and figures, let me define some terms
concerning industry process outputs (Figure 1). The main output
is the product, of course. There is some non-process waste, such
as office paper and cafeteria waste, which is usually collected
by a municipal system; we count that as "municipal" solid waste.
The main waste source is the manufacturing process itself. In
our thinking, there are three process-related residual streams:
(1) Process sludges and residuals;
(2) Air and water pollution control sludges and residuals,
and
-------
CO
h-
Q.
H
D
Q
CO
CO
LJLJ
O
O
cc
Q.
CC
CO
D
Q
2
fc,
h-
o
D
Q
O
CC
O.
0
LL)
(-
O
UJ
«J
t_l
O
O
LU
H
CO
<
5
CO
CO
LU
0
0
CC
Q.
"Z.
O
z.
S
tf\ I _^,
i3 /2 x^
< 0 -
3 P o (
- 1 = £
CO ' -J ^ <
LU -J 2 (
cc IOO
to ^ ^ ° :
W CO /
CO LU l
LU U
0 Q /
?° f
CC _|
n. co
1
I
1
1
,
O
2
E
D
1-
O
<
LL
P
5 CL
/»
o~9
CO
LU
CO < CC
-------
(3) Wastes reused in the basic process (termed "home
scrap") or recycled in the secondary materials market.
In EPA's studies, we try to track all three, but when we say
"industrial waste," we refer only to the first two, that is, non-
recycled process and pollution control residues.
In order to put industrial residuals into appropriate
perspective, we must look at the relative contribution of all
sources to the total waste stream (Figure 2). Although mining
wastes greatly overshadow all other sources, they are largely
composed of overburden which, while representing a major
materials handling, problem, appear not to represent as widespread
an environmental problem as manufacturing wastes. Crop and
feedlot wastes represent almost all of the agricultural waste
production. The potential for reuse and natural degradation of
crop and feedlot wastes diminish their relative significance.
The true magnitude of the industrial waste situation is now
beginning to come into focus, and the picture we see is alarming.
Not many people appreciate the fact that industry produces about
260 million dry tons of waste per year which is almost twice as
much waste each year as is generated by residential and
-------
FIGURE 2
ESTIMATED INDUSTRIAL
VERSUS OTHER RESIDUALS *
(DRY WEIGHT IN MILLION TONS PER YEAR)
AGRICULTURAL
687
(618)
INDUSTRIAL
MUNICIPAL
(122) 135**
MINING
1783
(1605)
*DATA REPRESENTS VALUES FROM 1970-1974.
** REPRESENTS VALUE "AS GENERATED" UE. WITH MOISTURE.
( ) METRIC TONS
-------
commercial sources. Further, industry generates about 35 times
more waste than do the sewage treatment plants; yet one hears a
lot more talk about the sewage sludge problem than the industrial
sludge problem.
The industrial waste figures include about 40 million tons
per year of residuals from the electric power utility industry
(bottom ash, fly ash, and captured particulates). Sulfur oxide
scrubbers are not yet widely used, so there are only small
amounts of SOX scrubber sludges being generated at present.
The industrial waste figures are for the current situation.
When the Effluent Limitation Guidelines mandated by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (FWPCA) go into force in
1977 and 1983, and as industry gears up to meet the Clean Air Act
requirements, we estimate the industrial waste figures will jump
dramatically in many industries.
To illustrate, we have estimated the combined total waste
and the pollution control residual fraction for four major
industries (Inorganic Chemicals, Paper, Steel, and Nonferrous
Smelting/Refining) in 1971, 1977, and 1983 (Figure 3). The total
waste increases by 70 percent in 1977 and by 100 percent in 1983.
-------
FIGURE 3
PROJECTED GROWTH OF
COMBINED WASTE QUANTITIES FOR
FOUR REPRESENTATIVE INDUSTRIES
(INORGANIC CHEMICALS, PAPER,
STEEL, AND NON-FERROUS SMELTING)
2 -
UJ
O
CO
>-
DC-
< 1
cc
h;
CQ
CC
0
1983
PROCESS RESIDUE
POLLUTION CONTROL RESIDUE
1877
1971
-------
A large part of the increase is due to the anticipated
installation of pollution control equipment. Pollution control
residuals account for about 75 percent of the total waste in
these industries. While all industries may not have this degree
of waste growth, the trend is unmistakable.
From this study we conclude that industrial waste is a major
fraction of the total waste stream which has been overlooked for
too long, and that EPA's air and water pollution control
activities will, over the next decade, have a major impact on
land disposal of wastes. Implications of these findings on EPA
strategy, and on land use and energy policy, are being evaluated
by a high-level policy group set up recently by Administrator
Train.
These industrial waste quantity and growth estimates are
somewhat staggering. But, an aspect causing even greater concern
is that many of these wastes are potentially hazardous.
-------
Hazardous Waste Surveys
While earlier industrial hazardous waste survey work in
support of our Report^ t£ Congress was sufficient to highlight the
importance of hazardous waste, these data were too general to
support our technical assistance efforts or preparation of
hazardous waste guidelines. Consequently, EPA decided to study
specific industrial wastes on a national scale.
The basis for selection of an industry for study was the
potential hazard of its wastes (Table 1) and production
quantities as determined by our earlier overview studies.
A series of nine industrial hazardous waste practices
studies was begun in February 1974, followed by another four just
getting underway this year (Table 2). All are being done by
contractors.
All associated industrial trade associations have been
briefed on these studies, and in some cases the trade
associations have been active participants, by mailing
questionnaires, arranging facility visits, and the like.
10
-------
to
s:
cC
UJ
CrT
J-
to
UJ
h-
to
e£
IS
_1
<
c£
h-
1/1
r>
O
"^",
t i
z:
ar
r
i t
^s
IO
LU
o
2:
-
_J
_J
=C
HH
I
UJ
t-
O
Cu
to
OJ
o
c
ro
4->
to
xi
3
CO
to
rs
o
"U
i.
ro
Isl
ro
a:
c
M
O)
to
LO
13
0 H-
cu to
c o
ro T-
r C
r ro
,
0
^
CJ
i-
CJ
»:
x> to
a> c:
4-> O
ro xj
C J-
i- ro
s- u
o o
f i-
x: xJ
0 >,
-C
XI
CJ
to
eC
>>
S-
;t_)
to
3
XI
c
t <
XX X XX
XX X
XX XXX XX X
xxxx xxxxx
,
XXXX XX X
XXXX X X
XX X XXX X
XX XX XX
XX XX X
XX X X
XX XXX
o
r-
c:
O 01
>> s- c
CT1 4-> -r-
1- 01 rj o
r C C 4-> <-
. cu ro -r- u »->
ra J^ ry til
4-> x> en to M- ro r
CL>OJ cc-r-rs i ro
E>, ro-r-cc CL o
x> r ro t- t: to XJ +->
cxicuror cue 3 F
roc:xiuo. i i >ro cu 3
ro -r- T- o ro ro -r- >> u cu cu t.
D-> os_!-.-4->utoi-s-roi i a;
C: 4J ,- 4-> 4-> OJ T- O OJ OJ ££ T- O -C
r- C4->l-4->
c: -i- to cu cu o o. .-i^ 4J ro X 4-^ ro
r- ro o i i -srx^rojraifljcu
siixci-iijuj oujQCfaa-( ci i
»>
cu
c
^~
c
ro
O
t-
-*->
'r
C
*
o
c
0)
Q.
O
i.
-t-J
<~
c
1
X!
"
CJ
c
cu
N
C
X5
O
i-
4_3
C
i
XI
^
cu
4->
rO
tt-
Z3
CO
1
>,
x:
+->
cu
E
l
X!
*
to c:
*>> C
c; u
CU !-
.C O.
a. o
l L-
XI O
X! Ic
QJ U
i »
ro «
c: t: '
i (
S- Q)
O i
r O
-C i-
O O
>> ro
f
O "
O- CJ .
1 ,
en a_ o
t: Si cr
r r.J ru
XI X _C
^ CU CL
r 0
U S- i.
c: o o
> i ij_ ,
k -4- i
^ "r -i
U
ro
4J
tr
Q)
Q.
XI
c
ro
11
-------
TABLE 2
LIST OF INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTF STUDIES
Group I
Primary and Storage Batteries
Inorganic Chemicals
Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and Explosives
Electroplating
Metals Mining
Paint and Allied Products
Petroleum Refining
Pharmaceuticals
Primary Metals Smelting and Refining
Group II
Textile Mill Products
Rubber and Plastics
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Machinery, except Electrical
12
-------
Industrial participation is on a voluntary basis and industrial
cooperation has been very gratifying to date.
Objectives of the studies are to:
(1) Characterize each industry in terms of the number of
plants, number of employees, location, production
processes and rates, etc.
(2) Characterize the wastes generated by each process in
each industry, both the total amount, and the
potentially hazardous fraction.
(3) Define hazardous waste treatment and disposal methods
in terms of industry average, current best practice,
and environmentally acceptable methods, and
(4) Analyze the costs associated with treatment and
disposal.
13
-------
Results t£ Date
Only 6 of the 13 studies are now complete, so it is
difficult to discuss results and perhaps dangerous to draw
conclusions at this time. However, I will give you a snapshot of
the results to date, and perhaps some trends will appear. It is
important to note that we have attempted to standardize results
by normalizing quantity data to a dry-weight basis. Since the
majority of hazardous wastes are in liquid or sludge form, rather
than solids, and it is often difficult to accurately determine
the liquid fraction of wastes, this procedure can introduce some
inaccuracies. On the other hand, it is important to know
quantities on a wet basis as well, since that is the tonnage
actually handled (and charged for) by the waste treatment
industry. Consequently, in most data displays, we present both
dry- and wet-basis data.
First, it is interesting to determine the fraction of an
industry's total waste stream that is potentially hazardous. EPA
left it to each contractor to devise criteria for "potential
hazard" for each industry studied because: (1) it is difficult
to define "hazard" in advance of knowing what the wastes are,
their chemical composition, form and amounts; and (2) we are
14
-------
still in the learning phase of this program and were interested
in getting some independent thinking as to what constitutes a
potential hazard, at what levels, etc. Many contractors used
criteria corresponding to the National Academy of Sciences
"moderately hazardous" rating* as the cutoff between "potentially
hazardous" and other wastes.
We use the term "potentially hazardous" waste advisedly,
since actual hazard to public health and the environment depends
on the waste management methods employed. These are the wastes
requiring special control in order to prevent future public
health and environmental damages, both in the short term (acute)
and the long term (chronic) effects sense.
The Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices Study results to
date, from 6 of 13 industries, indicate the total of all
industrial waste is 44 million metric tons per year, on a dry-
weight basis, of which five million tons per year, or 12 percent
is potentially hazardous (Table 3). This hazardous waste
percentage compares to our earlier estimate of about ten percent.
*System for Evaluation of the Hazards of Bulk Water Transportation
of Industrial Chemicals. National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
D.C., 1974.
15
-------
Table 3
INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE STUDIES
Waste Generation
Industry
Total Waste Amount
(Millions of Metric Tons/Yr - Dry Basis)
Potentially Hazardous
All-Industrial Hazardous Wastes Constitutents
1. ' Batteries
2. Inorganic Chemicals 40.00
3. Organic Chemicals,
Pesticides 5
Explosives
4. Electroplating
5. Metals Mining
6. Paint § Allied
Products
7. Petroleum Refining
8. Pharmaceuticals
9. Primary Metals Smelting
and Refining
Total (to date) 4
2.25
0.39
0.70
0.25
C.005
2.000
2. 200
0.106
0.674
0.062
5.047
0.0005
0.064
0.840
0.160
0.124
0.003
1.048
Notes
1.
2.
- data not yet available
Four additional studies currently underway
16
-------
The total industrial waste figure from six industries compares
with our earlier estimate of 110 million tons per year for all
industries, which was recently updated to 260 million tons per
year, as noted above. Several of the industries not yet included
in our figures are expected to be large contributors to the
overall total and the hazardous waste fraction. Also, our
earlier figures were on a wet basis. This leads us to believe
that our earlier estimate of ten million tons per year (wet
basis) for all hazardous waste was on the low side.
Turning now to the potentially hazardous portion of the
industrial waste stream, we have accumulated sufficient data to
indicate trends in hazardous waste characteristics, comparisons
of current data with earlier estimates, hazardous waste growth
projections associated with key target dates for compliance with
the FWPCA Effluent Limitations Guidelines by 1977 and 1983,
hazardous waste treatment and disposal technology and cost data,
and the geographical distribution of hazardous waste generation.
Industrial hazardous waste characteristics, known from six
industries to date, indicate that total amounts calculated on a
wet basis are 12.8 million metric tons per year, compared to 5
million metric tons per year on a dry basis, or roughly 150
17
-------
percent more tonnage wet than dry [Table 4). About 28 percent of
hazardous wastes are in solid form and 72 percent are in liquid
or sludge form. About 58 percent are organics vs. 42 percent
inorganics.
Comparing these figures with earlier estimates on a wet
basis, we see that, within the SIC codes studied in both cases,
our earlier data on total hazardous waste amounts were low by
factors ranging from 2 to 12, except for the batteries industry
(Table 5). Earlier we estimated 90 percent of hazardous waste
were in liquified or sludge form vs. 72 percent in our current
studies. Earlier estimates indicated hazardous waste was 60
percent organic and 40 percent inorganic vs. 58 percent organic
and 42 percent inorganic in current estimates to date.
To gauge the impact of the FWPCA Effluent Limitations
Guidelines on hazardous waste sludge generation, we have
projected hazardous waste amounts from 1974 to 1977 and 1983,
when best practicable technology and best available technology
levels are to be implemented (Table 6). Although the increase in
hazardous waste generation varies from industry to industry,
depending on the sensitivity of the process waste stream to waste
water pollution control requirements, overall we predict a
18
-------
Ifi
g
4J
»
)q
P,
rH
(0
w
§
00
iH
D
13
IP
1
*&
t)
3
N
1C
K
j i
LI
H
O
&
cj
?
0
s
^^_
,
g
rH
4J g
si
$1
to t-i
£ '
P rH
It
U
6
rH
rp
in
O
&
H
Q
"U
5
4J ,-.
w c:
P o
£r>
f^
£
df U",
1
4-1
in ^
O C
C O
£
F-
<, '"'
GJ
II
I~M Ly
4-> \
w v>
0 ~
G
^
* in
(0
&
4J
83
H £
rn \
1^
<*
QJ
B"
B C
CT O
4^
F
u
*= m
a
SE
>,
t7
4->
B
8
C
M
oo f""1 VD I
II rH 1 1 fM f> 1 1 1
rH
0
o> in in 1 1 IN m
»-H 1
cr «a r^ M- cr
ro ro 1 1 m cr> 1
g 'g'g
ti tti
as s a a?
U ro tt) m<^i
PI i 1 1 K K 1 1
r- o ro co c^ o
oo cr> 01 i | oo o\ i i |
in
a.1
'C -O
H S
u in io
4J O CP
in pc
m rb -iH
CX, O -P
W L| rH
rH - d, D1 SJ
Sin C E
rH in 'O -H to
H n3 m a) c w
E U !> DI -rH -H rH m
Si -H -H C CT>rH IW (0 rH
6Ein-rHCH<]jUrt
Q) o -P -H
in U U Q,rH H T) g 3 5: C
0 -rj S; Q, g C 9 Q) -S
rHcucjo S3 a) 0 ;>i c
^ro-iH Min rHt^M-3
QJ tT»CrO4-lrH4-l O fc^sJUH
^rsetjiocflGem
4L)OtJ>ro(U4J-r-]4Jn3'i-)K
It! C M rH Q) IO (U ,C M
P3HO WSdiPjfXia.
i-lfN^o ^-invDi^oocn
10
T) ^ .
J? -P «
S £6
rH -d
1 *5
c a
rH . 'Q
s is *
2 ifl M
S "03
5 O
6 OT 1 PL,
Z rH
-------
O O
c o
II
in rH O
0) rH
i i
in cr\ o
<*
w
a
^
CO
w
H
a
^J
B
Uj
[j^
H
CO
<
S
CO
D
O
K
^
<
ffi
^
H
«
E-i
CO
D
Q
*-r
H
V)
U
H
4->
.,_!
^j
0)
P
U
rd
iti
.C
C
0)
4-1
00
a
H
i (
O
CO
dp
T u)
>H -H
>( M
w m
c
O 4->
EH 0)
4J 5
C 0
P -H
0 M
g 4J W
i^ fU *H
s; 01
fl
f'l
rH
E. Q
^
4->
U)
a
q
M
O 0
in "^
O 0
in U3
o o
rH 0
O *T
o ro
in o
o o
c o
. .
O CN
X .
ies
nic Chemica
c Che-nicals
icides and
V-l nj -H -P
o
ft
'C
£
3
r*i ^r o o r~
r»i CN ei' o c
n M1 < CN =!
CN rH VO O O
1 I « . i
CM O O O IT
£j\
S
tr> "a!
a -H OT
a) d (n
en -rH -H rH ui cri gj
n tTl rH U-l (d rH C 4-
C/l -H r: r ' SJ (J rij -H (T
rj P -P, ^ c, -H P q TJ
> rt! C ui -P '!) -H
rH r-( -H 13 4-> fi P S 'H C
tn Oj S: C O : J CJ (U 4-
OO f33c)O>-ii2
rH H en 73 rH n M
Q,4-!'H4JOO&<'j'a r-
;TUf3c:--inPisc «-
[-] (U 4^ -H Dj -P f3 ----i fO 4-
>H n ro a) ^ M C
w s a. a, cxi a< E-
^T m vo r~- co <^
n
1
g
M
8
S
rH^
-P
m
^
Q
CU
rH U5
fl <1)
rH 'D
'f3 4J
§»
rH
!4J n!
0) g
>«.§
4J 4J
Q -H
2^
m«
(D M
13 D
0
in i t,
-------
o r-
o CM
o o
c o
rH VD I
in
W
jj
CQ
§3j
f-l
10
w
H
D
D
£H
W
W
EH
<
£c
W
D
O
Q
C:'
<^
C\]
f£
X
^
<£
H
K
B
W
D
Q
^
H
rd
4->
D
C1
4->
1C
rfl
[^
in
rj
O
in
(0
N
(C
E
(H
OJ
H
rH
to
ft
W
O
Jj
c
o
in
rH
H
(C
Cx<
E
0
U
I/I
C3
CQ
-P
C1
[g
1
j^
>^
q in
P C
0 0
E E~
u
H
SH
4->
C1
2
,
rH
rH
rH
^
«
4J
H
O
D
C'
CL
V
/'*
C
K
^
^*
4-'
i/:
-P
t^
G;
SH
3
u
in
C'
Tl
0
C.)
CJ
H
in
K*-
I^(
4J
10
73
o
C
H
CM O O
CM 0 0
c- in in
I 1
O rH C"
o o n
rH O CO
c ^r ro
. . . | |
o ro r^
CN
C~\ C"^
kD CO
TO CM
CM
,
- O^i
CM in r^
CTl U? CO
U3 CO CM 1 1
ro CM
-.
«. * "^*
r-H rH CT,
&\ rH VO W?
^D CX) CO OO
CO CM CM CM
in
rH "
CS W
U rH 13 ti
H rd c 0}
E 0 -13 en -H
O -H C O"H
^ C W W -H C rH
(_> rc t:
in U U -H -H r-H H 'D
O l)i &< [J O 4-1 -H
rd C to rH fit ro
05 H O W >J C-.
rH CM ro -a< in vo
01
rH
X)
IT ^ -H
ro O D1
O CM 'H
. . rH |
C C tji
C.'
''
e- c o
CM * O
«^ M* CM
. . . |
O rH O
|
in rH ro
co cr\ oo
CM CM CM
C
rH
4-1
rH
& o
C E
rH W
C 1/3
rH rH tO D1
44 rd M p
0 U £ ? '.-: in
U D Cl C1
;i ,a;
O rH rd M
O O E d "J
M M !H E^ r;
tiv 4J rj -rj fd
OJ ^ to
p. t p ( p, ,
i> cc 01
21
^
rH
{&
rsi
LO
f-^
0
CO
, I
, ,
o
-p
d
T)
O
-I-1
j
r-\
03
Jj
O
B
rH
6
rH
>'
4J CTi
4-> to
rd 3
rH CM *
-------
vo
w
J
CQ
ff.
H
to
W
M
D
p
EH
Vi
W
EH
S
[^
CO
D
C
Q
K
rtj
tN
ff
tc
hP
H
EH
w
D
Q
*?:
V!
C
o
H
4->
U
(1)
( 1
o
^_j
&.
s:
4->
^;
O
IH
C1
a)
4->
K
rd
S
w
0
TH
rs
N
rd
K
4-> ro
2 CO
O-
JH 1
U T
t^-
<*> -
£
v^
K
C
o
EH
-P
C O
"3 *H
O M
e -P
J 0
M rH
Q
1 0
P
Q)
^
*.
vo
rH
.
O
^
J-!
D
4J
d'
s
CN
OC
C
O
o
, 1
c
o
J>s
SH
Q
in
o
o
o
o
*3*
o
o
CO
*3-
o
o
CO
CN
C
O
CTA
ro
o
o
ro
CN
O
O
*3*
ro
O
O
O
.
CN
ro
i
1
VD
VD
VO
1
CN
rH
O
O
CO
1
n
VD
VO
VO
. |
rH
rH
o
O
in
. |
ro
ro
ro
ro
1
t^
o
o
CN
1
CN
CO
in
l
CO
VD
VO
1
o
r-
10
rH
|
O
CO
CO
^3*
1
O
CN
CN
rH
1
O
^
CN
*3*
|
O
VD
O
rH
1
O
rH
ro
0
in
CO
rH
ro
CO
CO
c
o
*J'
in
*
rH
ro
r^
r~-
o
o
^r
^
rH
q.
r~-
V£>
,
O
CO
vo
1
in
ro
ro
1
O
VO
in
Cn
>
<
CO
CN
in
o
CN
M1
O
rH
1
O
vo
CN
CN
1
O
cn
in
CO
.
r^
CO
CT»
r--
rH
o
r~-
o
1
0
o
o
CN
1
O
(
^J1
CO
.
VO
J^
o
CO
CN
1-1
CN
VD
O
1
O
[^
^
o
.
in
w
0)
H
^
ru
4J
) V
M
O
ro
m
0)
rH
U)
0
rH
a,
X
w
-a
ra
tT1
c
H
4J
rd
rH
a,
0
M
4J
O
Ci)
rH
CO
T3-
W
I >
O
3
r£J
0
M
PM
r^J
01
H
tPrH
C rH
H <;
f *
H T3
^ r^
rj
10
rH 4.)
re C
4J -H
O rd
:-/ Oi
in VD
tn
C
H
C
H
MH
C)
04
fl-
^5
0)
rH
0
4J
0)
a.
I-.
to
rH
ro
u
H
4J
3
a)
u
ra
R
rd
r^
Cl4
co
"O
C
Cn
C
H
+J
rH
0)
g
CO
in
rH
rd
4J
(i) Cn
?: r:
rH
r^t f-^
M -H
rd UH
G 0)
-H (L,
^
cu
cr.
f
rj)
4J
rd
T!
O
4J
rH
rd
43
O
H
CO
C
P
rH
-P
C
C
U
a)
rH 10
J3 01
rd -H
rH TJ
H 3
rd 4J
> in
re
.H
-P rd
0) c:
>i O
rH
4-1 4-)
O -H
c a
T)
CO rd
4->
rd M
a D
in
Q)
4J
O
2
22
-------
hazardous waste growth of 56 percent over the next decade. This
figure compares with our earlier estimated growth rate of 5 to 10
percent per year.
Current hazardous waste treatment and disposal practices and
costs confirm earlier suspicions (Table 7). Over 92 percent of
all hazardous waste is disposed of directly on land as opposed to
4 percent undergoing some form of treatment, and 4 percent being
recycled in some fashion. The average cost figures illustrate
why this is so: $11 per ton for land disposal vs. S49 per ton
for treatment. Land disposal is by far the cheaper waste
management option.
Similarly, distribution of hazardous waste generation
follows expected patterns (Table 8). The highest percentage of
hazardous waste is generated in EPA Region VI, followed by
Regions IV and III. Each of these regions contains heavy
concentrations of chemical and other industrial production. In
our study reports, the hazardous waste generation distribution is
further subdivided by total amount generated per industry by
State. This information should be of great interest to State
solid waste management authorities.
23
-------
c
o
r-l
tr
0)
g
W
j-j
QJ
C/3 p.
H
M i-l
Q C nj
DO 4J
EH -H C
l/j 4-> EH
3
H -H O
v: >-i
< 4J 4-1
£ : U) C
H Q)
co en Q u
D ^
W O (ii 0)
t-1 D -P (X
a K in
< < d
EH N IS
C 10
3
t-P O
<3 T5
M J-l
ec; ca
E-l N
to w
D K
D
2
H
X
X
H
H
M
>
H
M
>
M
£>
£>
£>
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
£*!
^
4-1
W
3
D
C
M
rH O1 CN CN O CN
. . | | ... |
"^ r»"> c rH ro <£>
o ro CN "3" o CN
CM f> I n ro o
rH VD CO
II !!* 1
o o r~ *
in VD o o in CN
. . . | | ... |
O rH rH kD CO O
V£> ^3* VD in O
. 1 1 . * 1
vc> in M* UD r*~) +
"9* in M
CN * t~- r- o VD
. 1 l ... |
VD CO CN rH O
CO rO rH CN
co in in co in t--
. . . | i ... t
rr in rH CO O") f--
rH CN rH
n ro o CN CM r^
. | j . . . i
(N *x* in CT*I r^ G\
CN rH rH
CN CN VD 1* O
. | | . . * |
CN in n in in
rH rH
c-"> ^3* ,j CN *sT
* . . 1 1 . . 1
ito o CN o in
in
l tn
H 4->
4-) U tn
tn in 3 C
01 QJ tJ -H
Cu > O 4J
tf! -H M rH
rH tO tX tT> 0)
fd to O C £
U rH rH T3 -'O4->-.H,K
4-1 M rc3 -H U f3 C M V-i G C
4JOO1UO)4-l''H4-lf3 -H fI3
P-l ( 1 CO fj ^ f\4 pt p^ p !
i I CN f^ ^r in vo r~' co OA
rH
.
CN
r-
ro
vx>
.
o
r^
.
rH
^
.
r^
T^1
CT-,
.
f^
M"
.
1C
rH
ro
.
^3.
rH
^O
.
T
c\
.
o
0)
rO
^
0)
t>
<
T!
01
4-1
j^
tr>
-H
o
rH
rH
0)
o
4-1
O
C
C
rH
4J
V,
3
(J
X) 0)
<« -H
rH 'O
M X -H D
rt +J
C .'-) > to
O O (3
H -r-l rH
tr> cn -tJ co
0) Q! i O
H
C C 4' -P
r-l -H 0 -H
C 'D
03 T3 T3
O OJ fd rB
'O T! -P
3 n ra M
rH -H T3 3
O O O
C C I fa
M M
* * . .
24
-------
Cost Implications
Each industrial hazardous waste study defines specific
technology levels and associated costs for each process waste
stream. I refer you to each study report for details. In
general terms, we have found that the cost required to move from
current treatment and disposal practice to environmentally
acceptable treatment and disposal for hazardous waste does not
represent an unreasonably high cost burden on industry. For
example, in the petroleum industry the cost of current hazardous
waste treatment and disposal practice represents about one
percent of refinery production costs while environmentally
acceptable treatment and disposal methods for these wastes would
be about three percent of refinery production costs. Please note
that refinery production costs are only one element in the retail
price of oil and gasoline. Other elements include exploration,
drilling, transportation and marketing. Consequently, the cost
impact to the industry and to the public of upgrading hazardous
waste disposal practices will be significantly less than the
above figures.
These patterns are followed in most industries we have
studied; we are now performing more studies of the economic
25
-------
impact on specific industries of improved waste management
practices in order to confirm our earlier estimates.
Availability of_ Reports
Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices Study reports will be
published by EPA and made available through the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS) operated by the Department
of Commerce. The first report of the series to be completed,
"Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices, Storage and
Primary Batteries Industries," is at NTIS now and should be
available for purchase shortly. Other reports in the series will
follow in sequence. Most reports from the first group of studies
will be available before year-end.
Value tp_ Industry
EPA feels these hazardous waste studies are of considerable
value to the industries studied. Strange as it may seem, many
industrial facilities visited during the course of these surveys
had no idea what was in their land-destined waste streams, or
what the ultimate fate .of these wastes was. As a result of these
studies, many industries will, for the first time, have a much
26
-------
clearer picture of the hazardous waste generation situation in
that industry, along with suggested treatment and disposal
technology options and associated cost information for upgrading
hazardous waste management practices.
For the waste treatment and disposal industry, these
studies pull together detailed information about the quantities,
characteristics, and location of industrial hazardous waste. In
the past, this type of information had to be purchased from
marketing consultants. Close study and evaluation of these data
should lead to new offers of service to industry, and should be a
valuable aid in facility siting and construction decisions.
Lastly, service bid pricing structures will be more easily and
logically determined.
Future Efforts
"What is past is prologue" states the facade of our National
Archives. Knowledge is often the precursor to action. Clearly,
our industrial hazardous waste survey efforts to date are just
the opening act of a drama yet to be revealed.
27
-------
EPA's first order of business is to gain more facts. As I
mentioned, our second series of industrial hazardous waste
studies is just getting underway. When completed next year,
these studies will clarify considerably the somewhat preliminary
data I've presented here. We also recognize the need for new
techniques to deal with the mounting hazardous waste management
problem. Consequently, OSWMP has recently initiated programs to
explore the major hazardous waste treatment and disposal options:
(1) Land Disposal. EPA recently awarded a major
demonstration grant for a full-scale chemical waste
landfill to the State of Minnesota.
(2) Incineration. Last fall EPA started a $1.5 million
program to evaluate the effectiveness and costs of
hazardous waste incineration.
(3) Chemical/Biological Treatment. A major effort to
evaluate existing hazardous waste chemical/biological
treatment methods and match them with industrial wastes
is now in the contract procurement stage.
28
-------
(4) Resource Recovery. Last on this list, but first in our
priority, we have recently begun two studies of
resource recovery potential from industrial hazardous
waste. First, we will examine the concept of waste
exchange between industries; one man's waste may be
another man's raw material. Second, we will study the
potential for energy recovery from industrial wastes,
as part of the overall national effort to enhance
energy conservation.
We believe these efforts will allow us to make better judgments
as to future actions, and provide us with sharper tools for our
technical assistance efforts to industry, State and local
governments, and the public.
Conclusions
Bearing in mind that our industrial hazardous waste surveys
are not yet completed, the following trends and conclusions can
be drawn from the preliminary results presented here:
(1) Industrial waste is now generated at roughly twice the
rate of municipal waste.
29
-------
(2) Land-destined industrial waste amounts will jump
dramatically in the next decade, due in great part to
installation of air and water pollution control
systems.
(3) About 12 percent of all industrial wastes can be
classified as potentially hazardous to public health
and the environment.
(4) About 72 percent of potentially hazardous waste is in
liquid or sludge form.
(5) About 58 percent of potentially hazardous waste is
organic; 42 percent is inorganic.
(6) Amounts of potentially hazardous waste generated will
increase by about 56 percent in the next decade.
(7) Land disposal is the predominant hazardous waste
management practice today.
(8) Only four percent of potentially hazardous waste is
treated and four percent is recovered.
30
-------
(9) Generation of potentially hazardous waste is
concentrated, as expected, in the heavily
industrialized Gulf Coast and mid-Atlantic regions.
(10) Upgrading hazardous waste treatment and disposal
practice to environmentally acceptable standards will
not represent an unreasonable cost burden to industry
or the public.
EPA's future efforts will concentrate on improving our
industrial waste data base and evaluating the major treatment and
disposal options for hazardous waste management. We cannot alone
bring about the necessary improvements to current industrial
hazardous waste management practices. We urge the waste
generation industry and the waste management industry to join
with us in a cooperative effort to upgrade industrial waste
management practices to better protect the public health and our
environment.
Thank you very much.
SW-545
U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE' 1976 241-037/8
31
------- |