TD898
.H39
1987
H39 OOOR87002
THE HAZARDOUS
WASTE SYSTEM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
June 1987
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago. Illinois 60604
-------
FOREWORD
This report provides an overview of hazardous waste management practices in the United
States. The primary focus is on hazardous wastes as defined in the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Superfund program. In addition to a
description of the current system, discussions are provided of the potential impacts of
current regulatory and other initiatives.
This is a summary report which draws from more detailed, ongoing investigations. It is
anticipated that the report will be updated periodically as new information becomes
available. It is also possible that the report may be expanded in the future to include more
discussion of related statutes and waste systems.
We hope that this report, and its subsequent revisions, will serve as a focal point for
discussions of future directions in the hazardous waste management area. Comments on
the information presented herein will be very much appreciated.
A
Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
Hazardous Waste Managed ES-1
Treatment and Disposal ES-2
Regulatory and Other Effects ES-4
Implications for the Future ES-7
SECTION 1 HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGED 1-1
Definitions of Hazardous Waste 1-1
Large Quantity Generators 1-3
Small Quantity Generators 1-4
Geographic Implications 1-5
SECTION 2 TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL 2-1
Treatment Technologies 2-2
Incineration Technologies 2-4
Land Disposal Technologies 2-5
SECTION 3 REGULATORY AND OTHER EFFECTS 3-1
Land Disposal Restrictions and Technology Standards 3-1
Waste Minimization Policy 3-3
Deep-Well Injection Regulation 3-4
Domestic Sewage Sludge Regulation 3-4
Ocean Incineration Regulation 3-6
Corrective Action Policies 3-6
Superfund Off-Site Policy and Clean-Up Standards 3-7
Redefinition of RCRA Hazardous Waste 3-8
SECTION 4 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE 4-1
More Incinerators Needed 4-1
More Information About On-Site Activities 4-2
Regional and Waste Specific Capacity 4-3
Waste Minimization 4-6
Siting and Permitting Issues 4-6
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
PAGE
APPENDICES
A. Operating Commercial Incinerator Facilities A-1
B. Operating Commercial Land Disposal Facilities B-1
C. Commercial Deep-Well Injection Systems C-1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
111
-------
EXHIBITS
PAGE
Exhibit 1 Simplified Waste System Chart ES-3
Exhibit 2 Volumes of RCRA Hazardous Waste Treated and Disposed .... ES-4
Exhibit 3 Hazardous Waste Managed by Industry 1-4
Exhibit 4 Hazardous Waste TSDRs and Waste Volumes
by Geographic Sector 1-5
Exhibit 5 Number of Active Facilities by Type of Technology 2-1
Exhibit 6 Estimate of Physical Characteristics of RCRA Hazardous Wastes . 2-3
Exhibit 7 Treatment Technologies 2-3
Exhibit 8 Incinerator Types and Incinerable Waste Descriptions 2-4
Exhibit 9 Number of Land Disposal Facilities by Type of Process 2-6
Exhibit 10 Distribution of Municipal Sludge by Managment Practice 3-5
Exhibit 11 Regulations and Policies and Their Potential Effects
on Capacity 3-9
Exhibit 12 Potential Capacity Problem Areas 4-4
Exhibit 13 Land Disposal Facilities by Number, Volume, and
Available Capacity 4-5
IV
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the country's hazardous waste
system. Included are discussions of the sources and quantities of hazardous wastes; the
system for treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) of these wastes; and discussions of
upcoming regulatory and other impacts on the hazardous waste system.
Rather than looking at hazardous waste issues from a single medium perspective, this
report examines hazardous waste issues through an integrated framework for addressing
environmental problems. Several functions are to be served by this report.
• First, the report provides an overview of the hazardous waste system. It serves
as a point of reference for continuing, more detailed work.
• Second, it serves as a starting point for the 20-year state capacity certification
efforts required by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA).
• Third, the report provides an initial vehicle for discussion of possible impacts of
the various EPA regulatory efforts underway with respect to hazardous waste
control.
• Finally, the question of whether there is, in fact, a "capacity problem" is
addressed in a very preliminary way.
Each section of the report is shown below and briefly summarized in the following
paragraphs. More detail is provided in subsequent report sections.
Hazardous Waste System
Executive Summary
Hazardous Waste
Managed
Treatment and
Disposal
Regulatory and
Other Effects
Implications for
the Future
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGED
The primary focus of this report is hazardous waste as defined in the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and by the Superfund program. However, the
hazardous waste system does not exist in isolation. Before dealing with the specific
subject of hazardous wastes, it is useful to overview several key elements of the overall
waste system.
ES-1
-------
Such an overview is provided in Exhibit 1. The point of this diagram is to illustrate the
relationships among such items as hazardous wastes, municipal and industrial
wastewaters, and non-hazardous solid wastes. It will be increasingly important to
understand "where things go" as we deal with hazardous and solid waste, and
wastewaters.
It is also important to note that the overview in Exhibit 1 does not deal with every source or
possible exposure route of hazardous wastes or toxic substances. For example,
hazardous air emissions, pesticide applications, and many "non-point" waste sources are
not included in Exhibit 1. These sources and others such as wastes discharged to surface
waters through a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit are not
discussed in detail in this report.
Now, let's return to RCRA and Superfund hazardous wastes, which are highlighted in the
bold portion of Exhibit 1. The hazardous wastes managed under RCRA totaled about 275
million metric tons (MMT) in 1985. The overwhelming majority of this, well over 99
percent, was managed by "large quantity generators" (over 1,000 kilograms per month).
A number of factors could affect the volumes of wastes generated in the future. Factors
such as economic and population growth, regulatory decisions, and waste minimization
efforts will influence the amount of waste produced. As industrial production increases the
volume of industrial wastes produced could also increase. However, efforts to recycle and
reuse wastes, as well as programs to minimize the amount of waste generated are likely to
temper increases in waste volumes.
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Referring again to the bold print portion of Exhibit 1, let's now outline the treatment and
disposal part of the hazardous waste system.
First, it is important to note that about 96 percent of all RCRA hazardous waste is managed
on the sites of private companies, the remaining 4 percent goes to off-site commercial
treatment and disposal facilities. An approximate breakdown of the treatment and disposal
system follows.
ES-2
-------
Exhibit 1
Simplified Waste System Chart
GENERATION
RCRA REGULATED
DISCHARGERS
- Large Quantity
- Small Quantity
OTHER INDUSTRIAL
Direct Discharge of
Wastewater
Indirect Discharge of
Wastewater
MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER
^ LEAKING
UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANKS
DISPOSAL
TREATMENT
PRETREATMENT
Residuals
SOLID WASTE
- Municipal
- Industrial
Bold lines refer to RCRA and Superfund
'hazardous waste system.
INDUSTRIAL
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
Sludge
MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
Sludge
MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE
COMBUSTORS
COMMERCIAL
INCINERATORS
COMMERCIAL
LAND DISPOSAL
ON-SITE
LAND DISPOSAL
Ash
Ash
ON-SITE
INCINERATORS
Ash
OTHER TREATMENT
- Commercial
- On-Site
Sludge
SOLVENT & OTHER
RECOVERY
OPERATIONS
Sludge
INDUSTRIAL
FURNACES OR
BOILERS
Ash
DEEP-WELL
INJECTION
SURFACE WATERS/
OCEAN
SUBTITLE D
LAND DISPOSAL
- Municipal
- Industrial
UNCONTROLLED
SITES
- Superfund
- RCRA-related
- Other
ES-3
-------
Exhibit 2
Volumes of RCRA Hazardous Waste Treated and Disposed
• -.;.;. \ ..... , ;:.. | ^ - -,.. •, .;_.-
Incineration
Other Treatment
Solvent & Other
Recovery
Furnaces & Boilers
Land Disposal
Deep-Well Injection
Total
• •• - 1 On-Site at
Private Firms
: :(MMT): L
1.7
204.0
*
*
8.0
*
Off^Site at .-;' .
Commercial Firms ">.?
.: ..(MMT).. ;- ;•{, .
0.4
1.6
*
*
5.0
*
/Estimated '$•'
•• :-. '•• Total •<• •.;•>
•;:l-:...flyTOv^:
2.1
205.6
57.0
0.9
13.0
-25.0
303.6**
Source: National Screening Survey, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste (1986).
* Breakdown of on-site versus off-site waste volumes is not currently available.
** Total exceeds 275 MMT as deep-well injection, which is covered under the Safe Drinking Water Act, is Included.
MMT=million metric wet tons per year
The above table relates to about 3,000 facilities which treat, store, or dispose of RCRA
hazardous waste. There are currently over 175 on-site incinerators and 14 commercial
incinerators. A list of commercial incinerators is contained in Appendix A of this report. In
addition to incineration, there are many other treatment practices including biological
wastewater treatment, solidification, steam stripping, and treatment impoundments. Most
current treatment systems consist of on-site impoundments handling relatively dilute
wastewaters. There are about 430 operating land disposal facilities, approximately 60 of
which are commercial facilities which accept a wide range of wastes. Appendix B of this
report contains a list of commercial operating land disposal facilities. Finally, while the
majority of deep-well injection systems are located on-site, a few commercial facilities
also use deep-well injection systems. These facilities are identified in Appendix C of this
report.
REGULATORY AND OTHER EFFECTS
Due to a large number of new statutory and other requirements, hazardous waste
management must deal with a series of "moving targets". Some of the more significant
ones are briefly outlined below.
Land Disposal Restrictions and Technology Standards
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) required that EPA ban the
land disposal of over 400 chemicals and waste streams unless the wastes are treated, or it
can be demonstrated that there will be "no migration as long as the waste remains
hazardous." The solvents and dioxin portion of the rules went into effect in November
1986. Others will be promulgated over the next 2 to 3 years. The major impact of these
rules will be to significantly increase treatment required for many hazardous wastes.
ES-4
-------
Waste Minimization Policy
EPA strongly favors preventing the generation of waste rather than controlling it after it is
generated. EPA's waste minimization program focuses on two main goals. First, to foster
the use of waste minimization through technology and information exchange, and second,
to report to Congress in 1990 on the need for regulations on waste minimization.
According to a recent study conducted by EPA, a 20-30 percent reduction in waste
volume should be possible through process changes, product substitution, recycling and
"good housekeeping" practices. Concerns over economic and liability issues are already
driving firms to reduce the volume and toxicity of the wastes they produce. Finally, a
number of states have aggressive waste minimization programs; EPA will attempt to
encourage and support such programs.
Deep-Well Injection Regulation
In accordance with the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments EPA must also determine
whether to further restrict certain hazardous wastes from deep-well injection by August
1988. Currently, information is being collected to support the development of a regulatory
decision.
It is important to note that a large amount of dilute hazardous wastes (about 20-35 MMT
per year) is disposed of in this manner. Deep-well injection is largely practiced in a few
Southwest and Midwest states. Thus, a significant regional impact could be felt if this
practice is inhibited.
Domestic Sewage Sludge Regulation
Under the Clean Water Act, municipalities are required to treat wastewater before
discharging it to surface waters. This treatment process generates sludge which must be
used or disposed of. Very large amounts of non-hazardous sludge are produced each
year. The overwhelming majority of this sludge is landfilled and used for land application.
A smaller amount (about 20 percent) is incinerated.
RCRA contains an exclusion for hazardous wastes which are mixed with domestic sewage.
EPA is developing information on the volume of hazardous waste being discharged to
sewers, and is scheduled to propose regulations on domestic sewage sludge by
September 1987.
A major environmental issue currently involves whether domestic sewage sludge will be
considered hazardous under EPA's new Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP). This could potentially bring large volumes of waste into the RCRA system.
Ocean Incineration Regulation
Regulations are currently being developed to provide a framework for possible applications
for ocean incineration of hazardous waste. If and when successful applications are made
to ocean incinerate these wastes, such operations could provide additional capacity for
concentrated, liquid hazardous wastes.
ES-5
-------
By October 1987, EPA is scheduled to issue final regulations on designating sites for
burning hazardous waste at sea. Final regulations on ocean incineration will be
promulgated in late 1988. The planned ocean incineration regulations apply exclusively to
liquid organic wastes and do not cover solid wastes.
Corrective Action Policies
Corrective action involves cleaning up RCRA facilities which have been contaminated by
hazardous wastes releases. This includes instances where past management practices
involved the disposal of hazardous wastes in solid waste management units. Leaking
underground storage tanks are another potentially large universe for corrective action.
Presently, there are about one million underground storage tanks, approximately 5-20
percent of which may be leaking.
The volume of contaminated soils and sludges generated from corrective action cleanups
could be large. While most of the waste will likely be treated and disposed of on-site,
some concentrated wastes may require off-site handling. These wastes will compete for
existing commercial incineration and land disposal capacity.
Superfund Off-Site Policy and Clean-up Standards
Under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), EPA is
required to establish standards for Superfund clean-up actions and also to identify the
conditions for disposing of Superfund wastes off-site. The impact of these provisions
could change the proportions of hazardous wastes managed on-site and off-site. For
example, the new clean-up standards could increase the use of mobile treatment units
and stabilization techniques to manage wastes on-site. Some of the more concentrated
wastes will likely shift off-site for treatment and disposal.
Furthermore, the off-site disposal provision of SARA restricts where Superfund wastes can
be taken. Only those facilities which are in compliance with RCRA and the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) and applicable state requirements are eligible to accept
wastes from Superfund sites. Specifically, the unit receiving Superfund wastes must not
be releasing any hazardous wastes and the overall facility must be controlled by a
corrective action program. Several Superfund sites have experienced difficulties locating
a commercial facility eligible to accept their wastes.
Redefinition of RCRA Hazardous Waste
Currently a waste is defined as hazardous under RCRA if it possesses certain
characteristics or is listed in Subpart D, Part 261 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40
CFR). About half of RCRA hazardous waste possesses one of the four characteristic
attributes: reactive, ignitable, corrosive, or EP toxic. The other half of the wastes are
"listed" hazardous wastes.
Under the current definition, RCRA regulates about 275 MMT of waste and about 3,000
facilities treat, store or dispose of RCRA hazardous waste. EPA is considering the use of
such criteria as waste concentration and management practices in potential new
definitions of hazardous wastes. Changing such criteria for defining a hazardous waste
could significantly affect the volume of waste currently regulated by RCRA and the size of
the regulated community.
ES-6
-------
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
It is highly likely that the hazardous waste system of tomorrow will be different than the one
of today. Regulatory impacts, costs of waste disposal, liability considerations, regional
capacity constraints, and waste minimization efforts are already affecting waste
management practices.
As a result of the regulatory and other factors discussed above, a number of general
observations about the waste management system become apparent.
• First, there will be increasing restrictions on land disposal without some type of
treatment.
• Second, hazardous waste treatment and disposal will steadily increase in cost.
• Third, it will be important that the impacts of new regulations are carefully
examined to ensure that additional problems are not created.
Having made these observations, let's briefly look at the initial implications that can be
drawn from information provided in the report. These implications are intended to serve as
a starting point in identifying national priorities as well as focusing on issues of concern to
regions and states. The initial implications of the report are summarized below.
• First, more facilities are needed to incinerate certain hazardous wastes. This
need is likely to increase as SARA's remedial action provisions and RCRA's
corrective action and land disposal restriction programs are implemented.
• Second, a better understanding of on-site hazardous waste management
activities is required. With 96 percent of all RCRA hazardous wastes managed
on-site, it is important to understand and deal with likely industry responses to
the various regulatory and other impacts.
• Third, waste management capacity is largely a regional and waste specific
issue. While there is generally adequate capacity to handle some wastes, such
as most liquid organic wastes, there is currently inadequate capacity to treat
dioxin and solvent contaminated soils and certain dilute wastewaters. In
addition, some states and regions have inadequate capacity and must ship their
wastes to other areas of the country. Since wastes can move freely in interstate
commerce, it will be difficult to "tie down" specific capacity shortfalls.
• Fourth, EPA fully supports the concept of waste minimization through the use of
technology transfer, recovery and recycling operations, waste exchange
programs, and source reduction techniques. It is far better to reduce the
generation of hazardous waste than manage waste after it is created.
• Finally, there is a recognized need to site and permit new hazardous waste
management facilities and to expand existing units. This is an important part of
planning for the future. The 20-year state capacity certification requirement in
SARA is a major step in encouraging states to develop new capacity.
ES-7
-------
This report provides a "big picture" look at emerging hazardous waste issues. It offers a
framework for strategic planning at the national, regional, and state level. Furthermore,
Exhibit 1 provides a conceptual tool for qualitatively evaluating the interrelationships among
various parts of the waste system. However, for assessing the needs for regional or waste
specific capacity, more detailed information is required than is presented in this report.
The information contained in this report is based on existing EPA surveys and studies as
well as in-person interviews with several major hazardous waste generators and treatment
and disposal facility operators. Some data are better than others, and not all data are
comparable. At the conclusion of several on-going EPA and other studies, more detailed
information on hazardous waste generation, treatment, and disposal will be available.
ES-8
-------
SECTION 1
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGED
Hazardous Waste
Managed
Definitions of
Hazardous Waste
Large Quantity
Generators
Small Quantity
Generators
Geographic
Implications
In 1985, about 275 million metric tons (MMT) of hazardous waste, as the term is currently
defined, were managed in RCRA regulated units. In this section, the important issue of
hazardous waste definition is addressed. Also included in this section is a breakdown of
the sources, locations, and quantities of hazardous waste managed in the RCRA-regulated
system.
DEFINITIONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
Defining what constitutes a "hazardous waste" requires consideration of both legal and
scientific factors. The basic definitions used in this report are derived from: the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA).
• Hazardous Waste refers to "...a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes,
which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious
characteristics may...pose a hazard to human health or the environment..."
[RCRA, Section 1004(5)].
• Solid Waste means "any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant,
water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded
material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material
resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations and
from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved material in
domestic sewage..." [RCRA, Section 1004(27)].
• Hazardous Substance means "any substances designated in Section
311(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act...any hazardous waste
having the characteristics identified in Section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act...any toxic pollutant listed under Section 307(a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, any hazardous air pollutant listed under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act, and any imminently hazardous chemical substance or
mixture...listed in Section 7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act" [CERCLA,
Section 101(14)].
1-1
-------
Under RCRA, a waste is considered hazardous if it is reactive, ignitable, corrosive or toxic
or if the waste is listed as a hazardous waste in Parts 261.31-33 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (40CFR). Currently, there are about 400 listed wastes.
In addition to hazardous wastes defined under RCRA, there are "hazardous substances"
defined by Superfund. Superfund's definition of a hazardous substance is broad and
grows out of the statutory definitions in the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act
(CAA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and RCRA. Essentially, Superfund
considers a hazardous substance to be any air or water pollutant defined as hazardous in
the CAA or the CWA or as a hazardous waste defined in RCRA which exceeds reportable
quantity levels. Accordingly, Superfund encompasses numerous wastes and chemical
substances:
• 126 "priority pollutants" and 65 "toxic pollutants" (CWA)
• 16 "hazardous air pollutants" and 7 chemicals identified as "criteria pollutants"
(CAA)
• 95 chemicals defined as toxic on the basis of production volume, exposure and
biological effects (TSCA)
• Substances identified or listed as hazardous waste under §3001 of RCRA
• CERCLA Contract Lab List
Both RCRA and Superfund wastes are discussed in this report. There are, however, other
hazardous wastes or toxic substances which are not specifically included. Examples are:
• Wastes from non-point sources (e.g., storm or irrigation run-off)
• Wastes that are exempt from RCRA management, such as wastewaters treated
in enclosed tanks and discharged subject to NPDES permits
• Industrial wastewaters discharged to surface waters under NPDES permits or
into underground injection systems.
• Agriculture application of pesticides
• PCB wastes that are not contaminated with hazardous waste
Although these wastes are not regulated under RCRA or Superfund, they are covered by
other statutory authorities such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe
Drinking Water Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. The various ways in which
these acts interact with RCRA and Superfund are discussed briefly below.
• The Clean Air Act (CAA), under Section 112, authorizes EPA to list various
hazardous air pollutants. Currently included are asbestos, beryllium, vinyl
chloride, benzene, arsenic, radionuclides, mercury, and coke oven emissions.
The CAA also sets certain emission standards for many types of air emission
sources, including RCRA-regulated incinerators and industrial boilers or
furnaces.
1-2
-------
• The Clean Water Act (CWA) lists 126 priority pollutants to be regulated by
effluent limitations over 21 primary industries. The CWA priority pollutants are
incorporated into both RCRA and CERCLA. In addition, the CWA regulates
discharges from publically owned treatment works (POTWs) to surface waters,
and indirect discharges to municipal wastewater treatment systems (through the
pretreatment program). Some hazardous wastes which would generally be
considered RCRA regulated wastes are covered under the CWA because of the
use of treatment tanks and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit to dispose of the wastewaters.
• The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulates underground injection
systems including deep-well injection systems.
• The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulates the production and
distribution of new chemicals and governs the manufacture, processing,
distribution, and use of existing chemicals. Among the chemicals controlled by
TSCA regulations are: PCBs, chloroflurocarbons, and asbestos. In specific
cases, there is an interface with RCRA regulations. For example, PCB disposal
is generally regulated by TSCA. However, hazardous wastes mixed with PCBs
are covered under RCRA.
This report focuses primarily on RCRA regulated processes for treating and disposing of
hazardous waste (e.g., incineration, impoundments, chemical and biological treatment
technologies, and land disposal). The report does not cover various exposure routes of
hazardous waste, such as air emissions and discharges to surface waters and POTWs.
These are important considerations which may be addressed in subsequent updates of
this report.
LARGE QUANTITY GENERATORS
Once a RCRA hazardous waste is generated, it must be managed (i.e., stored, treated or
disposed) in accordance with RCRA or CWA requirements. Currently, there are about
3,000 facilities managing 275 MMT of RCRA hazardous waste. Generators also produce
over 300 MMT of RCRA exempt waste which is regulated by the CWA.
The overwhelming majority of such hazardous waste is produced by large quantity
generators. Large quantity generators are defined as those firms which produce more than
1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month. These generators account for 99 percent
of the hazardous waste produced and managed under RCRA.
Furthermore, it is possible to look at the industries that produce most of the hazardous
waste generated each year. The chemical, petroleum, metals, and transportation
industries stand out as major producers of hazardous waste. Exhibit 3 provides
information on the number of facilities, the volume of hazardous waste managed, and the
nature of waste handled by major industrial categories.
1-3
-------
Exhibit 3
Hazardous Waste Managed by Industry
INDUSTRY
Chemical
Fabricated
Metals
Electrical
Equipment
Petroleum
Refinery
Primary
Metals
Transportation
Equipment
National
Security
Other
Total
NUMBEKOF
FACILITIES
700
200
240
100
150
150
100
1360
3000
: AMOdNT WASTE-
MANAGED (MMT)
218
4
1
20
4
3
1
24
275
•- -.- • ••>•::•::••'•.•;;:; GENERAL
-• ./•• •'*•': ::-&4-WASTE
...: -.:•> : ::DE§PRIPTIQN
Contaminated wastewaters, spent
solvent residuals, still bottoms,
spent catalysts, treatment sludges,
and filter cakes.
Electroplating wastes, sludges
contaminated with metals and
cyanides, degreasing solvents
Degreasing solvents
Leaded tank bottoms, slop oil
emulsion solids, API separator
sludge, DAF float.
Pickle liquor, sludge with metal
contaminates
Degreasing solvents, metals, sludges
All types of wastes
All types of wastes
Source: National Screening Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal and Recycling Facilities,
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Office of Policy, Planning and Information, 1986.
SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS
A much smaller amount of waste, about one million tons per year, is generated by small
quantity generators. These firms generate between 100-1,000 kilograms of hazardous
waste per month. The majority of the 100,000 small quantity generators are automotive
repair firms, construction firms, laundromats and dry cleaners, photographic processors,
equipment repair shops, laboratories, electroplaters and schools.
Prior to their being regulated in 1984, small quantity generators legally disposed of
hazardous waste outside of RCRA regulated facilities. Today, small quantity generators
must treat or dispose of their waste in accordance with RCRA's regulations (Subtitle C).
Most small quantity generators do not manage their own waste but rely on the services of
a commercial facility.
The wastes produced by small quantity generators span the full spectrum of RCRA
hazardous wastes. According to EPA's "National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste
Generator Survey," over 60 percent of small quantity generator waste is derived from lead
acid batteries. The remainder includes acids, solvents, photographic wastes, and dry
cleaning residues.
1-4
-------
Small quantity generator industries are widely dispersed across the country. Frequently,
geographic pockets of small quantity generators representing a collection of industries are
concentrated in a few city blocks. While each firm individually generates only a small
volume of waste, collectively these firms may constitute "hot spots" of hazardous waste
generation. The combined industrial discharge from small firms can potentially upset the
chemical or biological treatment processes at publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).
While small quantity generators produce only a small volume of waste, their waste is
hazardous and must be handled to protect human health and the environment.
GEOGRAPHIC IMPLICATIONS
Next, a look at where hazardous wastes are managed. While most hazardous waste is
treated and disposed at the site where it is produced, some hazardous wastes must be
transported hundreds of miles to an incinerator or secure landfill. Because waste is
shipped interstate, it is important to understand where waste is produced in relation to
where it is treated and disposed. For example, some states are net importers of
hazardous waste (e.g., Alabama) while other states (e.g., New England states) are net
exporters of hazardous waste.
As might be expected, the large majority of hazardous waste is managed in the more
highly industrialized areas of the country — particularly those areas with active chemical
and petroleum industries. An approximate geographic breakdown by the number of
Treatment, Storage, Disposal and Recycling (TSDR) facilities, and the volumes of waste
managed is provided in Exhibit 4.
Exhibit 4
Hazardous Waste TSDRs and Waste Volumes
by Geographic Sector
'GEOGRAPHIC •: j
: SECTQ& ' •- •-••"•:
Northeast
Southeast
Southwest
Mid-West
Rocky Mountains
Far West
Total
830
440
390
910
90
340
3,000
f flUANTITY'bF RCRA v
WASTE jy)ANfAGEp(wiyiT)
63
84
58
64
1
5
275
Source: National Screening Survey, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, 1986, and EPA's Hazardous Waste Data
Management System.
1-5
-------
SECTION 2
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Treatment and Disposal
Treatment
Technologies
Incineration
Technologies
Land Disposal
Technologies
The Hazardous Waste System includes about 3,000 facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
RCRA hazardous waste (see Exhibit 5). In this section the types of treatment typically
used are discussed, with particular emphasis on incineration and land disposal
technologies.
3,000
Exhibit 5
Number of Active Facilities by Type of Technology
2,000-
1,000-
0
1,596
2,585
TOTAL NUMBER OF
FACILITIES IN 1985 = 2959
All Facilities
Commercial Facilities
846
433
Treatment Storage Land Disposal Recycling
Source; National Screening Survey, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, 7986.
Note: Some facilities have more than one process.
2-1
-------
Because of economic factors and liability concerns, many firms prefer to store, treat, and
dispose of hazardous waste on-site. About 96 percent of all RCRA hazardous waste is
managed on-site. The remaining waste is taken off-site to commercial facilities, which
are in the business of managing other firms' waste. In addition, significant amounts of
industrial wastes are exempt from RCRA regulations but covered under the Clean Water
Act. These wastes are typically treated and then discharged to surface waters under an
NPDES permit. This section is, however, restricted to the treatment and disposal
practices used to manage various types of RCRA hazardous waste.
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
In the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), treatment technologies
are favored over disposal of certain wastes. Treatment refers to any process, including
neutralization, designed to change the character of hazardous waste in order to render it
less hazardous. Typical treatment methods include incineration, biological and chemical
wastewater treatment, steam stripping, and solidification.
The vast majority of the 275 MMT of hazardous waste managed annually is treated in
impoundments and wastewater treatment plants. A very small amount of waste, about 2
MMT, is presently incinerated. However, the volume of waste incinerated may increase
significantly in response to HSWA requirements. Although most treatment processes
reduce the volume or toxicity of waste, there is often a residual that must be further treated
or disposed. A waste stream may go through more than one treatment process to reduce
its toxicity or volume. The most widely used treatment technologies are briefly described
below.
• Incineration is used to burn primarily liquid organic hazardous waste. In
addition, some incinerators are designed to burn solids and sludges as well as
liquid wastes. Increasingly, regulatory decisions favor such practices as
incineration over land disposal of certain wastes.
• Biological and Chemical Wastewater Treatment is the most widely used
method of treating aqueous hazardous waste. Wastewaters are rendered less
hazardous by biological decomposition, chemical neutralization, or precipitation.
Treatment occurs in large settling ponds, covered tanks, or impoundments.
Retention time in the treatment units varies from a few hours to several days
depending on temperatures and the types of waste streams. A residual sludge
is produced in the treatment process which is generally incinerated, treated or
land disposed.
• Steam Stripping technologies are used in treating aqueous, hazardous
wastewaters. Hazardous constituents in the water are converted into gas by
means of physical treatment. A non-hazardous gas is then emitted into the air
and the hazardous constituents are captured through air pollution control
equipment.
• Solidification involves mixing a stabilizing agent with hazardous waste to create
a solid or impermeable material. The technology requires a large area to
combine the stabilizing agent (e.g., Portland cement) with hazardous waste.
Solidification is most effectively used on inorganic sludges.
2-2
-------
Exhibit 6
Estimate of Physical Characteristics of RCRA Hazardous Wastes
Organic Sludges (2 MMT)
Organic Liquids
(4 MMT)
Inorganic Solids
(2 MMT)
Inorganic Sludges
(15 MMT)
Inorganic Liquids
(252 MMT)
Source: National Screening Survey, U.S. EPA (1986)
An important element in knowing what treatment and disposal practices can be used to
manage waste is understanding the physical characteristics of waste. For each type of
waste, there are appropriate treatment and disposal technologies. The physical
characteristics of the 275 MMT of RCRA hazardous waste managed in 1985 vary from
dilute wastewater to metal bearing sludges to PCB contaminated soils. Over 90 percent
(by weight) of RCRA hazardous waste is in the form of wastewater. The remaining wastes
are organic and inorganic sludges and organic and inorganic solids. Exhibit 6 categorizes
hazardous waste by physical characteristics.
As illustrated in Exhibit 7 below, for each type of waste there are one or more appropriate
treatment and disposal technologies. The vast majority of hazardous waste is inorganic
liquid waste which is generally treated in wastewater treatment plants or treatment
impoundments and then discharged to surface waters subject to effluent limitations in
NPDES permits. A residual sludge is also produced in the treatment process which is
generally treated, stabilized and then land disposed.
Exhibit 7
Treatment Technologies
PHYSICAL -
CHARACTERISTICS
Organic Liquids (4 MMT)
Inorganic Liquids (252 MMT)
Organic Sludges (2 MMT)
Inorganic Sludges (15 MMT)
Inorganic Solids (2 MMT)
• Widely Used
o Sometimes Used
INCINERATION
•
o
O
O
0
WASTEWATER
; TREATMENT
O
•
0
O
TREATMENT
IMPOUNDMENTS
O
•
O
o
SOL1DSRCAT10N
O
O
•
O
! STEAM
; STRIPPING
O
Source: EPA, Office of Solid Waste
2-3
-------
The volume of incinerated hazardous waste is small and composed mainly of organic
liquids and sludges. There is a potential, however, for other types of wastes to require
incineration as a result of upcoming regulatory and policy actions. These additional wastes
could include more sludges and solids.
Because of the strong interest in the incineration of additional wastes and the restriction on
land disposal of certain chemicals, these two technologies are discussed in more detail in
the remainder of this section.
INCINERATION TECHNOLOGIES
This section focuses on the growing importance of incineration in treating wastes and the
types of incinerators operating today. Incinerable wastes range from highly concentrated,
organic liquids to sludges and low concentration, but hazardous, solid wastes. However,
wastes with low levels of metals and high organic content burn most efficiently.
Incineration will be used for a specific waste if it is the most efficient and economically
feasible treatment technology.
Exhibit 6, Estimate of Physical Characteristics of RCRA Hazardous Wastes, serves as a
guide for identifying general categories of waste suitable for incineration. Incinerable
wastes include the following.
• Organic Sludges 2 MMT
• Organic Liquids 4 MMT
• Inorganic Sludges, Liquids, and Solids Unknown
The above wastes are burned in incinerators specifically designed and permitted to
destroy a limited range of wastes. Organic liquid waste, for example, can be burned in
liquid injection incinerators, rotary kilns, cement kilns, or used as fuel for industrial boilers
and furnaces. Exhibit 8 shows the four major types of incinerators, the number of
incinerators in each category and the kinds of waste capable of being incinerated by a
specific incinerator design category.
Exhibit 8
Incinerator Types and Incinerable Waste Descriptions
: INCINERATOR
JDESIGN
Rotary Kiln
Liquid Injection
Fume
Open Hearth
Total
ESTIMATED
NUMBER
OF UNITS
40
95
25
30
190
; WASTE DESCRIPTIONS ^
Liquid sludges, solids, drummed wastes
Pumpable hazardous wastes, no solids
Liquids
Liquids, sludges, and some solids
Source; EPA, Office of Solid Waste
2-4
-------
Most of the RCRA hazardous waste incinerators operating today are located on-site. There
are over 175 on-site incinerators that burn 1.7 MMT of hazardous waste. In contrast, the
commercial sector has 14 incinerators and burns 0.4 MMT of hazardous waste each year.
These units are required to meet air emission and performance standards. An incinerator
permit restricts the type of wastes that can be burned in a specific unit. See Appendix A
for a list of commercial incinerators.
It appears that commercial incinerators are operating at or near capacity. In response to
the potential increase in demand to burn solids and sludges caused by Superfund
cleanups and RCRA corrective action, industry is looking into the siting of new incinerators
and the expansion of existing incinerator capacity. Section 4 of this report examines
incineration capacity in more detail.
LAND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES
Having discussed the major forms of treatment technologies for hazardous waste, let's
now turn to land disposal technologies. Historically, many hazardous wastes were land
disposed because landfilling was an economical and available means to dispose of
wastes. When the land disposal restrictions imposed by HSWA become effective, the land
disposal of certain wastes will be prohibited. Only wastes that meet specific standards or
are treated to meet these standards will be allowed to be disposed on the land.
A small percentage of the 275 MMT of hazardous waste generated each year is land
disposed in landfills, land farms, or disposal surface impoundments. Land disposal is the
depositing or injecting of solid or hazardous wastes on or into the land. Currently, there are
about 430 operating land disposal facilities. The various kinds of land disposal facilities are
briefly described below:
• Landfills are generally below ground, rectangular pits. A permitted hazardous
waste landfill must be lined with synthetic materials and have a leachate
collection system to prevent groundwater contamination. Most residuals
generated in treatment processes, such as incinerator ash or impoundment
sludge, are ultimately landfilled. Landfills range in size from a few acres to
hundreds of acres. Currently there are about 100 hazardous waste landfills in
the country, 33 of which are commercial landfills.
• Land treatment involves spreading hazardous waste on the land or placing
waste in a shallow pit and using biological decomposition to treat the waste.
Land treatment, particularly the form of treatment referred to as land farming, is
most often used to dispose organic solids and sludges, such as the waste
by-products of the petroleum industry.
• Deep-Well Injection Systems are primarily used to dispose of aqueous
hazardous waste. Approximately 20-35 MMT of dilute, hazardous waste is
disposed annually into deep-well injection systems. This represents about 10
percent (by weight) of all RCRA hazardous waste managed in the country.
• Surface Impoundments vary in size from a few hundred square feet to hundreds
of acres. They are currently used to treat, store, and dispose of large quantities
of aqueous wastes. As much as 100 MMT of RCRA hazardous waste may be
treated and disposed of in impoundments. This practice handles a large amount
of the wastes currently managed under RCRA.
2-5
-------
As shown in Exhibit 9, most land disposal facilities are impoundments located on-site at
the plant. In comparison, about 60 commercial facilities have land disposal units and
manage 5 MMT of hazardous waste. These units include: landfills, impoundments, land
treatment, and waste piles. A list of the commercial land disposal units is provided in
Appendix B.
The nature of the wastes managed at commercial facilities may be vastly different from
that of on-site wastes. Representatives from the commercial waste management industry
indicate that they are now receiving more concentrated wastes than in the past. This is
because firms are reusing waste and sending less aqueous waste off-site. This trend is
likely to continue in the future as firms minimize the volume of waste they generate.
Exhibit 9
Number of Land Disposal Facilities by Type of Process
TOTAL NUMBER OF
FACILITIES = 433
All Facilities
Commercial Facilities
Deep Well Disposal Landfill Land Waste Storage Treatment
Injection Impoundment Treatment Pile Impoundment Impoundment
Note: Some facilities have more than one process.
Source: National Screening Survey, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste (1986).
2-6
-------
SECTION 3
REGULATORY AND OTHER EFFECTS
Regulatory and Other Effects
T
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
and
Technology
Standards
Waste
Minimization
Policy
Corrective
Action
Policies
Domestic
Sewage Sludge
Regulation
Ocean
Incineration
Regulation
Redefinition
of RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
There are a number of on-going regulatory and other activities which will substantially
affect the hazardous waste system in the country. Many of these were mandated by the
1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA). Another key factor, of course, is
the Superfund cleanups being conducted under the Superfund program.
These regulatory and other activities are in very different stages of development and their
potential impacts, therefore, can only be estimated. This section attempts to outline the
issues expected to be presented by these activities in order to provide a framework for
future planning.
LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS AND TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS
Since 1984, the number of operating land disposal facilities has decreased from 1500 to
less than 500 today. Under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments firms were
required to meet certain financial tests, comply with groundwater monitoring and minimum
technology standards. Many facilities chose to close rather than meet the above
standards. It is believed that many of these facilities were at or near capacity and many
others were small units. Consequently, the closing of these facilities is unlikely to
significantly decrease land disposal capacity. In 1985, EPA estimated that commercial
landfills had about 10-15 years of useful life remaining.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments prohibit the land disposal of certain
hazardous wastes unless the wastes are treated or it can be demonstrated that there will
be "no migration as long as the waste remains hazardous." Also prohibited from land
disposal are bulk or non-containerized liquid hazardous wastes, certain dioxin-containing
hazardous wastes, and some solvent wastes. By 1990, EPA will publish regulations
implementing land disposal restrictions for all RCRA wastes. Land disposal of wastes will
be prohibited unless the Agency specifies methods that are protective as long as the
waste remains hazardous.
3-1
-------
•Chemicals
Solvents
California List
First 1/3
Second 1/3
Third 1/3
Effective Date of Ban
November 8, 1986
July 8, 1987
August 8, 1988
June 8, 1989
July 8, 1990
On November 7, 1986, EPA promulgated its first regulations implementing the Land
Disposal Restrictions for solvent and dioxin bearing wastes. The Agency found there was
insufficient capacity nationwide to treat dioxin and solvent contaminated soils and dilute
wastewaters contaminated with solvents. Consequently, extensions were granted for
these wastes. However, sufficient capacity was found to treat liquid solvent wastes. An
exclusion was not granted for these wastes.
HSWA's minimum technology standards also require improving the ways existing and new
landfills and surface impoundments are constructed. These standards include: installing
two or more liners, a leachate collection system, and a groundwater monitoring system.
As a result of HSWA's requirements, it appears that many surface impoundments may
close rather that retrofit existing impoundments. About 100 MMT of hazardous wastewater
is managed in surface impoundments. Much of these wastes may shift to treatment tanks.
The sludge from the treatment tanks would be subject to RCRA if it is listed as a hazardous
waste or exhibits a characteristic. The wastewater treatment tanks would be exempt from
RCRA regulations if the treated wastewater were discharged under NPDES permits into
surface waters or under the National Pretreatment Program to publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs). In either case, the discharge would be subject to the Clean Water Act.
These new discharges could have a significant permitting impact on the Clean Water Act
permitting and pretreatment programs.
Sludges resulting from the above treatment tanks, and subject to RCRA, would be subject
to the HSWA land disposal restrictions. Such sludges could require incineration or other
treatment. Currently, there are 14 commercial incinerator facilities, over 175 on-site
incinerators, and about 30 new incinerators under consideration.
3-2
-------
WASTE MINIMIZATION POLICY
EPA strongly favors preventing the generation of waste rather than controlling waste after it
is generated. It is a national policy that the generation of hazardous waste be reduced as
expeditiously as possible.
Within the private sector, strong incentives already exist to promote waste minimization.
These incentives include:
• Large increases in the price of treating and disposing of hazardous wastes
• Difficulties in siting and permitting new hazardous waste units
• Concern with liability associated with managing hazardous waste
• Public pressure on industry to reduce waste generation
According to a recent EPA study, "Waste Minimization Issues and Options", a 20-30
percent reduction in waste volume may be possible through process changes, product
substitution, and "good housekeeping" practices. Many firms have already and are
continuing to reduce the amount of hazardous waste produced through a variety of waste
minimization techniques including:
• Source Reduction
• Waste Separation and Concentration
• Waste Exchange
• Reuse and Recycling Waste
At present, there are three statutory requirements relating to waste minimization, all of
them enacted in the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments. The requirements
are summarized below.
• Generators must certify on their manifests that they have a program in place to
reduce the volume and toxicity of waste (Section 3002(b)).
• Any new treatment, storage or disposal permit must include a waste
minimization certification statement (Section 3005(h)).
• As part of the generator's biennial report, generators must describe the efforts
undertaken during the year to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste
generated (Section 3002(a)(b)) and document actual reduction achieved.
EPA's waste minimization program has two main objectives. First, to foster the use of
waste minimization through technology and information dissemination, and second, to
report to Congress by 1990 on the need for regulations on waste minimization.
In conclusion, concern over economic and liability issues are driving generators to reduce
the volume and toxicity of hazardous waste produced. Waste minimization can alleviate
the capacity problem by reducing the volume of waste requiring treatment and disposal.
3-3
-------
DEEP-WELL INJECTION REGULATION
Over 300 MMT of aqueous waste are deep-well injected each year. About 20 to 35 MMT
of this waste could be RCRA hazardous wastes.
The majority of deep-wells are located on-site and wastes are disposed of at the plant
where they are generated. A small number of commercial firms operate deep-well
systems (refer to Appendix C for a list of deep-well injection systems). Most deep-well
systems are concentrated along the Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana, and in Illinois,
Ohio, and Indiana.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) require that EPA determine by
August 8, 1988 whether to further restrict hazardous wastes from deep-well injection. If
deep-well injection were prohibited, most of these wastes would probably be redirected to
surface waters. Firms could obtain or modify their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit in order to discharge treated wastes from a wastewater treatment
plant to surface waters. Some of these wastes may also be sent to publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) and then discharged into surface waters. It is likely that most
firms would continue to treat their waste on-site rather than ship large volumes of dilute,
aqueous waste to a commercial facility.
The Agency is presently collecting information on the volumes and types of waste
disposed of through deep-well injection. It is important to know the amount of waste
disposed and where waste will shift if this form of disposal is restricted. Those firms which
currently use on-site, deep-well injection systems probably would need to construct
wastewater treatment plants to treat their waste.
In summary, large volumes of RCRA hazardous and non-hazardous wastewaters are
currently discharged into deep-well injection systems. Making deep-well injection
regulations more stringent will affect biological and chemical treatment capacity. There is
likely to be minimal impact on incineration capacity because it is usually not economically
feasible to incinerate dilute, aqueous wastes.
DOMESTIC SEWAGE SLUDGE REGULATION
The Clean Water Act requires municipalities to treat wastewater before discharging it to
surface waters. In 1984, approximately 32 billion metric tons of municipal wastewater was
discharged to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The treatment process
generates a sludge which must be used or disposed of.
The quantity of municipal sludge produced annually has almost doubled since 1972.
Municipalities now generate about 7.6 million dry metric tons of wastewater sludge a year,
the majority of which is landfilled and used for land application. Exhibit 10 illustrates the
proportions of sludge managed by type of practice.
3-4
-------
Exhibit 10
Distribution of Municipal Sludge by Management Practice
Other
Ocean Disposal
Distribution &
Marketing
Incineration
Land Applications
Municipal sludge production is expected to double to 12 million dry metric tons by the year
2000 as the population increases, as more municipalities comply with Clean Water Act
requirements, and as more sophisticated wastewater treatment systems are installed.
EPA's technical regulations for reuse and disposal of sewage sludge will set concentration
limits for a variety of metals and organics found in municipal sludge. These limits will vary
by management practice.
RCRA contains an exclusion for hazardous wastes which are mixed with domestic sewage.
The exclusion allows industries connected to POTWs to discharge hazardous wastes to
sewers containing domestic sewage without having to comply with RCRA manifest or
reporting requirements. These industrial wastewaters would be regulated under the Clean
Water Act's pretreatment program. Furthermore, RCRA hazardous wastes brought to
wastewater treatment plants directly through a non-domestic sewage pipeline or by rail or
truck is not covered by the exclusion and must meet RCRA manifest and reporting
requirements. EPA is scheduled to propose regulations on domestic sewage sludge by
September 1987.
EPA is developing information on the volume of RCRA hazardous waste being discharged
to sewers. When the pretreatment program is implemented fully, the wastewaters
discharged into sewers will be cleaner, resulting in a potential increase in industrial sludge
that may require additional treatment and disposal,
A major environmental issue involves the application of the Toxicity Concentration
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test to domestic sludges. If the sludges fail the TCLP test,
they would be managed as a RCRA hazardous waste. It is uncertain whether most
domestic sludges will pass or fail the test. If most municipal sludges fail, large volumes of
waste could be brought into the RCRA system.
3-5
-------
OCEAN INCINERATION REGULATION
EPA has proposed regulations that would allow certain hazardous wastes to be burned at
sea. By October 1987, EPA is scheduled to issue final regulations on designating sites for
burning hazardous waste at sea. Final regulations on ocean incineration will be
promulgated in late 1988. These ocean incineration regulations will apply exclusively to
liquid organic wastes and exclude solid wastes.
About 4 MMT of liquid organic hazardous wastes are managed annually. Approximately
1.7 MMT of these wastes is burned in on-site hazardous waste incinerators and 0.4 MMT
is incinerated at commercial hazardous wastes facilities. The remainder is recycled or
used as fuel. Demand for hazardous waste incineration capacity could change based on
the following circumstances.
• The land disposal restrictions may divert liquid incinerable wastes currently land
disposed to incineration.
• A small amount of wastes presently burned in boilers could shift to incineration.
• The Deep-Well Injection regulations now being developed could shift some
concentrated wastes currently deep-well injected to incineration.
• Increased Superfund and RCRA cleanup activities could increase the volume of
hazardous wastes that require incineration. Most of these wastes are likely to
be contaminated soils and sludges. It is difficult to estimate the extent to which
the RCRA corrective action program and Superfund's selection of remedy policy
will change the demand for incineration capacity.
The extent to which ocean incineration is used will depend upon need, cost and risk
considerations. The availability and cost of land based incineration units will affect
demand for ocean incineration. Other major factors affecting ocean incineration are the
ability to designate sites, to obtain permits for portside support facilities, and to permit
ocean incinerator ships. Additionally, the cost of transporting and incinerating wastes in
land based versus ocean incinerators would affect utilization rates for each technology.
Finally, managing risk to satisfy the public is an issue which affects both land and sea
incineration of hazardous wastes.
CORRECTIVE ACTION POLICIES
Corrective action involves cleaning up soils, sludges and groundwater contaminated with
hazardous wastes at hundreds of RCRA facilities. Corrective actions may be required
where hazardous waste releases have occurred at hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities (TSDs) and solid waste management units (SWMUs). Early
estimates suggest there are about 7 SWMUs per TSD facility. Corrective action may be
required at many of these facilities.
Leaking underground storage tanks represent another potentially large universe for
corrective action projects. There are approximately one million underground storage
tanks, approximately 5-20 percent may be leaking.
3-6
-------
The volume of waste that will be generated from corrective action projects could be large.
Although most waste probably will be treated on-site, some concentrated wastes may
require off-site treatment. These wastes will likely compete for existing commercial
treatment and land disposal capacity.
SUPERFUND OFF-SITE POLICY AND CLEAN-UP STANDARDS
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) establishes standards for
Superfund clean-up actions and also stipulates the conditions for disposing of Superfund
wastes off-site. These provisions could change the proportions of hazardous waste
managed on-site and off-site.
The new clean-up standards provided for in SARA require that Superfund remedies must
be protective of human health and the environment, cost-effective, and utilize permanent
solutions, alternative treatment technologies and resource recovery to the maximum extent
practicable. The on-site remedies must also meet applicable or relevant and appropriate
regulations (ARARs) of other federal statutes including: RCRA, TSCA, SDWA, CAA, and
CWA. And, where state standards are more stringent than federal standards, state
standards must be met. For wastes remaining on-site, the remedial actions are reviewed
every 5 years.
The new clean-up standards are expected to increase the use of mobile treatment units
and stabilization techniques to manage waste on-site. However, some concentrated
hazardous wastes will likely require off-site treatment and disposal. This could increase
the demand for commercial capacity.
The off-site disposal provision in SARA restricts disposal of Superfund wastes to those
facilities in compliance with RCRA and TSCA and applicable state requirements.
Specifically, the unit receiving Superfund wastes must not be releasing any hazardous
wastes and releases from other units at the facility must be controlled by a corrective
action program. Several Superfund sites have experienced difficulties locating a
commercial facility eligible to accept their waste.
Currently, 4 percent of all hazardous waste is managed off-site by commercial facilities.
The amount of waste taken off-site could increase substantially in the near-term. This
increase is partially attributed to the new clean-up standards and the off-site disposal
provision of SARA. This could stress the nation's commercial capacity to handle
Superfund contaminated soils and sludges.
3-7
-------
REDEFINITION OF RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE
EPA is considering whether to revise the current defintion of "hazardous" waste.
Presently, a waste is defined as hazardous under RCRA if it possesses certain
characteristics or is listed in Subpart D , Part 261 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(40 CFR). About half of RCRA hazardous waste possesses one of four characteristic
attributes: reactivity, ignitability, corrosivity, or EP toxicity. The other half of the wastes are
"listed" hazardous wastes. There are now over 400 listed hazardous wastes.
Approximately 275 MMT of RCRA hazardous waste are generated by 40,000 to 60,000
large quantity generators and about 100,000 small quantity generators. Changing the
criteria for defining a hazardous waste could significantly affect the volume of waste
currently regulated by RCRA as well as the size of the regulated community.
During the next 12 to 14 months, EPA plans to make a series of decisions relative to how
wastes are currently defined as hazardous. Issues being considered include using such
criteria as waste concentration and management practices in potential new definitions of
hazardous wastes.
Each of the above regulatory and policy decisions has the potential to shift waste from one
medium to another or one location to another. The various impacts of the regulation
discussed in this section are summarized in Exhibit 11.
3-8
-------
Exhibit 11
Regulations and Policies and Their Potential Effects on Capacity
peOULATJON
OR POUCY
Land Disposal
Restrictions and
Technology
Standards
Waste Minimization
Policy
Deep-Well
Injection
Regulation
Domestic Sewage
Sludge Regulation
Ocean
Incineration
Regulation
Corrective Action
Policies
Superfund Off-Site
Policy
and Clean-Up
Standards
Redefinition
of RCRA
Hazardous Waste
WASTE TRANSFER : ! ; ;
DESCRIPTION ;" ; ..'-
• Shift organic liquids and sludges
to incineration.
• Solidify inorganic sludges prior to
land disposal.
• Redirect wastewaters from surface
impoundments to treatment tanks
and surface waters. Treat and
dispose of residual sludge under RCRA.
* Likely to result in concentration of
hazardous wastes prior to treat-
ment and disposal.
• Potentially restrict disposal of RCRA
hazardous, aqueous wastes from
deep-wells; shift wastes to POTWs
and industrial wastewater treament
plants .
• Large volumes of non-hazardous,
municipal sludge are produced annually.
RCRA contains an exclusion for hazardous
wastes mixed with domestic sewage.
• Permit certain wastes to shift from
land based incinerators and
industrial boilers and furnaces to
incinerator ships.
• UST and SARA may result in some
wastes transferred off-site to RCRA
commercial facilities.
• Increase the volume of solids and
sludges requiring treatment and
disposal.
• Encourages on-site treatment and
disposal of Superfund waste.
Will minimize the volume of untreated
waste transferred to commercial
facilities.
• Potentially change the amount of
waste defined as hazardous.
It is unknown if specific categories
of waste would increase more than
others or the impact on particular
waste management practices.
: AMOUNT OF
WASTE
Moderate
Moderate
Unknown but
potentially large
Reduce volume
25-35%
Moderate to
Large
Unknown but may
be potentially
significant
Small
Moderate to
significant
Moderate
Unknown but
may be potentially
significant
CAPACITY
OUTLOOK:
Constrained
Available for
short-term
May be
constrained
in short-term
Increase the
longevity of
land disposal
units. May increase
demand for
treatment capacity
Constrained
Sludge currently
landfilled, used
for land application
or incinerated.
Constrained
for short-term
Incineration
capacity is
limited in the
short-term.
Could improve
in long-term
given successful
siting programs.
Land disposal
capacity may be
constrained in
long-term unless
successful siting
occurs.
Could be in-
creased through
use of innovative,
mobile treatment
technology.
Capacity
constrained
already for
particular
wastes such as
some solvents
and dioxins.
3-9
-------
SECTION 4
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Implications for the Future
1
Incinerators 1
Needed 1
Understanding
On-Site Activities
Region & Waste
Specific Capacity
1 Waste
Minimization
Siting and
Permitting
The regulatory actions discussed in the previous section will significantly influence the
ways waste is managed in the future. It is difficult to predict the exact interaction among
future regulatory actions, generators' response to regulations, and the commercial
hazardous waste industry reaction. However, several preliminary conclusions emerge from
information provided earlier in this report. These conclusions are:
• More incinerators will likely be needed
• A better understanding of on-site activities is required
• Capacity is generally a regional and waste specific issue
• Waste minimization programs should be strongly encouraged
• Siting new facilities and expanding capacity at existing facilities is a priority
The following provides a brief summary and the rationale supporting each of these
conclusions.
MORE INCINERATORS NEEDED
Incineration capacity is already limited for specific types of RCRA hazardous wastes. In
addition, some states and regions have inadequate incineration capacity to handle their
wastes and must ship waste out of state. Best available data suggest that existing
incineration capacity would have been exhausted if an extension had not been granted for
solvent wastes when the land ban rule was promulgated in November 1986. While there is
adequate national capacity to burn most hazardous wastes, the addition of solvents to the
incineration market would have stressed existing capacity.
More incinerators are particularly needed that can burn solids and sludges contaminated
by hazardous wastes. More solids and sludges will be added to the hazardous waste
system as a result of RCRA corrective actions and Superfund response actions. This will
increase the need for incinerators.
4-1
-------
According to a recent EPA study, the majority of incinerators are liquid injection
incinerators that are operating at about 55 percent capacity. There are about 40 rotary
kilns running at approximately 77 percent capacity. As the need to burn solids and
sludges increases, the demand for additional rotary kiln capacity will also increase.
Recognizing an emerging new demand, several firms are considering building new
incinerators. However, the siting and permitting of incinerators are difficult and time
consuming. It is not uncommon to take 3 to 5 years to site, permit, and construct an
incinerator. This means that significant new capacity is unlikely in the near term.
Because incinerators are designed to burn specific types of waste, EPA is assessing
incineration capacity on a waste specific basis (e.g., solvents, PCB, etc.). EPA recently
granted a two-year extension for dilute solvent wastes disposed of on the land based on
data which indicated that there was insufficient capacity to burn these solvents as well as
other wastes currently being incinerated. With respect to PCBs, there are 7 commercial
incinerators permitted to burn PCB wastes. (Refer to Appendix A.) The incinerators are
located in Deer Park, Texas; Chicago, Illinois; Coffeyville, Kansas; Pittsfield,
Massachusetts and El Dorado, Arkansas. Because firms are no longer generating PCB
wastes, liquid PCB waste is likely to decrease in the next 2-5 years. On the other hand,
more PCB contaminated soils and sludges from RCRA corrective action, Superfund
cleanup action, and the PCB phase down requirements are likely to continue demand for
PCB incineration. According to EPA's Office of Toxic Substances, demand for PCB
treatment and disposal will likely peak between 1987 and 1991. By October 1988, about
1.7 million PCB capacitors will be phased out and 40,000 PCB transformers by October
1990. EPA is currently assessing the capacity to handle the California listed wastes and
the first third of the listed wastes for the land disposal ban.
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ON-SITE ACTIVITIES
Since 96 percent of all RCRA hazardous waste is managed on-site EPA intends to focus
on developing a better understanding of on-site activities. Furthermore, due to increased
concern about liability and escalating costs of commercial waste disposal, on-site waste
management is likely to continue at or near current levels.
Anticipating changes in on-site waste management practices is vital. One area to watch
in the near future is what will happen to on-site facilities when surface impoundments are
required to meet minimum technology requirements (i.e., liners, leachate collection
systems and monitoring systems) and when land disposal restrictions take effect. Will
facilities close their surface impoundments, change to treatment tanks, and use an NPDES
permit to discharge hazardous wastewaters to surface waters? If so, these would no
longer be regulated under RCRA but would be subject to Clean Water Act regulations.
This would significantly decrease the volume of RCRA-regulated waste. However, the
decrease will represent an "accounting" change rather than a reduction in the amount of
waste generated.
4-2
-------
Learning more about on-site management is also important for several other reasons. Not
only are volumes significantly larger for on-site facilities, but the types of waste managed
at on-site facilities generally are different from those managed by commercials. On-site
facilities, with the exception of those in the chemical industry, generally handle a smaller
range of hazardous wastes. Commercial facilities, on the other hand, handle very dilute to
highly concentrated forms of wastes. Also, commercial facilities could probably not
absorb large shifts in incineration demand if on-site facilities decided to ship wastes
off-site.
REGIONAL AND WASTE SPECIFIC CAPACITY
Numerous examples exist to support the conclusion that regional and waste specific
capacity is already a problem. In some states, there are no commercial hazardous waste
incinerators or landfills in operation. In these cases, waste must be transported to other
states for treatment and disposal. Some firms already transport hazardous waste
hundreds of miles for ultimate treatment and disposal. The regional capacity issue has
become particularly important due to the new Superfund requirement that requires states
to certify long term capacity to manage hazardous waste.
A few states are actively working to site treatment or disposal units to handle hazardous
waste. In certifying 20 years of capacity to manage hazardous waste in order to comply
with SARA, some states may consider state or state/private arrangements for operating
waste management facilities. Potential capacity problem areas are noted in Exhibit 12.
4-3
-------
Exhibit 12
Potential Capacity Problem Areas
CAPACITY
PROBLEM AREAS
LIKELY CAPACITY
PROBLEM AREAS
UNLIKELY TO BE PROBLEM
AREAS FOR CAPACITY I
Incineration
• Limited excess capacity currently
exists commercially for certain
liquid organic wastes. On-site
capacity is uncertain.
• Siting and permitting delays slow
capacity expansion.
• More sludges and solids could
be brought into hazardous waste
system (e.g., RCRA and
Superfund corrective action),
some of which will be Incinerated
• Capacity inadequate for dioxin and
solvent contaminated soils.
Capacity problem exists.
Wastewater Treatment
in Tanks or Double
Lined Surface Impound-
ments
• Large volumes of RCRA
hazardous waste are currently
treated and disposed of in
surface impoundments.
• Some shift from surface
impoundments to tanks could
occur (exempt from RCRA,
but regulated under the
Clean Water Act).
• Potential increase in demand
for tank treatment.
• Solvent wastes scheduled
for bans have been granted
(if they would require tank
treatment) a variance (2 years)
from ban.
Capacity problem will occur if
conversion to tanks or retrofit
does not take place.
Solidification
• Many Inorganic solids and sludges
are potential candidates for
solidification. Limiting factor
is availability of landfills.
• Set up time and costs
are low to stabilize wastes.
• Technology is not a limiting factor.
• Some waste may need to be
stabilized in tanks.
Capacity should be
available.
Recycling, Reuse, Fuel
Distillation
• Most wastes currently going to
land disposal would not require
these technologies. More likely
the wastes would require Incin-
eration in a hazardous waste
incinerator.
• Major permit modifications are
not necessary (RCRA exempt
processes).
• Use of these alternatives may be
reduced by regulations on waste
minimization, fuel specifications,
air emissions.
Capacity should not be a problem.
Note:
The reader should note that this chart focuses on national, physical capacity. However, economic,
transportation, regulatory and legal considerations may constrain the practical availability of capacity.
Moreover, regional and state capacity problems may exist.
4-4
-------
Based on information currently available, the number and capacity of land disposal
facilities was estimated and is provided in Exhibit 13.
Exhibit 13
Land Disposal Facilities by Number, Volume, and
Available Capacity
BCFlA Hazardous Waste
Land Disposal Facilities
On-Site Land Disposal
Commercial Land
Disposal
Number off
Facilities
375
60
Volume of
Waste Land
Disposed
1985
8 MMT
5 MMT
Available
; Capacity i
unknown
10-15 years
Source: National Screening Survey, U.S. EPA (1986) and Survey of Selected Firms in the Commercial
Hazardous Waste Industry, U.S. EPA (1986).
Assuming current fill rates, it is estimated that 10-15 years of commercial land disposal
capacity exists. The life expectancy of on-site land disposal is speculative. However, a
number of complex factors could significantly change land disposal capacity in the future:
The land disposal restrictions will prohibit the disposal of certain wastes.
could extend the useful life of some landfills.
This
• Waste minimization could potentially reduce the volume of waste generated by
20 to 30 percent. This should result in a small decrease in the volume of waste
disposed.
• Stabilization will be used to treat some inorganic solids and sludges prior to land
disposal. This involves mixing hazardous waste with a solidifying agent, such as
Portland cement. Stabilization could increase the volume of waste by 20-100
percent. This will cause landfill space to be used up at a faster rate.
• Wastes and contaminated soils from Superfund sites, RCRA Corrective Action,
and Leaking Underground Storage Tank cleanups may increase the volume of
waste requiring land disposal.
• Possible changes in the criteria for listing RCRA waste may change the volume
defined as hazardous. The result could change the amount of wastes ultimately
managed under RCRA.
Although the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments favor treatment over land disposal
of waste, landfills will be needed long into the future. Land disposal units will continue to
be the ultimate destination for the residuals of various other treatment processes (e.g.,
incinerator ash, scrubber sludge, etc.).
4-5
-------
WASTE MINIMIZATION
In the last few years, the costs of treating and disposing of hazardous wastes have
increased significantly. Rising costs and concerns over the liability of managing hazardous
wastes have driven firms to look seriously at ways to minimize the amount of wastes they
produce. According to a recent study conducted by EPA, it may be possible to achieve a
20 to 30 percent reduction in waste through process changes, product substitution,
recycling, and "good housekeeping" practices.
Most importantly, many firms and a number of states are implementing aggressive waste
minimization programs. EPA strongly supports and encourages such programs.
SITING AND PERMITTING ISSUES
More effective siting and permitting are among the most important solutions to the capacity
problem. Technologies exist to treat and dispose of wastes, but siting and permitting
facilities employing these technologies are difficult.
It will be important for federal, state, and local regulators to address these issues. EPA
has a number of initiatives underway, including potential state-wide permitting for mobile
waste treatment units. Streamlining of the permit modification process is another issue
which EPA is addressing. In addition, EPA and the states are working diligently to meet the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) permitting deadlines for existing land
disposal, incinerator, and storage and treatment facilities.
Finally, with the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) provision
that states certify 20 years of capacity to manage hazardous waste, states will need to
focus on alternative treatment technologies and innovative approaches to siting new
facilities.
4-6
-------
APPENDIX A
A-1
-------
Operating Commercial Incinerator Facilities
^|?f';'gC?WN[M.,::/;?Fj:4,.'
Environmental
Systems Company
International Technology
Corporation
Chemical Waste
Management Inc.
Chemical Services, Inc.
LWD, Inc.
LWD, Inc.
Rollins Environmental
Services
Rollins Environmental
Services
Rollins Environmental
Services
Caldwell Systems,
Inc.
Ross Incineration
Stablex South
Carolina Inc.
GSX Thermal
Oxidation Corp.
B.D.T., Inc.
ioC^TIpN
El Dorado
Arkansas
Martinez
California
Sauget
Illinois
Chicago
Illinois
Calvert City
Kentucky
Clay
Kentucky
Baton Rouge
Louisiana
Bridgeport
New Jersey
Deer Park
Texas
Lenoir
North
Carolina
Grafton
Ohio
Rock Hill
South
Carolina
Roebuck
South
Carolina
New York
: TYPfcOPUNlT. -; ^
Rotary Kiln
Liquid Injection
Liquid Injection &
Fixed Hearth
Liquid Injection &
Rotary Kiln
Liquid Injection
Rotary Kiln
Liquid Injection &
Rotary Kiln
Liquid Injection &
Rotary Kiln
Liquid Incineration
& Rotary Kiln
Liquid Injection &
Solid Incineration
Liquid Injection &
Rotary Kiln
Fixed Hearth
Liquid Injection
Not Available
-' - ,- TYPE OF WASTED. •.;..;,;.;/- «.:;'.'
PCB, Acids, Halogenated & Non-
Halogenated Solvents, Halogenated
& Non-Halogenated Organics
Acids, Non-Halogenated Solvents &
Organics, Metallic Inorganics
Halogenated & Non-Halogenated
Solvents, Halogenated & Non-Halo-
genated Organics
PCB, Halogenated & Non-Halo-
genated Solvents, Halogenated & Non-
Halogenated Organics, Non-Metallic
Inorganics
Acids, Halogenated & Non-Halo-
genated Solvents, Halogenated &
Non-Halogenated Organics,
Metallic Organics
Acids, Halogenated & Non-Halo-
genated Solvents, Halogenated &
Non-Halogenated Organics ,
Metallic Organics
Acids, Halogenated & Non-Halo-
genated Solvents, Halogenated &
Non-Halogenated Organics,
Metallic Organics, Metallic and
Non-Metallic Inorganics
Acids, Halogenated & Non-Halo-
genated Solvents, Halogenated &
Non-Halogenated Organics,
Metallic Organics, Metallic and
Non-Metallic Inorganics
PCB, Acids, Halogenated & Non-Halo-
genated Solvents, Halogenated &
Non-Halogenated Organics,
Metallic Organics, Metallic and
Non-Metallic Inorganics
Halogenated & Non-Halogenated
Solvents, Halogenated & Non-Halo-
genated Organics, Metallic & Non-
Metallic Organics
Acids, Halogenated & Non-Halo-
genated Solvents, Halogenated &
Non-Halogenated Organics,
Halogenated & Non-Halogenated
Solvents, Halogenated & Non-Halo-
genated Organics, Metallic Organics
Halogenated & Non-Halogenated
Solvents, Halogenated & Non-Halo-
genated Organics
Metals
* In addition, there are four TSCA commercial Incinerators permitted to burn PCB wastes. They include:
Pyrochem (Coffeyville, Kansas), Pyrotech Systems - mobile unit, U.S. EPA Incinerator - mobile
unit, and General Electric (Pittsfield, Massachusetts).
Source: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Office of Toxic Substances.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
B-1
-------
Operating Commercial Land Disposal Facilities
OWNER
TYPES OF FACILITIES]
Chemical Waste Management Inc
Lion Oil Company
IT Corp Benecia
IT Corp Vine Hill
IT Corp Imperial
Casmalia Resources
Chemwest Industries Inc
AMCE Fill Corporation
IT Corp Baker Facility
Chemical Waste Management Inc
CECOS International Inc
City of Danbury
Torrington Landfill
Salsbury Laboratories
Envirosafe Services of Idaho
SCA Chemical Services Inc
Peoria Disposal Co
CID-Landfill
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp
CECOS International Inc./BFI
Four County Landfill
Adams Center Landfill Inc
Emelle
Alabama
El Dorado
Arizona
Benecia
California
Martinez
California
Westmoreland
California
Casmalia
California
Fontana
California
Martinez
California
Martinez
California
Kettleman City
California
Bristol
Connecticut
Danbury
Connecticut
Torrington
Connecticut
Charles City
Iowa
Grand View
Idaho
Chicago
Illinois
Peoria
Illinois
Calumet City
Illinois
Madison
Illinois
Zion
Illinois
Rochester
Indiana
Fort Wayne
Indiana
Landfill, Storage Impoundments,
Treatment Impoundments
Land Treatment, Storage
Impoundments
Landfill, Disposal Impoundments,
Storage Impoundments,
Treatment Impoundments
Disposal Impoundments,
Treatment Impoundments
Landfill, Disposal Impoundments,
Treatment Impoundments
Storage Impoundments
Landfill
Disposal Impoundments,
Treatment Impoundments
Landfill, Treatment
Impoundments
Waste Piles
Landfill
Landfill
Storage Impoundments,
Treatment Impoundments
Landfill, Waste Piles
Storage Impoundments,
Treatment Impoundments
Landfill
Landfill
Storage Impoundments
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Metals,Cyanides, Acidic
Corrsives, PCBs, Halogens
Metals
Metals, Cyanides, Solvents
Metals
Metals, Solvents
Acidic Corrosives, Metals,
Cyanides, Halogens
Acidic Corrosives
Other
Metals, Acidic Corrosives
Acidic Corrosives, Metals
Metals, Cyanides
Metals
Metals
Metals, Solvents, Halogens
Acidic Corrosives, Metals,
Cyanides, Solvents, PCBs,
Halogens
Other
Metals
Acidic Corrosives, Metals,
Cyanides, Solvents,
Halogens
Other
Metals, Solvents, Halogens
Metals
Acidic Corrosives, Metals,
Cyanides, Solvents,
Halogens
B-2
-------
Operating Commercial Land Disposal Facilities (cont.)
OWNER
LOCATION
TYPES OF FACILITIES
WASTE
CECOS International Inc.
CECOS International Inc
Chemical Waste Management Inc
Rollins Environmental Services
Wayne Disposal, Inc
Environmental Waste Control
Chem-Met Services Inc
Federal-Hoffman Inc
North Star Steel Co
B. H. S. Inc
Rogers Rental Landfill
Burlington Northern Somers
US Ecology Inc
Frontier Chemical Waste Process
CECOS International Inc
F E I Landfarming
Ashland Chemical Co
Chemical Waste Management Inc
Fondessy Enterprises Inc
Erieway Pollution Control Inc
CECOS International Inc
Delhi Industrial Products
Westlake
Louisiana
Livingston
Louisiana
Carlyss
Louisiana
Baton Rouge
Louisiana
Bellerville
Michigan
Inkster
Michigan
Wyandotte
Michigan
Anokia
Minnestoa
St. Paul
Minnesota
Wright City
Missouri
Centreville
Mississippi
Somers
Montana
Beatty
Nevada
Niagara Falls
New York
Niagara Falls
New York
Oregon
Ohio
South Point
Ohio
Vickery
Ohio
Oregon
Ohio
Bedford
Ohio
Williamsburg
Ohio
McDonald
Ohio
Storage Impoundments
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill, Storage Impoundments
Treatment Impoundments
Treatment Impoundments
Treatment Impoundments
Waste Piles
Landfill
Waste Piles
Landfill
Land Treatment
Waste Piles, Storage
Impoundments
Landfill
Waste Piles
Landfill
Land Treatment
Waste Piles
Storage Impoundments
Landfill
Waste Piles
Landfill
Waste Piles
Acidic Corrosives, Metals,
Solvents, Halogens
Acidic Corrosives, Cyanides,
Solvents, Halogens
Metals, Cyanides, Solvents,
Halogens
Metals, Solvents, Cyanides,
Acidic Corrosives
Acidic Corrosives, Metals
Acidic Corrosives, Metals
Acidic Corrosives, Metals,
Solvents, Halogens
Other
Metals
Metals, Halogens
Other
Acidic Corrosives, Metals,
Solvents
Metals, Cyanides, Solvents,
PCBs, Halogens
Metals
Acidic Corrosives, Metals,
PCBs
Metals
Other
Acidic Corrosives, Metals
Metals, Cyanides, Solvents,
Halogens
Acidic Corrosives, Metals,
Halogens
Metals, Cyanides, Solvents,
PCBs, Halogens
Metals
B-3
-------
Operating Commercial Land Disposal Facilities (cont.)
OWNE8
LOCATION
TYPES OF FACILITIES
WASTE
Eagle Richer Industries Inc
USPCI
Chem-Security Systems Inc
Mill Service Inc
Mill Service Inc
GSX Services of South Carolina
Yale Security Inc
Gibraltar Chemical Resources
US DOE K-25 Site
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal
Chemical Waste Management Inc
Rollins Environmental Services
Olin Corporation
Malone Service Company
Texas Ecologists Inc.
USPCI
Quapaw
Oklahoma
Waynoka
Oklahoma
Arlington
Oregon
Yukon
Pennsylvania
Bulger
Pennsylvania
Pinewood
South Carloina
Lenoir City
Tennessee
Winona
Texas
Oakridge
Texas
Texas City
Texas
Port Authur
Texas
Deer Park
Texas
Beaumont
Texas
Texas City
Texas
Robstown
Texas
Knowles
Utah
Disposal Impoundments
Landfill, Disposal
Impoundment, Waste Piles,
Storage Impoundments
Treatment Impoundments
Landfill, Storage
Impoundments,
Treatment Impoundments
Disposal Impoundments,
Waste Piles
Disposal Impoundments,
Waste Piles
Storage Impoundments
Storage Impoundments
Treatment Impoundments
Storage Impoundments
Landfill, Land Treatment
Landfill, Disposal
Impoundments,
Storage Impoundments,
Treatment Impoundments
Landfill, Storage
Impoundments, Treatment
Impoundments
Treatment Impoundments
Landfill, Storage
Impoundments,
Treatment Impoundments
Landfill
Landfill, Land Treatment,
Storage Impoundment
Metals, Solvents
Acidic Corrosives, Metals,
Cyanides
Acidic Corrosives, Metals,
Solvents, PCBs, Halogens
Metals
Metals
Acidic Corrosives, Metals,
Cyanides
Acidic Corrosives, Metals
Cyanides, Halogens
Acidic Corrosives, Metals
Metals, Cyanides
Acidic Corrosives, Metals,
Cyanides, Solvents, Dioxins
Halogens
Metals, Cyanides, Solvents,
Halogens
Acidic Corrosives, Metals,
Cyanides, Solvents,
Halogens
Metals, Cyanides, Acidic
Corrosives
Metals, Cyanides, Solvents,
Halogens
Metals, Acidic Corrosives,
Solvents, PCBs, Halogens
Source: EPA, Office of Solid Waste.
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C
C-1
-------
Commercial Deep-Well Injection Systems
LOCATION
WASTE
CECOS International
CECOS International
Lake Charles
Louisiana
Livingston
Louisiana
Chemical Waste Management Inc.
Lake Charles
Louisiana
Rollins Environmental Services
Baton Rouge
Louisiana
Chemical Waste Management Inc.
Chemical Resources, Inc.
Disposal Systems, Inc.
Vickery
Ohio
Tulsa
Oklahoma
Houston
Texas
Acids, Caustics, Cleaning Solutions,
Organic and Inorganic Wastewaters,
Leachate, Contaminated Soils
Acids, Chromic Acids, Pickling Acids
Caustics, Cyanides, Paints and Inks,
Non-Halogenated Solvents,
Halogenated Solvents, Waste Oil,
Commercial Chemical Products,
Contaminated Soil, Asbestos,
Spent Catalysts
Acids, Chromic Acids, Pickling Acids
Caustics, Cyanides, Paints and Inks,
Non-Halogenated Solvents,
Halogenated Solvents, Waste Oil,
Non-metallic Inorganic, Metallic
Inorganics, Non-Halogenated
Organics, Halogenated Organics,
Contaminated Soils
Acids, Chromic Acids, Pickling Acids
Caustics, Cyanides, Paints and Inks,
Non-Halogenated Solvents,
Halogenated Solvents, Waste Oil,
Commercial Chemical Products,
Non-metallic Inorganics, Metallic
Inorganics, Non-Halogenated and
Halogenated Organics, Pesticides,
PCB Liquids <50ppm, PCB Solids
<50ppm, Contaminated Soil, Lab
Packs.
Acids, Chromic Acids, Pickling Acids
Caustics, Waste Oil, Non-metallic
Inorganics, Metallic Inorganics,
Non-Halogenated Organics.
Acids, Pickling Acids, Cyanides,
Paint and Inks, Non-Halogenated
Solvents, Waste Oil, Metallic
Inorganics, Metallic Organics,
Pesticides.
Acids, Chromic Acids, Caustics,
Cyanides, Paints and inks, Non-
Halogenated Solvents, Halogenated
Solvents, Waste Oil, Commercial
Chemical Products, Non-Metallic
Inorganics, Metallic Inorganics,
Metallic Organics, Non-Halogenated
Organics, Halogenated Organics,
Pesticides, Contaminated Soil,
Texas Class I Hazardous Wastes.
C-2
-------
Commercial Deep-Well Injection Systems
LOCATION
WASTE
Chemical Waste Management Inc.
Corpus Christ!
Texas
Malone Service Co.
Texas city
Texas
EMPAK, Inc.
Deer Park
Texas
Gibraltar Chemical Resources
Chemical Waste Management
Winona
Texas
Port Authur
Texas
CECOS International, Inc
Odessa
Texas
Acids, Chromic Acids, Pickling Acids
Caustics, Cyanides, Paints and Inks,
Non-Halogenated Solvents,
Halogenated Solvents, Waste Oil,
Non-metallic Inorganics, Metallic
Inorganics, Non-Halogenated
Organics, Halogenated Organics
Acids, Chromic Acids, Pickling Acids
Caustics, Cyanides, Paints and Inks,
Non-Halogenated Solvents,
Halogenated Solvents, Waste Oil,
Commercial Chemical Products
Non-Metallic Inorganics, Metallic
Inorganics, Metallic Organics,
Non-Halogenated Organics,
Pesticides.
Acids, Chromic Acids, Pickling Acids
Caustics, Cyanides, Paints and Inks,
Non-Halogenated Solvents,
Halogenated Solvents, Waste Oil,
Commercial Chemical Products
Non-Metallic Inorganics, Metallic
Organics, Non-Halogenated
Organics, Pesticides.
Acids, Chromic Acids, Pickling Acids
Caustics, Cyanides, Paints and Inks,
Non-Halogenated Solvents,
Halogenated Solvents, Waste Oil,
Texas Class I Waste
Acids, Chromic Acids, Pickling Acids
Caustics, Cyanides, Paints and Inks,
Non-Halogenated Solvents,
Halogenated Solvents, Waste Oil,
Commercial Chemical Products
Non-Metallic Inorganics, Metallic
Organics, Non-Halogenated and
Halogenated Organics, Pesticides,
Contaminated Soil.
Acids (pH >5), Chromic Acids, Pickling
Acids, Caustics, Metallic Organics
Flammable Liquids, Cyanide Waste
Stream.
Source: EPA, Office of Solid Waste.
C-3
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Analysis of Capacity Short Falls of Schedules for Implementing the Land Disposal
Restriction Program. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, ICF, Inc., March, 1985. (Report)
Assessment of the Commercial Hazardous Waste Incineration Market. U.S. EPA, OPA,
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., November 30, 1984. (Report)
Capacity Short Falls and the Land Disposal Restriction Program: A Preliminary
Assessment. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, ICF Inc., July, 1985. (Report)
Commercial Hazardous Waste Treatment Capacity: Data Sources, Evaluation and
Potential Survey Questionnaire: Final Report (Task 2). U.S. EPA, Waste Treatment
Branch, Office of Solid Waste, Booz-Allen Hamilton, GCA, December, 1984. (Report)
Comprehensive Hazardous Waste Management Study. Mississippi Hazardous Waste
Council, ERM, Inc., January, 1982. (State Report)
EPA to Issue New Toxic-Waste Rules; Big Rise in Disposal Costs Seen for Firms, Robert
E. Taylor, Wall Street Journal, October 23, 1986. (Article)
Estimate of Need. Minnesota Waste Management Board, September, 1985. (State
Report) Attachments: Commercial Hazardous Waste Landfill Capacity. Memo, Marcia
Williams, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, November 14, 1985. Recent Data on Out of
State Landfill Capacity. Office Memo, December 1985.
Estimating Competition for Commercial Hazardous Waste Treatment Capacity from
non-RCRA Wastes: Draft Report (Task 1.3). U.S. EPA, Waste Treatment Branch, Office
of Solid Waste, Booz-Allen & Hamilton under contract for GCA, Inc., December, 1984.
(Report)
Final Report on Hazardous Waste in North Carolina: Analysis of the Collection Systems,
and of the Need for Waste Management Facilities. Battelle Columbus, February 21, 1985.
(State Report)
Gulf Coast Disposal of Hazardous Waste: Demand, Capacity, and Pricing - 1980-1990.
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority, The Pace Co., September 1981. (State Report)
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.
Hazardous Waste Facility Needs Assessment. New York State Dept. of Environmental
Conservation, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste, ERM-Northeast, March, 1985.
(State Report)
Hazardous Waste Generation and Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Capacity.
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., and Putnam, Hayes &
Bartlett, Inc., December, 1980. (Report)
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (cont.)
Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Minnesota Waste Management Board, February,
1984. (State Report)
Hazardous Waste Management Report. Minnesota Waste Management Board, December,
1983. (State Report)
Hazardous Waste Management System: Land Disposal Restriction, California List, Office
of Solid Waste, November 3, 1986. (Proposed Rule)
Hazardous Waste Management System: Land Disposal Restriction, Solvents and Dioxins,
Office of Solid Waste, November 8, 1986. (Final Rule)
Hazardous Waste Management Technology: Draft Report (Task 2.1). U.S. EPA, Waste
Treatment Branch, Office of Solid Waste, Booz-Allen Hamilton, GCA, December, 1984.
(Report)
Hazardous Waste Treatment and Resource Recovery Facility Feasibility Study. Missouri
Environmental Improvement and Energy Resources Authority, ERM, January, 1985. (State
Report)
Identification and Evaluation of Sources of Capacity-Related Data for Hazardous Waste
Management Technology: Draft Report (Task 2-1). U.S. EPA, Waste Treatment Branch,
Office of Solid Waste, Booz-Allen Hamilton, GCA, December 1984.
Improved Hazardous Wastes Management Needs, Chemical Engineering Progress,
September 1986. (Article)
Incineration Permitting and Capacity, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, July
16, 1986. (Briefing)
Incinerator and Cement Kiln Capacity for Hazardous Waste Treatment, G.A. Vogel, A.S.
Goldbuk, R.E. Zier, and A. Jewell of Mitre Corporation and I. Licis of U.S. EPA, Cincinnati,
Ohio. (Article)
Incinerator and Cement Kiln Capacity for Hazardous Waste Treatment. Vogel, G.A., et al.,
Mitre Corp., presented at 12th Annual EPA Research Symposium, April 21-23, 1986,
Cincinnati, Ohio. (Report)
National Screening Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and
Recycling Facilities. 1986 U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning and Information, Research
Triangle Institute. (Ongoing Study)
National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid
Waste, Abt Associates, February, 1985 (Report).
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (cont.)
National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators and Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facilities Regulated under RCRA in 1981. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Westat, Inc.,
April, 1984. (Report)
1984 Needs Survey Report to Congress Assessment of Needed Publicly Owned
Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the United States. U.S. EPA, Office of Municipal
Pollution Control, Roy F. Weston, Inc., February 1985. (Report)
New Jersey Hazardous Waste Facilities Plan, NJ Hazardous Waste Facility Siting
Commission, ERM, March, 1985. (State Report)
Permitting of Land Treatment Units; EPA Policy, and Guidance Manual on Land Treatment
Demonstration,: J. Winston Porter, September 17, 1986. (Memorandum)
Potential for Capacity Creation in the Hazardous Waste Management Service Industry.
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Foster D. Snell, Inc., August 1976. (Report)
Profile of Existing Hazardous Waste Incineration Facilities and Manufacturers in the United
States. Mitre, February, 1984. (Report)
Question of Effect of UST Cleanups on the Capacity Subtitle C Facilities, Richard
Valentinetti, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, U.S. EPA, Fall, 1986. (Memorandum)
Re-Analysis of the National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators and Treatment
Storage and Disposal Facilities Regulated under RCRA in 1981. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid
Waste, Westat, Inc., April, 1984. (Ongoing Study)
Report on Hazardous Waste Management Needs Assessment, TVA, Battelle Columbus.
June, 1984. (Report)
Report to Congress on Injection of Hazardous Waste. U.S. EPA, May, 1985. (Report)
Report to Congress: Waste Minimization,: Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
Review of Activities of Major Firms in the Hazardous Waste Management Industry: 1982
Update. U.S. EPA, OPA, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., August, 1983. (Report)
Review of Activities of Firms in the Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Industry:
1983 Update. U.S. EPA, OPA, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., November, 1984. (Report)
Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste, Office of Technology Assessment, September
1986. (Report)
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (cont.)
Statement of J. Winston Porter on Capacity and Waste Minimization before the
Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources of the Committee in
Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives, September 24, 1986.
(Testimony)
Study to Evaluate Impact of EAF Dust Land Disposal on Human Health and the
Environment, prepared for the American Iron and Steel Institute by Baker/TSA, Inc.,
September 1986. (Report)
Survey of Selected Firms in the Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Industry:
1984 Update. U.S. EPA, OPA, IGF, Inc., September, 1985. (Report)
Survey of Waste as Fuel: Track II. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Westat, Inc.,
November, 1985. (Report)
Survey of Selected Firms in the Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Industry:
1985 Update. U.S. EPA, Office of Policy Analysis, ICF, Inc., September, 1986.
Time Requirements for the Siting, Permitting, and Construction of New Hazardous Waste
Treatment Facilities prepared for the Office of Solid Waste by Jacobs Engineering Group,
Inc., January 3, 1986. (Final Report)
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library ,.-•
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604 ,-x
------- |