&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600 2 79 135
August 1979
Research and Development
Quantification of
Municipal Disposal
Methods for
Industrially
Generated
Hazardous Wastes
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution-sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-79-135
August 1979
QUANTIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL DISPOSAL
METHODS FOR INDUSTRIALLY
GENERATED HAZARDOUS WASTES
by
H. VanNoordwyk, L. Schalit, W. Wyss, H. Atkins
Acurex Corporation
Energy & Environmental Division
Mountain View, California 94042
Contract 68-03-2567
Project Officer
Thomas L. Baugh
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
n
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of
increasing public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to
the health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water,
and spoiled land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural
environment. The complexity of that environment and the interplay between
its components require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem
solution, and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and
searching for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
develops new and improved technology and systems for the prevention,
treatment, and management of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste
pollutant discharges from municipal and community sources, for the
preservation and treatment of public drinking water supplies, and to
minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of
pollution. This publication is one of the products of that research; a
most vital communications link between the researcher and the user
community.
This study involved estimating the quantities of industrial hazardous
waste being disposed of according to various methods of disposal. Recent
assessment studies of hazardous waste treatment/disposal practices and
current state and local hazardous waste surveys provided the data base for
the estimates. Methods used to dispose of about half of the industrial
hazardous waste generated in this country were reviewed.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory
m
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Many industrial wastes are known to be sent to public disposal
facilities. Indeed, many public facilities actively solicit such
materials one way or another; a common technique is the use of a favorable
rate structure coupled with an uncritical analysis of the potential
eventual environmental effect on ground water or land use options.
The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory (MERL) of the
Office of Research and Development of the Environmental Protection Agency
has the charter to develop data on public sector waste disposal requirements
and perform research to develop needed disposal technologies. There are no
known compilations of broadly-based (i.e., nationwide) data pertaining to
public sector disposal of industrial hazardous wastes. These data are
needed if effective research program planning is to be accomplished. Acurex
has, in this study, attempted to compile and review for MERL all data on
this topic which were readily available to us within the level of effort
permitted by time and budget constraints.
The specific objective of this study is to quantify the amount of
industrial hazardous waste disposed of in public sector facilities. This
analysis seeks to quantify industrial hazardous wastes by waste types, by
waste disposal methods, and by the generator's Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code. Limited data is available on these topics.
After an extensive search for data, five SIC codes which include major
contributions of hazardous waste were successfully analyzed for their
hazardous waste contributions to the municipal sector.
The initial approach taken to determine this contribution proved
unworkable because of deficiencies in the data available from the states.
The approach finally adopted uses EPA's hazardous waste assessment reports
as the basis for national waste quantity estimates and uses state data for
estimating the distribution of waste types by disposal method.
Information was also sought from other sources. These included both
individual companies and trade associations, other contractor reports and
disposal vendors. Most of these proved to be of limited value.
Thirty-one state agencies supplied reports or data on the generation
and disposal of industrial hazardous waste. These data were only partially
useful because of the lack of a uniform definition of a hazardous waste and
because there is inconsistency among state agencies in the methods used for
obtaining and reporting waste generation and disposal information. Disposal
methods for specific waste types generated by various SIC codes were
quantified by 10 states. Adequate disposal data from states in which the
largest quantities of waste are generated, such as Texas, Louisiana, and
Ohio, were not readily available. Many details are lacking in the available
iv
-------
data. For example, it is extremely rare to find data on the ownership of
the disposal facility.
The industrial hazardous waste "assessment" reports sponsored by the
EPA Office of Solid Waste Management Programs during the early and
mid-1970's proved to be the most useful source of waste quantity data.
These reports characterize and quantify industrial hazardous wastes in
selected industries. They also briefly describe treatment and disposal
methods. However, as in the case of state-supplied data, ownership of the
commonly-used disposal sites (i.e., public or private) is not usually
specified.
Private industry, trade/technical associations, and other sources
supplied some data. Most of these were not specific enough to be used in
this study.
During our analysis of available data, we determined that conclusions
could be drawn about the hazardous waste contribution to the municipal
sector from significant portions of the following SIC codes:
SIC Code No. Name
28 Chemicals & Allied Products
29 Petroleum Refining & Related Industries
30 Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products
31 Leather & Leather Products
36 Electrical & Electronic Machinery, Equipment & Supplies
We have concluded that, for these SIC codes, our conclusions are based on
almost 90 percent of the hazardous waste generated by these industrial
categories.
For these SIC codes, the tables in Section 6 of this report
present, where possible, the disposal methods used for all waste types.
In all cases, for each SIC code or code segment addressed, all disposal
methods have been quantified either by specific waste types or by the
total quantity of hazardous industrial waste.
Table 1 summarizes our conclusions on the disposal methods and
amount of industrial hazardous waste by SIC code or code segment. The
data show that most of those wastes (>90 percent) which are municipally
disposed, go to General Purpose landfills. Petroleum Refining, Industrial
Inorganic Chemicals, Plastic and Synthetics, Organic Chemicals, and
Leather Tanning and Finishing generate over 90 percent of the
municipally-disposed hazardous industrial waste produced by the tabulated
industries.
In this study, disposal of about half of the industrial hazardous
waste in this country has been reviewed. Of that, over 9 percent ended up
-------
TABLE 1. OFFSITE (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE) AND ONSITE- INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL BY
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION (SIC) CODE OR SIC CODE SEGMENT
SIC
Code /Code
Segaent Nurtier
281
262
283
235
2861, 2865. 2869
(enceot 28694)
28694, 2879
2892
2911
2922
30
3111
367
3691/3692
SIC
Nine
Ind. Inorganic Chea.
Plastics I Synthetics
Pharmaceuticals
Paints I Coatings
Organic Chemicals
Pesticides'
Explosives
PetroleuB Refining
Petroleun Rereflnlng
Rubber Products
Leather Tanning I Finishing
Electronic Components
Batteries
Totals
Quantities and Disposal Methods*
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Uet Basis)
Public
L«ndfillb
427,000
284,000
<230
1,900
£205,000
25.000
428,000
9.700
37.800
45,800
31,600
47,200
-1.543.000
Seller
<40.000
£90
-
--
-
-
--
<40.100
Othert
<40,000
-
--
--
500
45.800
-
•86,300
Offsite
Private
Landfill*1
117,000
7.700
95.500
500,000
50.000
570
107.000
41,000
9,400
51,200
31,300
47,200
1.058,000
Special
landfill"!
298.000
1,900
9,700
12,300
-322.000
Ponding/
Lagoontng
117.000
289,000
6.200
-412.000
Incineration
209.000
36.800
2,100
320.000
95.000
2,000f
6
-665,000
Recovery
700
7.7009
8.400
Other'
51.000
£300
2.400
2,000f
2.100
-58.000
Ons I te
Landfill0
1,750,000
12.100
440.000
175.04)0
570
3S5.000
8.100
2,400
4.800
9.500
45.200
-2. 803.000
Special
Landfill*1
117,000
12.300
-129.000
Ponding/
Lagooning
952.000
520,000
284,000
5,300
-1.761.000
Injection
6,000,000
6.000.000
incineration
27,100
26,000
1,100
2.100,000
5,000
40,000
6
-2.199,000
Recovery
240,000
50,000
7.7009
10
-298,000
Othert
56,000
210,000
£1,700
81,000
21,700
334,000
170
1,900
-706,000
'These data come frtm the EPA OSH assessnent reports listed in Table 5-3 and are distributed according to information
in those reports and collected state reports/data suoiaries (see Table 5-1 and the appendix),
General purpose landfills
c$ee Section 6 tables and their respective footnotes for explanations of 'Other' disposal methods.
^Landfills approved for hazardous waste disposal. See Section 6 tables for more specific information.
^144,000 tonnes/year to unknown disposal, not included in above table
'4.000 tones/year -- split evenly between incineration and other (landspread) since actual distribution is unknown
915.400 tonnes/year — split evenly between onstte and offslte (private) recovery since actual distribution is unknown.
-------
disposed in the municipal sector. Although most industrial hazardous
waste disposed of municipally does not present acute environmental and
safety hazards, it does have a significant potential for causing chronic
environmental hazard since it contains hazardous constituents such as
heavy metals and halogenated organics which are not readily removed. More
than 99 percent of the hazardous waste municipally disposed of which was
examined in this study goes to facilities not designed for its
acceptance. As a result of such flagrant disposal errors, long-term
environmental problems are to be expected.
Much of the hazardous waste disposed of onsite by industry or
offsite in private facilities is also expected to lead to long-term
environmental problems primarily due to poorly designed facilities. These
problems may be much more serious than those encountered in the municipal
sector for two reasons. First, there is usually a much higher
concentration of hazardous wastes in such private facilities and, second,
the wastes in such facilities are typically even more hazardous the
hazardous waste which enters public sites.
If realistic planning is to occur, future in-depth studies are
needed of specific industries' hazardous waste contributions to municipal
disposal facilities. This study can serve as a preliminary indicator of
the priority SIC codes which should be investigated first. Such studies
should attempt to quantify the compositions of these wastes and then
include recommendations for their treatment and disposal.
vn
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
Disclaimer ii
Foreward iii
Executive Summary iv
Contents ix
Tables xi
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Objectives 1
1.2 Scope of Work 1
1.3 Report Organization 2
2 Conclusions and Recommendations 3
2.1 Conclusions 3
2.2 Recommendations 3
2.2.1 Data Base Improvement 3
2.2.2 Further Useful Work 4
3 APPROACH 5
3.1 Original Concept 5
3.2 Assessment of Initial Data Collection
Results 5
3.3 Revised Approach 6
4 DATA SOURCES 8
5 UTILITY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DATA COLLECTED . . 12
5.1 State Reports 12
5.2 Published Data Sources 18
5.3 Industrial Data Sources 18
5.4 Other Sources 20
5.4.1 Office of Solid Waste 20
5.4.2 Trade/Technical Associations 20
5.5 Summary 20
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Section
NATIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE AMOUNT QUANTIFICATION .
Page
21
6.1 Introduction 21
6.2 Methodology 21
6.3 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Codes Addressed 22
6.3.1 SIC Codes Potentially of Interest 22
6.3.2 Criteria for Choosing 22
6.3.3 Results of Applying Choice Criterion 22
6.4 Examples of a National Industrial Hazardous
Waste Amount Quantification: Batteries
Industry, SIC 3691/3692 24
6.5 Summary of National Industrial Hazardous
Waste Amount Quantification 24
6.5.1 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, SIC 281 24
6.5.2 Plastics and Synthetics, SIC 282 28
6.5.3 Pharmaceuticals, SIC 283 28
6.5.4 Paints and Coatings, SIC 285 28
6.5.5 Organic Chemicals, SIC 2861, 2865, 2869
(except 28694) 28
6.5.6 Pesticides, SIC 28694/2879 33
6.5.7 Explosives, SIC 2892 33
6.5.8 Petroleum Refining, SIC 2911 33
6.5.9 Petroleum Rerefining, SIC 2992 33
6.5.10 Rubber Products, SIC 30 33
6.5.11 Leather Tanning and Finishing, SIC 3111 41
6.5.12 Electronic Components, SIC 367 41
6.5.13 Batteries, SIC 3691/3692 41
6.5.14 Industrial Hazardous Waste Municipally
Disposed 41
REFERENCES 48
APPENDIX 50
GLOSSARY 63
-------
TABLES
Table Page
1 Offsite (Public and Private) and Onsite Industrial
Hazardous Waste Disposal by Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) Code or SIC Code Segment vi
4-1 Hazardous Waste Data Sources 9
5-1 Summary of State Report Data 13
5-2 Waste Types (In Tons) and Disposal Methods 17
5-3 OSW Industrial Hazardous Waste Assessment Reports .... 19
6-1 SIC Code Segments Addressed by EPA Hazardous
Waste Assessment Reports Which are Included in
this Study 23
6-2 SIC 281 — Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 25
6-3 SIC 281 — Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 27
6-4 SIC 282 — Plastics and Synthetics 29
6-5 SIC 283 — Pharmaceuticals 30
6-6 SIC 285 — Paints and Coatings 31
6-7 SIC 2861, 2865, 2869 (Except 28694) —
Organic Chemicals 32
6-8 SIC 28694/2879 — Pesticides 34
6-9 SIC 2892 — Explosives 35
6-10 SIC 2911 — Petroleum Refining 36
6-11 SIC 2911 — Petroleum Refining 37
6-12 SIC 2992 ~ Petroleum Rerefining 38
6-13 SIC 2992 — Petroleum Rerefining 39
XI
-------
TABLES (continued)
Table £§Si
6-14 SIC 30 - Rubber Products 40
6-15 SIC 3111 — Leather Tanning and Finishing 42
6-16 SIC 367 -- Electronic Components 43
6-17 SIC 367 — Electronic Components 44
6-18 SIC 3691/3692 — Batteries 45
6-19 SIC 3691/3692 — Batteries 46
xn
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to provide a data base for future
research planning. Thus, it attempts to examine and estimate the amount,
nature, and method of disposal for hazardous and toxic wastes generated by
industry and disposed of in public facilities. At present, there are no
nationwide quantitative data compilations on industrially generated toxic
and hazardous wastes that undergo municipal treatment and/or disposal. As
part of the Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, the Solid and
Hazardous Waste Research Division is charged with the assessment,
development and demonstration of technologies capable of rendering
innocuous any toxic or hazardous waste that is discharged to the municipal
sector. The development of specific technologies that will have the
greatest impact on the treatment/disposal of hazardous waste requires a
knowledge of the character of the waste. Information contained in this
report, such as specific wastes being generated, the industrial origin of
these wastes, and the current methods of disposal will provide a portion
of the data base necessary for future research.
1.1 OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study are to quantify the amounts and
specify the types of hazardous waste generated by various industries for
those wastes disposed of in public disposal facilities, and to examine
differences in the way in which wastes from various industries are treated
and disposed of.
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK
The lack of broadly-based (i.e., nationwide) data compilations on
this topic was felt to require extrapolation of existing piecemeal data if
the objective was to be reached.
Acurex's scope of work therefore contained the following tasks:
• Collection of Data. Potential sources of data were thought to
be compilations or surveys by government agencies, expert
opinion, and cross-check data from private sector generators of
wastes and from private disposal sites.
• Assessment of collected data and development of an analytical
model for extrapolation of local data to national scope
-------
• Use of the analytical model to perform the extrapolation to
provide answers to the questions:
— How much hazardous waste is being generated nationally by
various industries
-- What part of industry-generated waste is disposed of in
public facilities
-- What differences exist in the way wastes from various
industries are treated and disposed of in public disposal
facilities
Further, in estimating the nationwide patterns of industrial waste
disposal, an attempt was to be made to prioritize the work effort by
ranking industries by the nature of their wastes, since it was felt that
it might not be possible to achieve results for all industries.
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
Conclusions and recommendations derived from this study are given
in Section 2.
Section 3 describes the approach originally chosen to reach the
objectives stated in Section 1.1. During the study, the approach was
modified as a result of conclusions reached after assessing the data
initially collected. The reasons for modifying the approach are described
together with the modified approach.
The data sources used are covered in Section 4. Section 5
describes characteristics of these data and contains a few comments on
their usefulness.
Finally, section 6 describes the model used and the results
achieved by the model.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions can be drawn:
• Industrial hazardous wastes which are municipally disposed are
those that present, by and large, less acute environmental and
safety hazards in their disposal than do other industrial
hazardous wastes whch are disposed of onsite or in offsite
private facilities. However, in terms of possible chronic
environmental hazard, these wastes have a high hazard potential
because of their content of heavy metals and other persistant
toxic chemicals such as halogenated organics.
• This study indicates that municipal disposal of industrial
hazardous waste handles just over 9 percent of all such waste
generated. Over 99 percent of this portion ends up in
municipal facilities not designed for its incorporation. Long
term environmental problems can be expected from such disposal
methods.
• Over 18 million tonnes per year of hazardous waste are
generated by the industries studied. If recent estimates
putting national hazardous waste generation between 28 and 36
million tonnes per year are correct, then at least half of the
country's hazardous waste has been surveyed in this report. If
about 9 percent is being disposed of in the municipal sector
then between 2.5 and a little over 3 million tonnes per year
are going to some form of municipal disposal.
2.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Two recommendations are made as a result of this study and are
detailed in the next two sections.
2.2.1 Data Base Improvement
It would be useful for program planning if the EPA could establish
basic information gathering requirements for hazardous waste that would
compile this information on a national basis. Such information
requirements should include, at a minimum, common units of measurement,
-------
common units conversion factors, and, for each SIC code waste quantity,
the distribution by waste type and by disposal method. Such information
could be generated by survey or the initiation of a state manifest program
for hazardous wastes. Accuracy to within ±10 to 20 percent would provide
better planning data than currently available.
2.2.2 Further Useful Work
Studies should be made of specific industries' hazardous waste
contributions to municipal disposal systems. This preliminary study could
serve as an indicator in the prioritization of these studies. Industries
which contributed almost 90 percent of the hazardous wastes reviewed
herein to municipal systems were, in order of rank: petroleum refining,
inorganic chemicals, plastics and synthetics, pesticides, and leather
tanning and finishing. Such studies should also encompass those hazardous
wastes being disposed of in private offsite facilities.
Criteria could also be developed which would allow municipal
disposal facilities to determine whether they could handle particular
hazardous wastes.
-------
SECTION 3
APPROACH
In this section we briefly review the original approach, the
reasons -- based upon an analysis of the data search experience and the
information collected -- why this approach was abandoned, and the revised
approach which was used to achieve the objectives of the study.
3.1 ORIGINAL CONCEPT
Several states -- notably California, Texas, and Maryland -- have
been collecting data for several years on the disposal of industrial
wastes. California and Texas, for example, have been requiring waste
disposal manifests from waste generators, transporters and disposers.
California was known to have computerized useful data. Texas officials
had, in 1977, stated their plans to issue summary data in 1978 in
discussions with Acurex staff during an earlier project. Maryland had
performed a survey of waste generation and disposal for about one-third of
the industrial firms in the state and had issued a summary report, as had
several other states in which survey data was collected.
It was thought that these data, in one of more states, might
provide enough credible information about wastes from particular SIC codes
to allow extrapoltion for those SIC codes for the United States as a
whole. Data gathered, as feasible, from private industry generators and
various disposal sites would then provide spot cross-checks on specific
SIC waste estimates.
3.2 ASSESSMENT OF INITIAL DATA COLLECTION RESULTS
Acurex attempted to collect data from the 48 contiguous states.
Thirty-one responded. These data were generally found to be inconsistent,
both within individual reports and between reports from different states,
extremely sketchy and incomplete, and reported in a nonuniform fashion.
As an example, some reports gave statewide totals for various kinds
of waste. Others gave statewide totals (for all waste kinds) by SIC
code. Very few reports gave the crucial datum of type-of-waste-by-SIC-code.
(Several state reports did; unfortunately those reports were for states
which generate only minor fractions of national waste totals, and we did
not wish to base extrapolations on such a limited base.)
-------
It also became apparent that there was no concensus on the meaning
of the term "hazardous waste." The need for an operational definition of
this term has been known to EPA since the Congress incorporated it into
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. No operational
definition has, as of the date of this report, been adopted; thus, it is
not possible to test (operationally) or otherwise establish that a given
waste is or is not hazardous. (As a result, this report will generally
try to include the descriptors present in the data sources which we used
to draw our conclusions.)
3.3 REVISED APPROACH
As stated above, data in the state reports often are not at the
needed level of detail. However, several state reports provide data on
the types of wastes, by SIC code, and others give data on the method of
disposal, by SIC code.
The Office of Solid Waste had previously brought into existence a
sequence of contractor reports. Each of these "assessment studies"
addresses the wastes in a major industrial category. A review of these
reports indicates that they contain credible nationwide totals for
quantities of industrial wastes, although they rarely specify the method
of disposal by type of waste for the industrial category addressed. Some
of these reports do attempt to provide both "total waste" quantities and
"hazardous waste" quantities.
At this point, it became important to examine whether a combination
of these data could be used to reach useful conclusions.
We decided that it appeared probable that conclusions could be
reached for several SIC codes. These SIC codes have two important
characteristics:
• These industries are believed to generate substantial portions
of the total quantity of "hazardous" waste created each year,
according to the OSW contractor reports
• These industries correlate substantially with the proposed
listing of hazardous waste streams (Federal Register,
December 18, 1978, pp. 58958-58959)
The approach chosen then uses the OSW assessment reports as an
initial source for the total (nationwide) quantity of waste, subject to
further cross-checking. If quantatative estimates of disposal methods or
waste types are lacking in these reports, which is often the case, then
these kinds of data are sought from the state reports. State report
estimates -- particularly those published most recently --are also used to
cross-check quantity estimates. Where these two data sources prove
inadequate, other data are sought.
We decided that extrapolation appeared feasible for data from SIC
codes 28, 29, 30, 31, and 36. These SIC codes appear to generate about 47
percent of the total quantity of hazardous wastes listed in the OSW
-------
assessment reports. They also include a major portion of the proposed
listed hazardous waste streams.
Section 6 of this report summarizes the data collected and the
results obtained using the revised approach. These results achieve the
objectives stated in Section 1.1.
-------
SECTION 4
DATA SOURCES
In the data acquisition phase of this project, we called various
potential governmental data sources to request current information on
quantities and compositions of industry-generated waste streams and their
methods of disposal. Pertinent data was also sought from documents
already catalogued in Acurex library files. Additional EPA or EPA
contractor reports were sought as were other contractor reports, journal
articles, and expertise from specific individuals or private concerns.
Table 4-1 lists many of the sources from which we sought data and tells
where data were received.
Many states have conducted hazardous waste studies. Since these
efforts are not coordinated on a national scale, the state agency
designated to conduct the study may have been any one of several,
including: Department of Public Works, Office of Solid Waste, Solid Waste
Management Section, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of
Water Resources, etc. Each has its particular responsibilities, scope of
authority, and resources. The appropriate agency was contacted in every
state except Alaska and Hawaii. These were not included because only
minimal amounts of hazardous wastes are disposed of in these two states.
For economic and liability considerations, industrial companies
control and monitor their waste streams. Information-seeking efforts were
focused on several of the "Fortune 500" companies since data from any one,
if complete, would have been of potential value to this study.
Trade associations were a potential source of data from industry
since, in compiling information volunteered by their members, they provide
the anonymity desired by many individual companies. Qualitative data were
provided from several associations; others referred us to data already
furnished to the OSW.
Managers of disposal services and sites estimate amounts of wastes
in order to fix fees and may also request a description of waste
components. Such data are often unverified but are useful for rough
estimates. As hazardous waste manifest requirements become more widely
required and more uniform in content, these data will become of greater
utility, particularly if, as is already in the case in California, monthly
and annual summary data are compiled.
-------
TABLE 4-1. HAZARDOUS WASTE DATA SOURCES
Source
Trade/Technical Associations
National Solid Waste Management Association
National Center For Resource Recovery
Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
Water Pollution Control Federation
Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air
and Stream Improvement
Federal Governmental Agencies
US EPA Hazardous Waste Management Division/OSW
US EPA Regional Offices (all 10 offices)
US EPA Effluent Guidelines Division/OWPS
Department of Commerce
Department of Energy
State Governmental Agencies
48 contiguous states
Disposal Facilities or Companies
Industrial Tank Company (two California locations
Los Angeles County Landfill, California
Ventura County Landfill, California
San Diego County Landfill, California
Rollins Disposal Services (Texas, New Jersey)
ENSCO Hazardous Waste Incinerator (Arkansas)
Information Provided
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes, by Region X
No
Yes
No
Yes, by 31 states
Qualitative
Qualitative
Qualitative
Qualitative
Qualitative
Qualitative
-------
TABLE 4-1. Continued
Industrial Organizations
Aluminum Company of America Yes
American Standard Inc. No
Bethlehem Steel Corp. No
Boise Cascade Paper Group No
Boysen Paint Co. Yes
Brown Group Co. No
Evans Products Co. Yes
General Dynamics Corp. No
General Electric Co. No
Georgia Pacific Corp. Yes
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. No
W. R. Grace & Co. No
Hewlett-Packard Co. Yes
Johns-Manville Corp. No
Johnson & Johnson No
Kelly-Moore Paint Co., Inc. No
Monsanto Co. No
Ogden Manufacturing and Sales Inc. No
Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. No
Owens-Illinois Inc. No
U.S. Gypsum Co. Yes
U.S. Steel Corp. Yes
Warner Lambert Co. No
Weyerhaeuser Co. No
Union Carbide Corp. Yes
Eastman Kodak Corp. Yes
10
-------
Acurex's in-house collection of EPA and contractor documents was
utilized. Additional reports were acquired through literature searches,
11
-------
SECTION 5
UTILITY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DATA COLLECTED
Hazardous waste generation and disposal data were received from
approximately 50 percent of the sources listed in Table 4-1. Several
hundred EPA and contractor reports were also analyzed after reviewing
their abstracts. These abstracts were obtained from the Solid Waste
Information Retrieval System (SWIRS) computerized data base.
5.1 STATE REPORTS
Forty-eight state agencies with waste disposal data were reached by
telephone. Information relating to waste generation and waste disposal
was sought. Thirty-one state agencies responded by sending complete or
partial reports, report summaries, tabulated data, or computer printouts.
A summary of the types of information received from state agencies is
given in Table 5-1.
The data provided by the state agencies proved to be only partly
useful since they did not use a uniform definition of a hazardous waste or
a consistent method for obtaining or tabulating quantitative waste
generation and disposal information.
Since no uniform criteria exist to define which solid wastes are
hazardous, wastes of similar characteristics are reported as hazardous in
some states while in others they are not.
For example, New Jersey specifically lists the wastes considered
hazardous while Maryland utilizes a set of criteria based on bioconcentration,
flamtiability, toxicity, corrosiveness, etc., to establish a working definition
of hazardous wastes. Several states define hazardous waste as "...any waste,
or combination of wastes, of a solid, liquid, contained gaseous, or semisolid
form, which because of its quantity, concentration, physical, chemical, or
infectious characteristics may (a) cause, or significantly contribute to an
increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or
incapacitating reversible, illness, or (b) pose a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed." Unfortunately, no
method is usually provided to test whether a given waste is or is not
hazardous according to this definition. Indeed, different wastes are
considered hazardous by various states according to this definition.
12
-------
TABLE 5-1. SUMMARY OF STATE REPORT DATA
EPA
Region
I
II
III
IV
State
Main*
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Connecticut
Massachusetts
New York
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
west Virginia
Kentucky
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
Florida
So. Carolina
No. Carolina
Tennessee
Report
or Data
Available
Yes
Yes*
Yes
Yes»
Yes
Yes
Yes»
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes»
Yes
Received
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
—
Yes
Yes
Yes
--
--
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Report
Date
6/78
—
3/77
--
8/77
10/76
„
1974
10/78
5/77
11/76
--
~~
1/78
8/75
--
—
11/77
9/78
--
1971
Waste Quantity
Data Baseb
S/E
--
S
S
S/E
S/E
S
Estimate
S
S/E
Est imate
--
S/E
S
S
--
--
S
S/E
--
S
Waste
I dent if led
by SICC
Yes - 2/12
--
Yes - 3/23
Yes - «/15
Yes - 2/11
Yes - 3,4/16
Yes - 4/203
Yes - 2.3/23
No
Yes - 2/18
Yes - 2,3/19
--
Yes - 2/8
No
Yes - 2/13
—
--
Yes - 4/39
Yes - 2/12
--
No
Disposal
Quantitatively
Identified^
Partial - SIC/CAT
--
Yes - SIC/CAT
Yes - SIC
Yes - CAT
No
No
No
Yes - CAT
Yes - CAT
No
--
Yes - SIC/CAT
Yes - CAT
No
--
--
Yes - SIC
Yes - CAT
--
No
Remarks
Status report received, survey not complete
Draft copies of report components have been
rpreived -- final report not available.
1/75 preliminary report received
Portions of preliminary draft received
Report addressed solid wastes generated.
not hazardous waste
•Report w«s being prepared or data were still being collected as of the end of 1978
bTh* letter "S" signifies that hazardous waste data was developed by a survey of waste generators. The letter "E" signifies
that survey data was extrapolated to represent State-wide totals
C'Yes" if quantified waste data were presented by SIC code. "X/XX indicates the number of digits for each SIC category
and the total number of categories, respectively
''"Yes" if waste disposal was addressed quantitatively. "SIC" signifies that waste disposal information was presented for SIC categories.
"CAT" signifies that waste disposal information was presented for waste categories, (e.g., acids, bases, oils, solvents, etc.).
T-1784
-------
TABLE 5-1. Continued
EPA
Region
V
VI
VII
VIII
State
Illinois
Indiana
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Ohio
Michigan
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Iowa
Missouri
Kansas
Nebraska
Montana
No. Dakota
So. Dakota
Wyoming
Colorado
Utah
Report
or Data
Available
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes*
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Received
„
—
Yes
Yes
Yes
"
Yes
--
Yes
--
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
--
—
—
—
•~
Report
Date
..
—
10/78
1977
--
••
..
3/78
—
11/78
~~
4/77
—
3/77
12/76
12/77
--
—
--
—
~°*
Waste Quantity
Data Baseb
„
.-
S/E
S/E
S
~~
..
Not specified
Manifests
S
~~
S
—
S/E
S
S
--
--
--
--
"
Waste
Identified
by SICC
—
Yes - 2,3.4/32
No
No
--
..
No
Yes
Yes 2.3.4/-50
--
Yes - 2/16
No
Yes - 2/14
Yes - 3/32
Yes - 2/15
--
--
—
--
"
Disposal
Quantitatively
Identified"1
„
—
Yes - CAT
No
Yes
—
„
Yes
Yes - CAT/SIC
No
"
Yes - CAT
No
Yes - CAT
Yes - CAT/SIC
Yes - CAT/SIC
--
—
--
--
"
Remarks
Very brief summary of results received
Very limited data
Data available In files only
Report presented United quantitative data
Survey recently started
Brief summary received -- Specific survey
data available on file
•Report was being prepared or data were still being collected as of the end of 19/8
''The letter "S" signifies that hazardous waste data was developed by a survey of waste generators. The letter "E" signifies
that survey data was extrapolated to represent State-wide totals
c"tes" If quantified waste data were presented by SIC code. "X/XX Indicates the number of digits for each SIC category
and the total number of categories, respectively
"*"Ye$" If waste disposal was addressed quantitatively. "SIC" signifies that waste disposal information was presented for SIC categories.
"CAT" signifies that waste disposal information was presented for waste categories, (e.g., acids, bases, oils, solvents, etc.).
T-1784
-------
TABLE 5-1. Concluded
EPA
Region
IX
X
State
California
Nevada
Arizona
Hawaii
Washington
Idaho
Oregon
Alaska
Report
or Data
Available
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not
contacted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not
contacted
Received
Yes
No
Yes
—
Yes
Yes
Yes
~~
Report
Date
1976.
1977
1977
—
12/74
6/73
3/74
~~
Waste Quantity
Data Baseb
Nanlfest/S
—
S/E
--
S/E
S
S/E
•~~
Waste
Identified
by SICC
Yes - 4/Many
--
Yes - 2/12
—
Yes - 3/42
Yes - 3/30
Yes - 2.3.4/15
~~
Disposal
Quantitatively
I dent if iedd
Yes - CAT/SIC
—
No
—
No
No
Yes - SIC/CAT
~*
Remarks
Two regional studies and computer printouts
of manifest data for various parts of the
State
Regional waste survey for Reno and
Las Vegas. No State-vide data
1974/1975 reports received
Report primarily addressed solid waste
management with no hazardous waste data
given
"Report MS being prepared or data were still being collected as of the end of 1978
DThe letter "S" signifies that hazardous waste data was developed by a survey of waste generators. The letter "E" signifies
that survey data was extrapolated to represent State-wide totals
c"Yes" if quantified waste data were presented by SIC code. "X/XX Indicates the number of digits for each SIC category
and the total number of categories, respectively
•'"Yes" if waste disposal was addressed quantitatively. "SIC' signifies that waste disposal information was present«d for SIC categories.
"CAT" signifies that waste disposal information was presented for waste categont.es, (e.g., adds, bases, oils, solvents, etc.).
T-1784
-------
The lack of uniformity with which state agencies conducted their
hazardous waste surveys also made it difficult for us to use much of the
data contained in the state reports for purposes of this project.
The state agencies generally obtained hazardous waste data through
the use of questionnaires mailed to all known or to some fraction of the
known waste generators. Based on the initial responses received, some
agencies conducted actual plant surveys. Others attempted to promote
additional responses by telephone or undertook second mailings of the
questionnaire. In most states, waste generators were not legally
obligated to respond to state surveys. Consequently, many generators
chose not to do so.
The quantitative accuracy of the data in these reports varies from
state to state depending on the way the survey was conducted. Data
obtained from actual plant visits by state agency solid waste personnel
appears more reliable than data obtained from questionnaires. Some state
agencies attempted to extrapolate the data collected to estimate total
hazardous wastes generated statewide. Other states made no efforts at
extrapolation. Many state reports do not clearly identify the basis for
the reported data. That is, they do not identify whether the reported
data represent only respondent generators or whether they represent all
waste generators within the state. Much effort was expended in
determining unreported facets such as these.
Another shortcoming of the hazardous waste generation and disposal
data provided by the state reports is that waste quantities are not
classified uniformily from one state to another. Many states categorize
overall waste quantities by SIC code while other quantitatively classify
waste quantities by waste characteristics, (i.e., solvents, acids, bases,
and oils).
Disposal information is also not reported in a uniform manner. Of
the 20 states which quantitatively identify waste disposal by disposal
method, the majority only present information which identifies the
disposal method by waste type. Table 5-2 reproduces an example from the
Minnesota report.
Disposal methods for specific waste types are quantitively
identified by SIC categories in 10 of the 31 state reports. Unfortunately,
the waste quantities generated by these states are only a small fraction of
the national total. Adequate disposal data from the largest waste generator
states such as Texas, Louisiana, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania,
etc. are not available.
Only a small number of the state reports which list waste disposal
data by SIC generators further identify wastes which end up in the municipal
sector. Disposal of wastes by "landfill" or by "sewering" is identified
in some reports. However, ownership of the landfill or wastewater treatment
plant is usually not identified.
-------
TABLE 5-2. WASTE TYPES (IN TONS) AND DISPOSAL METHODS*
Waste
Oil
Solvents
Flammables
Oxidizers
Explosives
Irritants &
Corrosives
Wastewater
Sludges
Pesticides
Paints
Heavy Metals
Other
Poisons
Other
Totals
Disposal Method
Municipal
164.5
1.9
2.2
21.5
1.6
0.3
8.9
4.3
0.4
206
NPDES
Permit
3.5
4
Incineration
64.5
535.4
135.7
3
2
4
377
3.4
1125.0
Sanitary
Landfill
259.1
81
456.8
4200
0.04
278.4
5275.3
Land-
spreading
30.3
4.2
3827
9
2460
2.5
6333
Lagoon ing
1803
4
1807
Resource
Recovery
131.5
1422.4
2.4
787.5
2343.8
Trash
Hauler
18.9
75.5
3.8
94.4
192.6
Chemical
Treatment
45.2
33
78.2
Other
56.0
24.4
247.5
46.3
200
574.2
Totals
725
2145
4210
5
2
2347
6861.6
0.04
1540
58
45
17938
3"The Impact of Hazardous Waste Generation in Minnesota," October 1977.
T-1782
-------
5.2 PUBLISHED DATA SOURCES
Approximately 450 literature abstracts obtained through the SWIRS
computerized data base were reviewed. Although a number of these
documents report quantitative waste generation values, the majority do not
report the values in detail nor do they address disposal methods
quantitatively on a regional or national basis.
One important series of contractor-prepared reports, sponsored by
the EPA's Office of Solid Waste, describes hazardous waste practices in a
number of major SIC categories. These 15 reports characterize and
quantify the land-destined hazardous wastes generated by selected
industries and also attempt to characterize treatment and disposal
technologies currently being practiced by those industries. A tabulation
of the 15 contractor reports is given in Table 5-3.
These "assessment" reports provide useful hazardous waste
generation and disposal data. The reports assess specific industries on a
nationwide basis. Some of the reports list the significant production
units within the industry. Hazardous waste streams generated by most of
the industries are characterized and quantified. Data was obtained from
literature sources and actual plant surveys. In some cases, the results
use data from the sampling and analysis of waste streams.
Disposal of hazardous wastes by each specific industry is generally
addressed in these reports by categorizing practical treatment and
disposal technologies as (1) those which are currently and commonly
practiced by the majority of waste generators (Level I Technology); (2)
those which are the most environmentally sound methods currently employed
(Level II Technology), and (3) that which will provide adequate health and
environmental protection (Level III Technology). Each of these levels of
treatment and disposal technology is identified. Either the number of
generators utilizing each level of technology or the quantity of wastes
disposed of by each method is reported. It was generally not possible to
determine the amounts disposed of in municipally owned or operated sites
from these reports although some estimates are given.
5.3 INDUSTRIAL DATA SOURCES
None of the 26 companies contacted during this study had survey
data in the form of reports which could be made available on short
notice. Some companies did attempt to estimate quantities of waste
generated by their plants by SIC code. A total of nine firms responded.
The information obtained was fragmentary. Two sources estimated the
percent of their wastes going to the municipal sector. There data were
used to cross-check the state report data for the SIC codes involved. No
data on waste stream conpositions was provided.
Our judgment is that most of these companies would be willing to
provide data but that the time constraints of this program proved
incompatible with the length of time required for decisions to be reached
and data to be assembled within the corporate structures we approached.
18
-------
TABLE 5-3. OSW INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE ASSESSMENT REPORTS
Industry
Metals Mining
Textiles
Inorganic Chemical
Rubber and Plastics
Pharmaceuticals
Paint and Allied Products
Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, Explosives
Petroleum Refining
Petroleum Rerefining
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Metal Smelting and Refining
Electroplating and Metal Finishing
Special Machinery Manufacturing
Electronics Components Manufacturing
Storage and Primary Batteries
SIC
10
22
281
282, 30
283
285
286, 2879, 2892
2911
2992
3111
33
3471
355, 357
367
3691, 3692
Prepared By
Midwest Research Institute
Versar, Inc.
Versar, Inc.
Foster D. Snell, Inc.
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Wapora, Inc.
TRW Systems
Jacobs Engineering Co.
—
SCS Engineers, Inc.
Calspan Corp.
Battelle Columbus Labs
Wapora, Inc.
Wapora, Inc.
Versar, Inc.
Date
9/1976
6/1976
3/1975
3/1978
1976
9/1975
1/1976
6/1976
1977
11/1976
4/1977
9/1976
4/1977
1/1977
1/1975
EPA No.
SW 132c
SW 125c
SW 104 c
SW 163c.l-4
SW 508
SW 119c
SW 118c
SW 129c
SW 144c
SW 131c
SW 145C.1-4
SW 136c
SW 141c
SW 140c
SW 102c
NTIS No.
PB 261 052
PB 258 953
PB 244 832
PB 282 070-073
PB 258 800
PB 251 669
PB 251 307
PB 259 097
PB 272 267
PB 261 018
PB 276 169-172
PB 264 349
PB 265 981
PB 265 532
PB 241 204
T-1825
-------
5.4 OTHER SOURCES
5.4.1 Office of Solid Waste
The Hazardous Waste Management Division of the Office of Solid Waste
provided a summary of hazardous waste quantities generated by EPA region and
state. Unfortunately, these data could not be correlated with either the
assessment reports or state data. (We were told that this summary was
prepared from the assessment reports, but were unsuccessful in correlating
the OSW summary quantity values with these reports.)
Region X provided "An Evaluation of the Status of Hazardous Waste
Management in Region X," December, 1975. This report describes how certain
wastes within various SIC codes are disposed of in the Pacific Northwest and
was of use as a cross-check.
5.4.2 Trade/Technical Associations
The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies furnished a report,
"Field Report on Current Practices and Problems on Sludge Management," June,
1976. These data were not specific enough to be used in this study. Other
trade associations had already furnished data to the OSW, and we were
referred to these reports.
5.5 SUMMARY
As described in Section 3, a decision was reached during the data
collection phase to use the assessment report data for waste quantity
information, and the state reports and other data sources for waste type and
waste disposal method information. At the conclusion of the data collection
phase, we reviewed the information available, and attempted to decide
whether enough information had been collected to allow determination of
useful estimates for the United states as a whole.
This questions was answered affirmatively for the SIC codes listed in
Table 1. In the next section, we will review these data and the estimates
and conclusions which we were able to reach.
20
-------
SECTION 6
NATIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE AMOUNT QUANTIFICATION
6.1 INTRODUCTION
In order to quantify national amounts of industrial hazardous
wastes by waste types and their disposal methods for various SIC codes, a
specific methodology was used. This section describes the methodology,
and the results of its use.
6.2 METHODOLOGY
The methodology employed is briefly stated in Section 3.2. A more
detailed explanation is:
EPA hazardous waste assessment reports were analyzed to determine
the information contained on hazardous waste quantities, waste types,
disposal methods, etc. for the particular SIC code(s) addressed by the
report. Projected national amounts of hazardous or potentially hazardous
waste for these different SIC codes for calendar year 1977 were assumed to
be valid since the reports' most current surveyed national figures were
for calendar years 1972, 1973, 1974, or 1975.
After tabulating these data by waste types and their disposal
methods for specific SIC codes, comparisons were made to state hazardous
waste studies data. Hazardous waste treatment information and other
pertinent comments were annotated during this tabulation.
Data from state studies were used to modify the information in the
assessment report if the state data were particularly comprehensive, of
high quality or could be used to fill in gaps. These facets were assessed
in part in our discussions with state agency staff members on the way in
which each report was prepared. In addition, we compared specific SIC
code characteristics in a particular state to the national characteristics
of that SIC code. This comparison included percentage of populations
representated by the SIC code; distribution of manufacturing activities by
SIC code subdivisions, and any other information that was found beneficial
for the purposes of comparison. This was not an easy task because of the
variability in state report formats. Only a few states provided data
which allowed this comparison to be made thoroughly.
21
-------
6.3 STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION (SIC) CODES ADDRESSED
As the data were assessed for usefulness in determining national
amounts of industrial hazardous waste by waste types and their disposal
methods, it became evident that this determination was possible for only
those SIC codes addressed by the hazardous waste assessment reports. This
was due to the inconsistancy of the state studies and other data sources.
6.3.1 SIC Codes Potentially of Interest
The set of SIC codes of interest initially included all
manufacturing SIC codes in which significant quantities of industrial
hazardous waste are generated. This set includes codes 26 through 39,
except for code 32.
Following the analysis of the data for quality and utility, it was
determined that there was enough data only for the SIC codes for which
there were EPA assessment reports. These reports address SIC codes 22,
28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, and 36.
6.3.2 Criteria for Choosing
The principal criterion used to determine which of the candidate
SIC codes would be chosen for further quantification was the availability
of data that could be used to determine the national quantity of hazardous
waste by waste types and the disposal methods used.
The importance of the SIC code in terms of amounts or severity of
industrial hazardous waste was not the determining factor in this choice.
However, we note that OSW's proposed list of hazardous waste streams
includes streams from six of the nine SIC codes addressed by the
assessment reports.
6.3.3 Results of Applying Choice Criterion
After this review, the following codes were chosen for
quantification of their industrial hazardous wastes by waste types and by
disposal methods:
SIC Code Number Name
28 Chemicals & Allied Products
29 Petroleum Refining & Related
Industries
30 Rubber & Misc. Plastic Products
31 Leather & Leather Products
36 Electrical & Electronic
Machinery, Equipment & Supplies
Indeed, only those portions of these two-digit SIC codes which were
addressed by the assessment reports were included in this study. We
estimate, based on the available data, that these segments of their
respective SIC codes generate the bulk (approximately 90 percent) of their
SIC code's hazardous waste. These SIC code segments are listed in Table 6-1,
22
-------
TABLE 6-1. SIC CODE SEGMENTS ADDRESSED BY EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE ASSESSMENT
REPORTS WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY
SIC Code Segment Number
Name
281
282
283
285
286
2879
2892
291
2992
301
302
303
304
306
311
367
3691
3692
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
Plastics Materials & Synthetic Resins,
Synthetic Rubber, Synthetic & Other
Manmade Fibers, Except Glass
Drugs
Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels,
and Allied Products
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Pesticides & Agricultural Chemicals, NEC3
Explosives
Petroleum Refining
Lubricating Oils & Grease
Tires & Inner Tubes
Rubber & Plastics Footwear
Reclaimed Rubber
Rubber & Plastics Hose & Belting
Fabricated Rubber Products, NEC
Leather Tanning & Finishing
Electronic Components & Accessories
Storage Batteries
Primary Batteries, Dry & Wet
aNot Elsewhere Classified
23
-------
The SIC code segments listed in Table 6-1 include 94 of the 95
industrial processes named as those which generate hazardous wastes by the
EPA in their proposed rules for defining and classifying hazardous wastes
in the December 18, 1978, issue of the Federal Register.
6.4 EXAMPLE OF A NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE AMOUNT
QUANTIFICATION: BATTERIES INDUSTRY, SIC 3691/3692
Hazardous waste types, amounts, and their methods of disposal were
obtained from the appropriate assessment report. In this case it was:
"Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices, Storage and Primary
Batteries Industries," Versar, Inc., January 1975, Report No. PB 241 204.
Information available in this assessment report included the quantity of
each waste type and general information on disposal methods for the entire
batteries industry. Total hazardous waste stream quantities (on a wet
basis) were given for each waste type for the years 1973, 1977, and 1983.
Hazardous constituents were also given on a dry basis for the same years.
The extrapolations for the year 1977 were chosen, as they were for all
other SIC codes in this report, because they most closely approximated
current waste generation quantities.
The state hazardous waste reports were then consulted. The
distribution of disposal methods i.e., onsite and public versus private
was determined from these reports. Any indication of changes in disposal
methods between 1973 and 1977 was also assessed and used to modify
disposal methods distribution estimates. State report data used included
data from Arizona, Maine, Nebraska, Oregon, Vermont, and Florida. The EPA
Region X report was also used. Tables 6-18 and 6-19 in this report show a
summary of our results for "Industrial Hazardous Waste Quantities by
Disposal Method" and "Waste Types and Typical Hazardous Waste Constituents
by Process," respectively for the batteries industry.
6.5 SUMMARY OF NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE AMOUNT QUANTIFICATION
The results of this study are shown in the following sections by
SIC code.
6.5.1 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, SIC 281
Table 6-2 gives the subcategory distribution of 1977 hazardous
waste totals for SIC 281. It also shows the amount of hazardous
constituents of these wastes (on a dry basis) in each subcategory and
gives total SIC 281 hazardous waste and hazardous constituents quantities.
The distribution of disposal methods are given in Table 6-3. The
preponderance of the hazardous waste from SIC 281 is disposed of onsite,
primarily in ponds or general purpose landfills. Private offsite disposal
accounts for between 10 and 20 percent of the total and public offsite
disposal accounts for about 11 percent or 427,000 tonnes, mostly to
general purpose landfills.
24
-------
TABLE 6-2. SIC 281 -- INDUSTRIAL INORGANIC CHEMICALS'
Subcategory Distribution of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Subcategory
Name
Hazardous Waste -- 1977
Tonnes/Year, Wet Basis (Dry Basis)
2812 Alkalies and chlorine
Hazardous constituents (tonnes, dry basis):
Asbestos
Chlorinated hydrocarbons
Lead
Mercury
Sodium/calcium sludge
Total
2813 Industrial gases
2816 Inorganic pigments
Hazardous constituents (tonnes, dry basis):
Antimony compounds
Arsenic compounds
Cadmium compounds
Chromium and its compounds
Cyanide compounds
Lead compounds
Mercury compounds
Zinc compounds
Total
109,000 (56,000)
Negligible
507,000 (229,000)
14
0.3
60
3,560
150
1,700
0.3
330.6
'5,800
Reference 1
T-1768
25
-------
TABLE 6-2. Continued
Subcategory Distribution of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste -- 1977
Subcategory Name Tonnes/Year, Wet Basis (Dry Basis)
2819 Inorganic Chemicals, N.E.C., Industry 3,270,000 (2,030,000)
Hazardous constituents (tonnes, dry basis):
Arsenic 5.6
Chromium 0.4
Fluoride 50,500
Nickel 0.9
Phosphorus 5,300
Total -55,800
Total SIC 281 Industrial Hazardous Waste:
Wet Basis — 3,884,890 tonnes
Dry Basis -- 2,317,470 tonnes
Total SIC 281 Industrial Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Constituents (tonnes dry basis):
Antimony compounds 14
Arsenic and its compounds 6
Asbestos 3,800
Cadmium compounds 60
Chlorinated hydrocarbons 1,200
Chromium and its compounds 3,560
Cynide compounds 150
Fluoride 50,500
Lead and its compounds 2,600
Mercury and its compounds 120
Nickel 1
Phosphorus 5,300
Sodium/calcium sludge 1,500
Zinc compounds 330
Total -69,100
T-1768
26
-------
TABLE 6-3. SIC 281 -- INDUSTRIAL INORGANIC CHEMICALS9
Distribution of Industrial Hazardous Waste Disposal Methods
Disposal Method
Pond storage/disposal
Burning/incineration
High-temperature processing
Municipal sewers
Burial :
Specialized disposal sites
General purpose landfills
General purpose landfills
approved hazardous wastes
Approved landfills for large
volume hazardous waste
General purpose secured
landfill
Deep well injection
Ocean barging
Totals
Percentage of Distribution
Onsite
20-29
--
1-2
--
<0.1
45
--
3
—
—
--
69-79
Offsite
Private
2-4
<1
--
--
0.1
3
5
SI
S5
sl
si
10-20
Public
--
--
--
<1
—
11
--
<1
--
--
--
11
Tonnes/Year, 1977 2,680,000- 388,000-
427,000
(Wet basis) 3,070,000 777,000
Total Industrial Inorganic Chemicals Industry Hazardous Waste:
3,885,000 Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Wet Basis)
References 1, 14, 16, 18, and 20
27
-------
6.5.2 Plastics and Synthetics, SIC 282
Industrial hazardous waste quantities classified by disposal method
are given in Table 6-4 for SIC 282. The bulk of the wastewater sludges
that go to unknown disposal facilities may well end up in municipal
landfills but this is not certain.
Hazardous constituents in the wastes of this industry include
organics (toxics and flammables) and some heavy metals.
6.5.3 Pharmaceuticals, SIC 283
As can be seen from Table 6-5, this industry incinerates the
majority of its waste while the remainder is either treated and disposed
of or recovered. A very small amount (^90 tonnes/year) of mixed solvent
is disposed of in municipal sewers.
6.5.4 Paints and Coatings, SIC 285
It was not possible to determine specific disposal methods used for
each waste type for this industry. Table 6-6 shows the number of plants
which used particular disposal options in 1972 for specific waste types.
The bulk of the raw material packaging wastes and dust from air
pollution control equipment is disposed of in routine periodic pickups.
These routine pickups are the same ones in which ordinary trash (paper,
etc.) would be removed for disposal, commonly at municipal landfills.
Therefore, the assumption is made that half ends up in a public facility
and half in a private facility. Wastewater sludge and spills and spoiled
batches are probably picked up by contract haulers and disposed of in
private sites. Waste organic cleaning solvent is either recovered or
incinerated onsite or offsite.
Hazardous constituents in paints and coatings include organics
(toxics and flammables) and heavy metals.
6.5.5 Organic Chemicals, SIC 2861, 2865, 2869 (except 28694)
Inconsistent information is available on the types of waste in this
industry. Each state report has its own listing of waste types. The
assessment report did not specify waste types other than to mention
several in its text. Consequently, no quantification by waste type was
possible. Typical wastes for this industry include solvents, corrosives
(acid and bases), sludges (heavy metal and paint), still and tank bottoms,
oils, toxics (organic and inorganic), etc.
Table 6-7 depicts the distribution by disposal method for the total
hazardous waste generated by the organic chemicals industry in 1977. We
estimate that municipal disposal accounts for 20 percent or less of
offsite disposal. The offsite disposal total given in the table appears
low and should be increased to between 5 and 15 percent of the total.
This is primarily due to the increased use of contract incineration and
solvent recovery vendors. The amount going to municipal disposal would
28
-------
TABLE 6-4. SIC 282 -- PLASTICS AND SYNTHETICS3
Industrial Hazardous Waste Quantities by Disposal Methods
Waste Type
Liquid phenol ics
Phenolic sludges
Ami no resins
Still bottoms
Catalyst wastes
Wastewater sludges
Totals
Total Hazardous Waste
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Wet Basis)
322,000
44,000
20,700
54,300
5,360
284,000
-730,000
Disposal Methods
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Wet Basis)
On site
161,000b
44,000d
—
27.1006
5,360b
--
-237,500
Offsite
Private
161,000C
«
20,700°
27.1006
--
--
208,800
Public
—
—
—
Minor
Quantities
--
--
Minor
Quantities
Unknown
—
—
—
..
-.
284,000f
284,000
ro
^References 2, 14, and 17
Drummed and stored
".Incinerated
Drummed or lagooned
^Incinerated; since the distribution was not given, parity was assumed
Small amount to landfills of unknown locations; then remainder to unknown disposal methods
T-1769
-------
TABLE 6-5. SIC 283 — PHARMACEUTICALS'
CO
o
Industrial Hazardous Waste Quantities by Disposal Method
Waste Type
Mixed solvents
Nonhalogenated solvents
Halogenated solvents
Organic chemical residue
High inert content
wastes containing:
• flamnables only
• heavy metals or
corrosives
Heavy metal waste
Aqueous mixed solvents
Aqueous alcohol
Antiviral vaccines
Other biologicals
(toxoids, serum)
Returned goods and
contaminated or decomposed
active ingredients
Totals
Total Hazardous Waste
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Wet Basis)
15,400
26,900
3,900
15,000
1,900
1,900
3,300
2,800
700
350
230
600
73,200
Disposal Methods
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Wet Basis)
Ons ite
Incineration
6,240
10,740
870
6,120
490
—
970
280
115
—
60
26,000
Other0
—
--
—
l,530e
--
—
90f
--
1159
2309
120h
2,100
Offsite (Private)
Incineration
9,160
16,200
3,000
5,800
460
—
1,700
400
120
—
36,800
Landfill
—
--
--
1,800
950
1,900
2,600
—
—
—
—
420
7,700
Recovery
--
—
--
--
--
670
—
—
—
__
670
References 3, 14, and 17
''Does not include deep well disposal of certain liquid hazardous wastes. This type of disposal occurs
almost exclusively onsite. Common constitutents of such waste include acetates, ammonia, bromides, chlorides,
alcohols, esters, ethers, ketones, and other organics.
cDisposal method explained below in footnotes for each entry in table.
''The recovery considered here is heavy metal recovery from waste since solvent recovery is a very common
onsite practice at pharmaceutical plants and extremely difficult to quantify.
eDiluted and sent to onsite biological wastewater treatment facility.
^Treatment in onsite biological wastewater treatment facility or sewered to municipal system.
SAutoclaved onsite and disposed of offsite in either a municipal or private landfill.
^Material is crushed and slurried with water, and the resultant slurry is sent to an onsite biological
wastewater treatment facility.
T-1770
-------
TABLE 6-6. SIC 285 — PAINTS AND COATINGS3
Industrial Hazardous Waste Quantities by Disposal Method
Waste Type
^
Raw material packaging wastes
Wastewater sludge
Spills and spoiled batches
Waste organic cleaning solvent
Dust from air pollution control
equipment
Total
Total Hazardous Waste
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Wet Basis)
2,000
2,300d
11,800
94,800
1.800
112,700
Disposal Methods
No. of Plants, 1972 (Basis: 1,544 plants)
Ons ite
Incineration
5
—
—
5
—
Landfillb
70
50
70
50
50
Off site
Incineration
50
--
--
20
--
Landfillb
1,470
1,070
1,470
950
950
Reference 4
t>The term landfill may include open dumps, sanitary landfills, secured landfills, etc.
cPlant total for disposal methods adds to more than the total number of plants since some
plants use two or more disposal methods.
^This value is from: "Waterborne Wastes of the Paint and Inorganic Pigments Industries,
Southern Research Institute, EPA-670/2-74-030, March 1974.
T-1772
-------
TABLE 6-7. SIC 2861, 2865, 2869 (EXCEPT 28694) -- ORGANIC CHEMICALS'
Industrial Hazardous Waste Quantities by Disposal Method
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Wet Basis)
Method
Landfill
Incineration
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Deep Well
Biological Treatment/Lagoon
Recovery
Landfarm
Totals
Quantities
Onsite
483,000
-2,250,000
(699,000)
(1,550,000)
6,540,000
565,000
267,000
NAd
-10,100,000
Offsiteb
113,000
51,000C
(--)
(--)
--
--
--
--
164,000e
Total Organic Chemicals Industry Hazardous Waste:
-10,300,000 tonnes/year, 1977 (Wet Basis)
^References 5 and 14
Predominantly private except for mi not portions (<20%)
disposed fo legally, illegally, or unknowingly in municipal
landfills and/or incinerators.
Largely controlled (>90%) due to regulations which contract
.incinerator operations must satisfy to destroy a variety of wastes,
Not available
The amount given here is believed to be low. The actual quantity
disposed of offsite is believed to be between 5 and 15 percent of
the total.
32
-------
still be fairly low even with this revised offsite estimate. It would be
somewhere between 2 and 5 percent of the total and would primarily go to
some form of landfill.
6.5.6 Pesticides, SIC 28694/2879
Disposal location for the pesticides industry was extremely
difficult to ascertain from the available data. This is reflected in
Table 6-8 by the fact that no entries are given in the offsite (public)
and (private) columns for the various disposal methods but entries are
given in the site undetermined column. This column is footnoted to
indicate the estimated distribution between offsite (public) and (private)
disposal methods.
Hazardous wastes for this industry include waste pesticides;
pesticide contaminated items such as packaging materials; cleanup residues
such as contaminated articles, wastewater, solvent, floor sweepings, etc.;
and other miscellaneous waste types.
6.5.7 Explosives, SIC 2892
Very little hazardous waste from the explosives industry is
disposed of in municipal facilities. The bulk of these wastes is disposed
of onsite (by open-burning or landfill). A small amount is handled by
contract disposal firms (by open-burning or chemical detoxification).
Table 6-9 gives waste types; amounts and the distribution of disposal
methods for both the private explosive and government-owned contractor-
operated (GOCO) segments of this industry.
6.5.8 Petroleum Refining, SIC 2911
Municipal landfills are responsible for accepting approximately 23
percent of the hazardous waste generated by this industry (Table 6-10).
This waste is made up of the waste types listed on Table 6-11. Hazardous
constituents of each waste type are also included on this table. No
breakout was possible as to which waste types are disposed of
municipally. It can only be assumed that a portion of each waste type
found its way to municipal landfills.
6.5.9 Petroleum Rerefining, SIC 2992
Table 6-12 depicts hazardous waste disposal by waste type for
petroleum rerefining. Public landfills accept almost 10,000 tonnes/year
of this industry's hazardous waste. Most of this waste has been treated
to inhibit heavy metal leaching prior to disposal. Hazardous waste
constituents of the waste types are given on Table 6-13.
6.5.10 Rubber Products, SIC 30
Over 70 percent of the hazardous waste generated by this industry
finds its way to municipal landfills, either of the general purpose or the
approved hazardous waste varieties (Table 6-14). Principal hazardous
constituents of the waste are oils, toxic organics, and heavy metals.
33
-------
TABLE 6-8. SIC 28694/2879 — PESTICIDES0
Industrial Hazardous Waste Quantities by Disposal Methods
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Wet Basis)
Method
Landfill
Incineration
Storage
Recovery
Unknown
Totals
Onsite
175,000
—
81,000
—
--
256,000
Off site
Private
—
—
—
—
--
Not Available
Public
—
—
—
—
--
Not Available
Site Undetermined
75,000b
100,000°
—
50,000e
144,000
369,000
Total Pesticides Industry Hazardous Waste: 625,000 Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Wet Basis)
oo
-pi
^References 5, 14, 17, 19, and 20
This amount is split between offsite public and private.
A conservative estimate would be 25,000 tonnes to offsite public
disposal and 50,000 tonnes to offsite private disposal.
Largely offsite private (>95%) and controlled (>90%) due to regulations
that contract incinerator operations must satisfy to destroy a variety
,of wastes.
In drums or open piles
This amount is split between onsite and offsite private. It is believed
that recovery occurs almost exclusively onsite with only a minor portion
f(
-------
TABLE 6-9. SIC 2892 -- EXPLOSIVES'
Industrial Hazardous Waste Quantities by Disposal Method
Industry Segment
Private Explosives Industry:
Government Owned, Contractor
Operated (GOCO)
Explosives Industry:
Explosives Industry
Grand Totals
Waste Type
Fixed high explosive waste
Blasting agents
Subtotals
Explosive wastes
Explosive contaminated
inert wastes
Other hazardous wastes
Subtotals
Total Hazardous Waste
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Dry Basis)
-460
-1.200
-1,700
(~5,500-Wet Basis)
4,900
14,700
240
-19.0006
-21,500
(~25,400-Wet Basis)
Disposal Methods
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Dry Basis)
Open Burnedb
>430
>1 , 100
>1,500
4,800
13,700
90
18,600
20,100
Landfilled
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
—
1,000
140
1,140
1,140
Sold
<5
<12
<17
140
„
20
160
-180
Other0
<26
<74
<100
--
..
—
<100
00
en
.Reference 5
Predominantly onsite, >90 percent
clncludes chemical detoxification and subsequent disposal; usually landfill, deep well disposal, spray irrigation,
•lagooning, ect.
Includes spent activated carbon from processing aqueous hazardous wastes (open burned), red water from TNT
purification (evaporated and sold), organic solvents from propellant manufacture, and wastewaters containing
dissolved and suspended RDX/HMX
Dry Basis = Wet Basis
T-1774
-------
TABLE 6-10. SIC 2911 — PETROLEUM REFINING'
Industrial Hazardous Waste Quantities by Disposal Method
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Wet Basis)
Method
Landfill
Lagoon
Landspread
Incinerate
Totals
Onsite
355,000
284,000
334,000
40,000
1,013,000
Off site
Public
428,000
—
__
—
428,000
Private
107,000
289,000
) K
> 4,000°
J
400,000
Total Petroleum Refining Industry Hazardous Waste: -1,840,000
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Wet Basis)
bReferences 6, 17, and 20
Distribution unknown
36
-------
TABLE 6-11. SIC 2911 -- PETROLEUM REFINING3
Waste Types and Hazardous Constituents
Waste Types
Constituents
Leaded Gasoline Sludge
Cooling Tower Sludge
Crude Tank Bottoms
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Float
Exchanger Bundle Cleaning Sludge
Slop Oil Emulsion Solids
Once-Through Cooling Water Sludge
Waste Bio Sludge
Storm Water Silt
Spent Lime from Boiler Feedwater
Treatment
Kerosene Filter Clays
Non-Leaded Tank Bottoms
API Separator Sludge
Lube Oil Filter Clays
FCC Catalyst Fines
Coke Fines
Neutralized Hydrofluoric Acid
Alkylation Sludge
Organic lead vapors, phenols and
heavy metals
Heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Reference 6
37
-------
TABLE 6-12. SIC 2992 — PETROLEUM REREFINING3
Industrial Hazardous Waste Quantities by Disposal Method
Waste Type
Acid Sludges
Caustic and
other Sludges
Spent Clay
Totals
Total Hazardous Waste
Tonne/Year, 1977 (Dry Basis)
38,730
15,400
20,190
74,300
Disposal Methods .
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Dry Basis)0
Landfill, Onsite
Treated0
6,200
1,900
8,100
Untreated
—
—
Landfill, Offsite
Public
Treated
3,700
4,100
7,800
Untreated
900
1,000
1,900
Private
Treated
20,000
6,500
26,500
Untreated
7,900
6,600
14,500
Recycled/Reused
Onsite & Offsite
15,400
15,400
CO
CO
^Reference 7
Dry basis approximates wet basis since caustic sludges contain only a slight amount of moisture.
Treated means acid neutralization by mixing with cement dust, lime, or other alkaline materials.
T-1775
-------
TABLE 6-13. SIC 2992 -- PETROLEUM REREFINING3
Hazardous Waste Constituents
Waste Type
Acid Sludges
Caustic and other Sludges
Spent Clay
Totals
Constituents
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Dry Basis)
Acid
11,600
—
--
11,600
Oilsb
13,000
5,600
4,000
22,600
As
2.4
0.8
--
3.2
Ba
37.8
15.5
--
53.3
Cd
0.8
0.4
--
1.2
Cr
0.4
0.6
--
1.0
Cu
3.8
1.9
--
5.7
Pb
581
232
85
898
Zn
81
32
--
113
CO
Reference 7
50ils include petroleum oils, polymers, polar compounds, and asphalt.
T-1776
-------
TABLE 6-14. SIC 30 -- RUBBER PRODUCTS0
Industrial Hazardous Waste Quantities by Disposal Method
Waste Type
Floor Sweepings
Air Pollution Control
Equipment Oust
Oily Wastes
Banbury Mixer Seal Oils
Totals
Total Hazardous Uaste
Tonnes/Year, 1977
(Dry Basis)
- 9,500
- 41.200
-1.500
100
-52,300
Disposal Methods ,
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Dry Basis)0
Ons ite
Landfill /Dump
450
1,950
-
--
2,400
Landspreading
-
—
70
--
70
Interim Storage
--
-
-
100
100
Off site
General
Purpose,.
Landfill0
9,000
as. 200
-
-
47,200
Approved
Hazardous Waste
Landfilld
-
1,000
1,400
--
2,400
Secure
landfllld
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
—
Negligible
-pi
o
^References 8, 12, 13, H, 15, and 19
°Dry basis * wet basis
dBelieved to be largely public, -80%
Believed to be largely private. -80%
T-1777
-------
6.5.11 Leather Tanning and Finishing, SIC 3111
Public disposal of hazardous waste accounts for 91,700 tonnes/year
or over 50 percent of the total hazardous waste generated by this
industry. Table 6-15 shows the distribution of quantities of hazardous
waste by disposal method, onsite and offsite, private and public. Waste
types are footnoted for particular disposal methods. Hazardous waste
constituents are heavy metal compounds, principally those of chromium,
lead, zinc, and copper.
6.5.12 Electronic Components, SIC 367
A significant portion of the hazardous wastes generated by the
electronic components industry is disposed of (-44 percent) in municipal
landfills (Table 6-16). A portion of all the wastes of this industry find
their way to municipal landfills. Typical hazardous constituents which
make up these wastes are given on Table 6-17.
6.5.13 Batteries, SIC 3691/3692
Public disposal in general purpose landfills accounts for over
47,000 tonnes of hazardous waste being disposed of by this industry on an
annual basis (Table 6-18). Waste types for particular processes within
the industry are given on Table 6-19. The two waste types for this
industry are wastewater effluent treatment sludges and rejected and scrap
batteries/cells. This table also gives amounts of hazardous constituents
for each waste type for each manufacturing process.
6.5.14 Industrial Hazardous Waste Municipally Disposed
The following table summarizes the amount of industrial hazardous
waste being disposed of in the municipal sector for those SIC codes
included in this study. This table was developed from information
included on Tables 6-3 through 6-18, inclusive:
Industrial Hazardous
Type of Municipal Waste Amount (Tonnes/Year, 1977
Disposal Facility (Wet Basis)
General Purpose Landfill -1,543,000
Dumps -38,500
Lagoons, trenches, pits, ponds, etc. ~7,300
Approved Hazardous Waste Landfills 500
Sewer £.90
Total -1,589,000
41
-------
TABLE 6-15. SIC 3111 — LEATHER TANNING AND FINISHING0
Industrial Hazardous Waste Quantities by Disposal Method
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Wet Basis)
Method
Landfill5
Dumps
Lagoons, Trenches, Pits, Ponds,
etc.c
Certified Hazardous Waste Disposal
Facility5
Totals
Quantities
On site
4,800
1,900
5,300
--
12,000
Off site
Private
51,200
2,100
6,200
9,700
69,200
Public
45,800
38,500
7,300
--
91,6QO
Total Leather Tanning and Finishing Industry Hazardous Waste:
-173,000 Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Wet Basis)
^References 9, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20
Waste types disposed of by these methods include: trimmings
and shavings, finished and unfinished leather trim, buffing dust
finishing residues, wastewater screenings, and sewer sump and
dewatered wastewater or treatment sludges
These methods are primarily for sludges. Some of the other
waste types may intentionally or inadvertently be disposed of
via these methods
42
-------
TABLE 6-16. SIC 367 -- ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS'
1
Industrial Hazardous Waste Quantities by Disposal Method
Waste Type
Nonreclaimable halogenated
solvents and still bottoms
Nonreclainable nonhalogenated
solvents and still bottoms
Wastewater treatment sludges
Lubricating and hydraulic oils
Paint wastes
Totals
Total Hazardous Waste
Tonnes/Year, 1977
(Wet Basis)
2,400
16,600
50,800
-2,400
200
-72,400
Disposal Methods
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Wet Basis)
Ons ite
Landfill
200
1,700
7,600
--
--
9,500
Incinerator*3
—
—
—
--
6
6
Off site
Public
(Landfill)
1,100
7,500
21,600
1,200
200
31,600
Private
Landfill
1,100
7,400
21,600
1,200
10
31,310
Incineratorb
--
—
--
6
6
^References 10, 14, and 19
Resultant ash is disposed of either in onsite or offsite private secure landfills. It is estimated
that this ash amounts to approximately one (1) to two (2) tonnes and is contaminated with heavy metal
oxides and salts.
T-1778
-------
TABLE 6-17. SIC 367 -- ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS9
Typical Hazardous Waste Constituents
Nonreclaimable halogenated solvents and still bottoms:
Perchloroethylene
Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethylene
Freons
Methylene Chloride
Still bottoms from reclamation of above solvents
Nonreclaimable nonhalogenated solvents and still bottoms:
Mixed solvents (halogenated and nonhalogenated)
Methanol
Acetone
Alcohols
Proprietary photoresists
Xylene
Still bottoms from reclamation of above solvents
Wastewater treatment sludges:
Particulate metals and oxides
Chemically precipitated an ions and cations
Oils
Solvents
Lubricating and hydraulic oils:
Water soluble oils
Petroleum derived oils
Paint wastes:
Spray booth filters
Clean-up rags
Solvent/paint mixtures
Reference 10
44
-------
TABLE 6-18. SIC 3691/3692 -- BATTERIES'
Industrial Hazardous Waste Quantities by Disposal Method
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Wet Basis)
Method
Quantities
Onsite
Offsite
Public
Private
General purpose landfill
Secured landfill0
Rec1 a imed/recovered/sold
45,200
12,300
10
47,, 200
47,200
12,300
Totals
57,510
47,200
59,500
Total Batteries Industry Hazardous Waste: -164,000 Tonnes/Year, 1977
(Wet Basis)
rReferences 11, 14, and 20
This type of landfills accepts a wide variety of wastes. There are
usually no environmental protection provisions for hazardous wastes
such as special containment, monitoring, or leachate treatment. Exact
classification can range from open dump to sanitary landfill.
cThis type of landfill employs environmental protection provisions, is
usually located in a geologically and hydrologically suited area,
prohibits certain wastes, maintains records, and is licensed or permitted
by the state it is in.
45
-------
TABLE 6-19. SIC 3691/3692 — BATTERIES'
SIC 3691: Waste Types and Typical Hazardous Uaste Constituents by Process
Process
Lead-Acid
Nickel-Cadmium
Other Storage
Batteries:
Cadmium-Silver
Oxide
Zinc-Silver
Oxide
Waste Types
Wastewater Effluent
Treatment Sludge
Wastewater Effluent
Treatment Sludge
Rejected and Scrap Cells
Wastewater Effluent
Treatment Sludge
Rejected and Scrap Cells
Rejected and Scrap Cells
Totals
Total Hazardous Waste
Tonnes/Year, 1977
(Wet Basis)
163,000
44
5
3C
NAd
NA
NA
-163,000
Constituents
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Dry Basis)
Lead
450b
--
-
-
-
450
Cadmium
_.
—
2.3
0.044
-
-
2.3
Nickel
--
1.4
-
--
1.4
Silver
__
—
0.13
-
-
0.13
Zinc
--
0.014
-
-
0.014
Mercury
_.
—
0.0002
-
-
0.0002
Miscellaneous
—
Cd(OH)2 = 12
Ni(OH)2 = 3.7
Water treatment sludges
containing silver and
cadmium = 1.2
-
-
--
CT>
("Reference 11
Lead equivalent
^Reclaimed
°Not available
of lead and lead compounds contained in sludge
T-1779
-------
TABLE 6-19. Concluded
SIC 3692: Waste Types and Typical Hazardous Waste Constituents by Process
Process
Carbon-Zinc
Alkaline-
Manganese
Mercury
Magnesi um-
Carbon
Zinc-Silver
Oxide
Other Primary
Batteries:
Carbon-Zinc
Air Cell
Weston Mercury
Cell
Magnesium
Reserve Cell
Lead-Acid
Reserve Cell
Waste Types
Rejected and Scrap
Batteries
Rejected and Scrap
Batteries
Rejected and Scrap
Batteries
Wastewater Effluent
Treatment Sludge
Rejected and Scrap
Batteries
Rejected and Scrap
Batteries
Rejected and Scrap
Batteries
Rejected and Scrap
Batteries
Rejected and Scrap
Batteries
Wastewater Effluent
Treatment Sludge
Totals
Total Hazardous Waste
Tonnes/Year, 1977
(Wet Basis)
1,100
165
8
120
63
55
0.009
NAa.b
25
0.6
-1,500
Constituents
Tonnes/Year, 1977 (Dry Basis)
Zinc
380
27
5
--
0.01
2
—
--
—
—
-410
Lead
0.03
—
—
--
—
--
—
—
14
--
-14
Nickel
—
—
--
--
--
--
--
--
8
--
8
Mercury
0.67
1.3
0.02
—
0.0007
0.007
Neglig.
--
—
—
-2.0
Cadmium
0.03
—
—
--
--
--
Neg 1 i g .
—
--
--
0.03
Miscellaneous
ZnCl2 = 29
—
HgO = 0.07
Cr(OH)2/CrC03
sludge =47.8
Ag20 = 0.003
--
—
—
—
Sludge containing nickel
and lead = 0.2
-
declaimed
bNot available
T-1779
-------
REFERENCES
1. "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices, Inorganic
Chemicals Industry," Versar, Inc., March 1975, PB 244 832
2. "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices, Rubber and
Plastics Industry," Chapter II, Foster D. Snell, Inc., March 1978,
PB 282 071.
3. "Pharmaceutical Industry: Hazardous Waste Generation, Treatment, and
Disposal," Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1976, PB 258 800.
4. "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices: Paint and
Allied Products Industry, Contract Solvent Operations, and Factory
Application of Coatings," Wapora, Inc., September 1975, PB 251 669.
5 Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices, Organic
Chemicals, Pesticides and Explosives Industries," TRW, Inc., January
1976, PB 251 307.
6. "Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices in the Petroleum Refining
Industry," Jacobs Engineering Co., June 1975, PB 259 097.
7. "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Management, Petroleum
Re-refining Industry." 1977, PB 272 267.
8. "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices, Rubber and
Plastics Industry," Chapter III, Foster D. Snell, Inc., March 1978,
PB 282 072.
9. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices, Leather Tanning
and Finishing Industry," SCS Engineers, Inc., November 1976, PB 261
018.
10. "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices — Electronic
Components Manufacturing Industry," Wapora, Inc., January 1977, PB
265 532.
11. "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices, Storage and
Primary Batteries Industries," Verser, Inc., January 1975, PB 241 204.
48
-------
12. State of Arizona Waste Surveys:
Arizona Hazardous Waste Generation Survey Data, Arizona Department of
Health, Division of Solid Waste and Vector Control, 1977.
"Report to the Arizona Department of Health Services on Industrial
and Hazardous Wastes," Behavioral Health Consultants, Inc., June 1975.
"Industrial Solid Waste Survey," Arizona Department of Health
Services, Bureau of Sanitation, June 3, 1974.
13. "Industrial Process Waste Survey," Office of Solid Waste Management,
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, August 1977.
14. "Hazardous Waste Survey," Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, Solid Waste Management Program, October 1977.
15. "State of Maine Hazardous Waste Survey Report," prepared for Solid
Waste Management Division, State of Maine Department of Environmental
Protection, by SCS Engineers, Augusta, Maine, July 1978.
16. "Hazardous Wastes in Montana -- A Survey of Waste Generation and
Management Practices," Montana Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences, Environmental Sciences Division, December 1977.
17. "Hazardous Waste Management Planning 1972-1973," Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, March 1974.
18. "Rhode Island Hazardous Waste Report," Rhode Island Department of
Health, Division of Solid Waste Management, March 1977.
19. "Vermont Industrial Waste Survey -- Status Report," Division of
Environmental Engineering, State of Vermont Agency of Environmental
Conservation, January 1978.
20. "An Evaluation of the Status of Hazardous Waste Management in Region
X," Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, December 1975, PB 262
673.
49
-------
APPENDIX
STATE OFFICES FROM WHICH DATA WERE SOUGHT;
TYPE OF DATA RECEIVED
ALABAMA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
Alfred Chipley, Director
Division of Solid Waste and Vector Control
Department of Health
Montgomery, Alabama
(205) 832-6728
No statewide information available.
Barry Abbot, Manager
Solid Waste Section
Division of Environmental Health Services
Arizona Department of Health Services
411 North 24th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85008
(602) 255-1160
Industrial Solid Waste Survey, Arizona Department of
Health Services, Bureau of Sanitation, June 3, 1974.
Report to the Arizona Department of Health Services on
Industrial and Hazardous Wastes, prepared by Behavioral
Health Consultants, Inc., June 1975.
Arizona Hazardous Waste Generation Survey Data, Arizona
Department of Health, Division of Solid Waste and Vector
Control, 1977.
D. L. Hughes
Division of Solid Waste
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
P.O. Box 9583
Little Rock, Arkansas 72209
(501) 371-1701
No statewide information available.
50
-------
CALIFORNIA David Storm
Hazardous Waste Management Section
California Department of Health
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, California 94704
(415) 843-7900, ext. 434
Hazardous Waste Manifest Forms, Hazardous Waste Management
Section, California Department of Health, 1978.
Annual summary data on type of waste and type of disposal
COLORADO Orville Stottard, Supervising Industrial Hygienist
Radiation and Hazardous Wastes Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
(303) 320-8333
No statewide information available.
CONNECTICUT John Hausman
Hazardous Waste Management Section
Office of Solid Waste Management
Department of Environmental Protection
122 Washington Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
(203) 566-3672
Industrial Process Waste Survey, Office of Solid Waste
Management, Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection, August 1977.
DELAWARE T. Lee Go, Chief
Solid Waste Section
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Water Resources Section
Edward Tatnall Building
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19901
(302) 678-4761
Hazardous Waste Generation List, Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Solid Waste
Management Section, post 1975.
51
-------
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
Al Hanke, Jr., Head
Solid Waste Management Program
Hazardous Waste Section
Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-0300
Hazardous Waste Survey, Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, Solid Waste Management Program,
October 1977.
Howard Barefoot
Solid Waste Management Service
Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
(404) 656-2833
No statewide information available.
N. Ed Baker, Jr., Chief
Solid Waste Management Section
Department of Health and Welfare
Statehouse
Boise, Idaho 83720
(208) 384-2287
Idaho Solid Waste Management, Industrial Survey Report,
Idaho Department of Environmental and Community Services,
June 1973.
Mark Miller, Manager of Hazardous Waste Unit
Division of Land/Noise Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217) 782-6760
No statewide information available.
David Lamm, Chief
Solid Waste Management
State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, Indiana
(317) 633-0176
No statewide information available.
52
-------
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
George Welch
Land Quality Management Division
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 3326
3920 Delaware Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50316
(515) 281-8692
Hazardous Substances of Pesticide Survey and Training
Program, Vol. I and II, Iowa Department of Environmental
Quality, prepared by Garrity-Sandage Associates, Inc.,
April 1977.
Charles H. Linn, P. E., Chief
Solid Waste Management Section
Division of Environment
Department of Health and Environment
Topeka, Kansas 66620
(913) 862-9360
Jack McClure, Jr.
Division of Hazardous Materials and Waste Management
Bureau of Environmental Protection
Department of Natural Resources
5th Floor Capital Plaza Tower
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
(502) 564-6716
Hazardous Waste Survey of Kentucky, Kentucky Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, January
1978.
G. Roy Hayes, Chief
Solid Wastes and Vector Division
Health and Human Resource Administration
New Orleans, Louisana
(913) 862-9360
Interim Report -- Industrial Solid Waste Survey and
Hazardous Waste Regulatory Considerations, prepared for
Louisiana Office of Science, Technology and Environmental
Policy, by Owen and White, Inc., Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
November 1978.
Arthur Day
Solid Waste Management Division
Bureau of Land Quality
Department of Environmental Protection
State House
Augusta, Maine 04333
(207) 289-2111
53
-------
MAINE (Continued)
State of Maine Hazardous Waste Survey Report, prepared for
Solid Waste Management Division, State of Maine Department
of Environmental Protection, by SCS Engineers, Augusta,
Maine, July 1978.
MARYLAND John Lawther
Hazardous Substances Section
Department of Natural Resources
Water Resources Administration
Tawes State Office Building D-3
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
(301) 269-3821
Report on Hazardous Waste Practices, Environmental Health
Administration, Maryland Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene and Maryland Environmental Services, Department of
Natural Resources, May 1977.
MASSACHUSETTS Hans Bonne
Sanitary Engineer Supervisor
Hazardous Industrial Waste Section
110 Tremont
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 727-3855
Generation and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes in
Massachusetts, GCA-TR-76-29-G, GCA Corporation, Bedford,
Massachusetts, October 1976.
MICHIGAN Diane Carlson, Hazardous Waste Leader
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
(517) 373-3560
No statewide information available.
MINNESOTA Martin Little, Research Scientist
Hazardous Waste Management
Division of Solid Waste
Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road, B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
(612) 296-77-7
Impact of Hazardous Waste Generation in Minnesota,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Division of Solid
Waste, October 1977.
54
-------
MISSISSIPPI
Jack McMillan, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management and Vector Control
State Board of Health
P.O. Box 1700
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
(601) 982-6317
Special Waste Survey Report, August 1974-September 1975,
Mississippi State Board of Health, Division of Solid Waste
Management and Vector Control, 1975.
MISSOURI
Robert Pappenfort, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Solid Waste Management Program
Department of Natural Resources
State Office Building
P.O. Box 1368
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
(314) 751-3241
Proper Disposal of Hazardous Wastes in Missouri, Missouri
Department of Natural Resources, December 1976.
MONTANA
Duane Robertson, Chief
Solid Waste Management Bureau
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
1400 llth Avenue, Suite A
Helena, Montana 59601
(406) 449-2821
Hazardous Wastes in Montana -- A Survey of Waste
Generation and Management Practices, Montana Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences, Environmental Sciences
Division, December 1977.
NEBRASKA
Maurice A. Bill Shell, Chief
Solid Waste Pollution Control Division
Department of Environmental Control
State House Station
Box 94653
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
(402) 471-2186
Industrial and Hazardous Waste Generation in Nebraska,
Solid Waste Pollution Control Division, Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control, December 1976.
55
-------
NEVADA
H. LaVerne Rosse, Program Director
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Protection
201 South Fall Street
Carson City, Nevada 89710
(702) 885-4670
No statewide information available.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Tom Roy
Bureau of Solid Waste
Department of Health and Welfare
State Laboratory Building
Hazen Drive
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
(603) 271-2605
No statewide information available.
NEW JERSEY Dr. Ronald J. Buchanan, Chief
Bureau of Hazardous and Chemical Wastes
Solid Waste Administration
Division of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 1390
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 292-7645
History and Status of Hazardous Waste Management in New
Jersey Bureau of Hazardous and Chemical Wastes, New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, 1978.
NEW MEXICO James White, Program Manager
Hazardous Waste Section
Solid Waste Division
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency
Crown Building
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503
(505) 827-5271
No statewide information available.
56
-------
NEW YORK
Bruce Knapp
Chemical Engineer
Bureau of Hazardous Wastes
Division of Solid Waste Management
Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolfe Road
Albany, New York 12233
(518) 457-6607
Preliminary Study -- Hazardous Waste in New York State,
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
January 1975.
NORTH CAROLINA
Gerry Perkins, Head
Solid Waste and Vector Control Branch
Department of Human Resources
Division of Health Service
P.O. Box 2091
Raleigh, North Carolina
(919) 733-7120
No statewide information available.
NORTH DAKOTA
Lou Revall, Environmental Quality Specialist
Division of Waste Supply and Pollution Control
State Department of Health
1200 Missouri Avenue
Bismark, North Dakota 58505
(701) 224-2371
No statewide information available.
OHIO
Richard P. Moffa, Policy Analyst
Office of Land Pollution Control
Ohio EPA
P.O. Box 1049
361 E. Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216
(614) 466-8934
1975-1976 Ohio Industrial Waste Survey -- Survey Results,
Ohio EPA, Office of Land Pollution Control, 1976.
57
-------
OKLAHOMA
H. A. Caves, Chief
Solid Waste Branch
State Department of Health
Northeast 10th and Stonewall Streets
P. 0. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152
(405) 271-5338
Oklahoma Controlled Industrial Waste Projected Inventory --
Annual Basis, Oklahoma State Department of Health, Industrial
and Solid Waste Division, March 1978.
OREGON
Fred Bromfield, Head
Hazardous Waste Section
Solid Waste Division
Department of Environmental Quality
522 Southwest 5th
Portland, Oregon 97207
(503) 229-5953
Hazardous Waste Management Planning 1972-1973, Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, March 1974.
PENNSYLVANIA
Gary Galida, Environmental Protection Specialist
Division of Solid Waste Management
8th Floor, Fulton Building
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-7381
Hazardous Solid Waste Management Report -- Vol. 1 and 2,
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, prepared by
R. F. Weston, Inc., Environmental Consultants-Designers,
November 1976.
RHODE ISLAND
Frank B. Stevenson, P.E., Senior Engineer
Solid Waste Management Program
Division of Land Resoures
Department of Environmental Management
5 Davis Street
204 Cannona Building
Providence, Rhode Island 02908
(401) 277-2808
Rhode Island Hazardous Waste Report, Rhode Island Department of
Health, Division of Solid Waste Management, March 1977.
58
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
Doug H. Wray, Environmental Technician
Solid Waste Management Division
Department of Health and Environmental Control
J. Marion Sims Building
2600 Bull Street
Columbus, South Carolina 29201
(803) 758-5681
Survey of Hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal
Practices in South Carolina, Solid Waste Management
Division, South Carolina Department of Heatlh
Environmental Control, September 1978.
SOUTH DAKOTA
Harold Lenhart, Director
Air Quality and Solid Waste Program
Department of EPA
Office Building #2
Pierre, South Dakota
(605) 773-3351
No statewide information available.
TENNESSEE
Tom Tiesler, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
Department of Public Health
Cordell Hull Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
(615) 741-3424
Industrial Solid Waste Report, State of Tennessee
Department of Public Health, 1971.
TEXAS
Jay Snow, Chief
Solid Waste Divison
Department of Water Resources
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 475-3187
No statewide information available.
59
-------
UTAH
Kent Gray, Solid Waste Management Specialist
State of Utah
Department of Social Services
State Division of Health
P.O. Box 2500
Salt Lake City, Utah 84110
(801) 533-4145
No statewide information available.
VERMONT
Robert Nichols
Hazardous Waste Engineer
Air and Solid Waste Programs
Agency of Environmental Conservation
P.O. Box 489
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
(802) 828-3395
Vermont Industrial Waste Survey -- Status Report, Division
of Environmental Engineering, State of Vermont Agency of
Environmental Conservation, January 1978.
VIRGINIA
William Gilley, Director
Department of Solid and Hazardous Wastes
Virginia Department of Health
109 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 786-5271
No statewide information available.
WASHINGTON Tom Cook, R.S.
Solid Waste Management Division
Office of Land Programs
Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington 98504
(206) 753-2849
Report on Industrial and Hazardous Wastes, Washington
Department of Ecology, Solid Waste Management Division,
December 1974.
60
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
Randy Curtis
Solid Waste Division
Department of Health
1800 Washington Street, East
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
(304) 485-2987
Hazardous Waste Survey Results, Solid Waste Division,
State of West Virginia, Department of Health, 1978.
WISCONSIN
Dave Hantz
Solid Waste Management Section
Division of Environmental Standards
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
PYARE Square
4610 University Avenue
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
(608) 266-7596
Industrial Waste Survey, Division of Environmental
Standards, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1978.
WYOMING
Dave Fenley, Engineer for Solid Wastes
Department of Environmental Quality
Solid Wastes Program
Hathaway Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
(307) 777-7752
No statewide information available.
61
-------
GLOSSARY
Approved Landfills for Large Volume Hazardous Mates
Landfills designed for particular types of hazardous waste
that are generated in large volume. In these landfills, segregated
disposal precludes their interaction with other types of waste.
General Purpose Landfills
Landfills which accept a wide variety of wastes. There
are usually no environmental protection provisions for hazardous wastes
such as special containment, monitoring, or leachate collection and
treatment. Exact classification can range from "open dump" to "sanitary
landfill."
General Purpose Landfills Approved for Hazardous Wastes
Hazardous wastes are screened before disposal in this type
of landfill. Monitoring wells and leachate collection and treatment may
be required. Classification of this type of landfill would lie between a
"general purpose landfill" and a "general purpose secured landfill."
General Purpose Secured Landfills
These landfills employ environmental protection
provisions, are usually located in geologically and hydrologically suited
areas, prohibit certain wastes, maintain records, and are licensed or
permitted by the state(s) they are in.
Specialized Disposal Sites
These include existing mines, quarries, abandoned
government property (e.g., missile silos) and other facilities which make
hazardous wastes disposal possible because of their fortuitous geological
and environmental isolation.
62
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-79-135
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
QUANTIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL DISPOSAL METHODS FOR
INDUSTRIALLY GENERATED HAZARDOUS WASTES
August 1979 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
H. VanNoordwyk, L. Schalit, W. Wyss, H. Atkins
79-331
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Acurex Corporation
Energy and Environmental Division
485 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, California 94042
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1DC818, SOS 4, Task 26
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2567
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory —Cin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 1978 - 1979
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer - Thomas L. Baugh
513/684-7881
16. ABS1
ing to.various methods of disposal were generated for significant portions of the five
following SIC codes: 28, Chemical and Allied Products; 29, Petroleum Refining and Re-
Rubber and
Electrical
and
Miscellaneous Plastic Products; 31, Leather and
and Electronic Machinery, Eguipment, and Supplies.
l^tTmations of the amounts of industrial hazardous wastes being disposed of accord
sm''1
owing SIC codes:
lated Industries; 30,
Leather Products; 36,
The portions studied account for approximately half of the industrial hazardous waste
disposed of in this country. The following conclusions may be drawn from the study:
" over 18 million tonnes per year of hazardous waste are generated by the industries
studied. Municipal disposal of industrial hazardous waste accounts for approxi-
mately 9 percent of all such waste generated. Therefore, between 2.5 and a little
over 3 million tonnes per year are going to some form of municipal disposal.
Industrial hazardous wastes which are municipally disposed are those that present
by and large, less acute environmental and safety hazards in their disposal than
do other industrial hazardous wastes which are disposed of onsite or in offsite
private facilities. However, in terms of possible chronic environmental hazard,
these wastes have a high hazard potential because of their content of heavy metals
and other persistant toxic chemicals such as halogenated organics.
over 99 percent of industrial hazardous waste that are municipally disposed of end
up in municipal facilities not designed for their incorporation. Long term
environmental problems can be expected from such disposal methods.
o
o
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Waste disposal,
Waste disposal--
industrial wastes
Hazardous wastes, Municipal disposal methods,
Waste quantification, Chemical and Allied
Products Industry, Petroleum Refining and
Rerefining Industry, Rubber and Miscellan-
eous Plastic Products Industry, Leather and
Leather Products Industry, Electrical and
Electronic Machinery, Equipment, and
.Supplies Industry
13B
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
75
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
63
-;, US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1979-657-060/5386
------- |