ITUDY OF HAZARDOUS MASTE MATERIALS9
Library/Region IV
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Applied Research9 Inc., Henry Johns
SW Ju1y9 li?3
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
Page
Number
FOREWORD
I. SUMMARY 1-1
1. Purpose and Scope of the Study 1-1
2. Approach to the Study 1-3
3. Principal Findings of the Study 1-8
4. Conclusions and Recommendations 1-27
II. IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS II-1
MATERIALS
1. Introduction and Definitions II-1
2. Approach to Hazardous Materials "' II-5
Identification
3. Occurrence of Hazardous Wastes 11-19
4. Analytical Problems 11-22
5. Preparation of List of Hazardous E-24
Materials
6. The List of Hazardous Compounds and 11-27
Its Uses
III. QUANTIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES III-1
1. Introduction III-l
2. Production Quantities of Hazardous III-4
Materials
-111-
-------
Page
Number
3. Total Waste Load Estimates III-5
4. Estimates of Commonly Known III-17
Mixed Waste Streams, With Break-
downs of Specific Hazardous Materials
5. Hazardous Materials Expected in III-30
Non-Identifiable Waste Streams of
Industrial Manufacturers and Users
6. Hazardous Material Waste Quantities III-39
Reported by the Department of Defense
and Atomic Energy Commission
7. Mining Industry Wastes III-39
8. Data Record Descriptions 111-49
IV. SURVEY OF HAZARDOUS EFFECTS AND IV-1
RATING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Introduction IV-1
2. Analytical Problems in Hazardous Effects IV-2
3. Development of the Rating System IV-4
4. Method of Rating and Results IV-10
V. SURVEY AND INVENTORY OF TREATMENT V-1
AND DISPOSAL METHODS
1. Introduction V-1
2. Current Treatment and Disposal Practices V-2
3. Waste Streams, Hazardous Wastes, and V-16
Disposal Methods
4. A Method for Estimating Waste Stream V-51
Treatment Requirements
5. Rating Current Treatment and Disposal V-60
Methods
6. Disposal of Small Lots of Hazardous V-74
Materials
-IV-
-------
Page
Number
VI. MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS VI-1
1. Definition of a Hazardous Material VI-1
and Hazardous. Effects
2. Selection Rating of Hazardous Materials VI-3
3. Quantification and Distribution VI-5
4. Waste Treatment Processes VI-6
5. National Disposal System VI-8
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS VII-1
1. Hazardous Waste Control System VII-1
2. In-Depth Hazardous Materials Study VII-2
3. Waste Stream Hazard Analysis VII-2
4. Hazardous Effects Research VII-3
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-v-
-------
VOLUME II
APPENDIX A INDUSTRIAL DESCRIPTIONS
APPENDIX A-l SIC 10—METAL MINING
SIC 11—ANTHRACITE MINING
SIC 12—BITUMINOUS COAL AND LIGNITE
MINING
APPENDIX A-2 SIC 20—FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS
APPENDIX A-3 SIC 22—TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS
APPENDIX A-4 SIC 26—PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
APPENDIX A-5 SIC 28—CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIC CHEMICALS
INDUSTRIAL INORGANIC CHEMICALS
SIC 282—PLASTIC MATERIALS AND SYNTHETIC
RESINS, SYNTHETIC RUBBER,
SYNTHETIC AND OTHER MANMADE
. FIBERS, EXCEPT GLASS
SIC 283—DRUGS
SIC 284—SOAP, DETERGENTS, AND
CLEANING PREPARATIONS,
PERFUMES, COSMETICS, AND
OTHER TOILET PREPARATIONS
SIC 285—PAINTS, VARNISHES, LACQUERS,
ENAMELS, AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
SIC 287—AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS
SIC 2892—EXPLOSIVES
-vi-
-------
VOLUME III
APPENDIX A INDUSTRIAL DESCRIPTIONS
APPENDIX A-6
APPENDIX A-7
APPENDIX A-8
APPENDIX A-9
SIC 29—PETROLEUM REFINING AND RELATED
INDUSTRIES
SIC 31—LEATHER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS
SIC 311—LEATHER TANNING AND FINISHING
SIC 32—STONE, CLAY, GLASS, AND
CONCRETE PRODUCTS
SIC 329—ABRASIVE, ASBESTOS, AND
MISCELLANEOUS NONMETTALLIC
MINERAL PRODUCTS
SIC 33—PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES
SIC 331—BLASTFURNACES, STEELWORKS,
AND ROLLING AND FINISHING MILLS
SIC 333—PRIMARY SMELTING AND REFINING
OF NONFERROUS METALS
APPENDIX A-10 SIC 34—FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS,
EXCEPT ORDNANCE, MACHINERY,
AND TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT
SIC 347—COATING, ENGRAVING, AND ,
ALLIED SERVICES
APPENDIX A-ll SIC 80—MEDICAL AND OTHER HEALTH
SERVICES
SIC 806—HOSPITALS
APPENDIX A-12 RADIOACTIVE WASTE (ATOMIC ENERGY
COMMISSION)
APPENDIX A-13 WASTE MANAGEMENT (DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE)
-vii-
-------
VOLUME III (Continued)
APPENDIX A-14 POWER UTILITIES
APPENDIX B CURRENT LISTINGS OF HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
APPENDIX C HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RATINGS
(COMPOUNDS FOUND HAZARDOUS BY
RATING SYSTEM)
APPENDIX D SUPPORTING DATA
APPENDIX D-l ACCIDENTS INVOLVING HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES
APPENDIX D-2 ,SIC CODE DISTRIBUTION OF TYPICAL
HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS
-viii-
-------
INDEX OF TABLES A:;ND FIGURES
Page
Tables Number
1-1 Matrix of Factors for Rating the Level of I-17
Effects for the List of Hazardous Substances
1-2 Sample Worksheet for Computing Substance 1-20
Hazard Rating
II-1 Major Sources of Pollution II-6
II-2 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Used for II-9
Information Categorization
II-3 Trade Associations Contacted 11-15
II-4 Summary of Factors Included in Current Lists 11-26
of Hazardous Materials Developed by Government
Agencies and Industrial Associations
II-5 Criteria for Reduction of Preliminary List of 11-27
Hazardous Substances
II-6 List of Hazardous Materials 11-29
III-l Comparison of Solid Waste Estimates III-6
III-2 Computation of Waste Factors in-9
IE-3 Chemical Industry Waste Factors III-11
III-4 Waste Quantities Produced by Industry by III-12
Geographic Location—50 States
III-5 Waste Quantities Produced by Industry by IH-14
Geographic Location—50 Largest Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas
-ix-
-------
Page
Tables - Continued Number
III-6 Hazardous Materials Expected in Waste III-19
Streams of Producers and Users
>
III-7 Distribution, Locations, and Volumes of HI-29
Explosive Manufacturing Wastes
III-8 Hazardous Materials Expected in Waste Streams III-32
of Producers and Users
III-9 Hazardous Waste Material Quantities Reported III-40
by the Department of Defense as Awaiting
Disposal
III- 10(a) Radioactive Waste Quantities Reported by III-50
Atomic Energy Commission, With Projections
IH-lO(b) Solid Waste from Power Reactors to Land III-42
Burial (Curies)
III-lO(c) Forecast of the Generation Rates and the Total III-43
Accumulations of Long-Life Fission Products and
Actinides in High-Level Wastes from Fuel
Reprocessing
III-10(d) Generation of Miscellaneous Solid Waste and III-44
Hulls and Hardware at Fuel Reprocessing Plants
III-11 Tonnage and Acreage of Accumulated Mineral III-46
Wastes (1968)
111-12 Hazardous Material Production Quantity Codes 111-51
HI-13 Codes for Hazardous Material Solubility in Water HI-52
III-14 Material Hazard Rating and Industrial Source III-53
IH-15 Industry Data III-55
IV-1 Matrix of Factors for Rating the Level of Effects IV-7
for the List of Hazardous Substances
-x-
-------
Page
Tables - Continued Number
i.
IV- 2 Matrix of Factors for Rating the EJctent of IV- 9
Hazard for the List of Hazardous Substances
IV- 3 Rules Used During Rating of Hazardous IV-14
Substances
IV-4 Definitions of Terms Used in Criteria IV-15
IV-5 Human Effects Rating Criteria: Toxic Effects IV-16
in Air
IV-6 Human Effects Rating Criteria: Toxic Effects IV-17
in Water
IV-7 Human Effects Rating Criteria: Toxic Effects IV-18
in Soil
IV-8 Human Hazards Rating Criteria: Flame,. IV-18
Explosion, and Reaction in Air
IV-9 Human Hazards Rating Criteria: Flame, IV-19
Explosion, and Reaction in Water
IV-10 Human Hazards Rating Criteria: Flame, IV-19
Explosion, and Reaction in Soil
IV-11 Ecological Effects Rating Criteria: Toxic IV-20
Effects in Air
IV-12 Ecological Effects Rating Criteria: Toxic IV-21
Effects in Water
IV-13 Ecological Effects Rating Criteria: Toxic IV-22
Effects in Soil
IV-14 Hazardous Substances Production (or Consum- IV-22
ption) Rating Criteria
IV-15 Hazardous Substances Distribution Rating IV-23
Criteria
-xi-
-------
Page
Tables - Continued Number
IV-16 Sample Worksheet for Computing Substance IV-24
Hazard Rating
IV-17 Sample Worksheet for Computing Substance IV-25
Hazard Rating
IV-18 Compounds Found Hazardous by Rating System IV-26
t
IV-19 Compounds Found Marginally Hazardous by IV-42
Rating System
IV-20 Specific Compounds Used as Warfare Agents IV-44
by the Department of Defense
IV-21 Hazardous Wastes Generated by Department of IV-45
Defense Activities (Explosive Materials)
IV-22 Toxic Pollutants Involved in Conventional IV-47
Munitions Production
IV-23 Typical Department of Defense Waste Compounds IV-48
and Materials
V- 1 Status of Current Technology in the Control of V- 8
Emissions to the Atmosphere
V-2 Solid Wastes by Type Generated by the Minerals V- 13
and Fossil Fuel Industries in 1968
V- 3 Solid Wastes Generated by the Mineral and V- 14
Fossil Fuel Mining and Processing Industries in
1968 and Accumulated Up to 1968
V-4 Food Industry - SIC 20, Waste Streams and V-20
Treatment Procedures
V-5 Textile Mill Products - SIC 22, Waste Streams V-22
and Treatment Procedures
V-6 Paper and Allied Products - SIC 26, Waste V-23
Streams and Treatment Procedures
-xii-
-------
Page
Tables - Continued Number
£
V-7 Petroleum Refining and Related Industries - V-24
SIC 29, Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
V-8 Leather Industry- SIC 31, Waste Streams and V-26
Treatment Procedures
V-9 Stone, Clay, Glass and Concrete (Asbestos V-28
Products) - SIC 32, Waste Streams and
Treatment Procedures
V-10 Medical and Other Health Services - SIC 80, V-29
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
V-ll Plastic Materials, Synthetic Fibers, Rubber, V-30
Resins - SIC 282, Waste Streams and Treatment
Procedures
V-12 Drug Industry - SIC 283, Waste Streams and V-31
Treatment Procedures
V-13 Soap, Detergents and Cleaning - SIC 284, V-33
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
V-14 Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels - V- 34
SIC 285, Waste Streams and Treatment
Procedures
V-15 Agricultural Chemicals, Fertilizers - SIC 287, V-35
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
V-16 Agricultural Chemicals, Pesticides - SIC 287, V-36
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
V-17 Primary Metal Industries - SIC 331, Waste V-37
Streams and Treatment Procedures
V-18 Non-Ferrous Metals - SIC 333, Waste Streams V-39
and Treatment Procedures
V-19 Coating, Engraving (Plating) - SIC 347, Waste V-41
Streams and Treatment Procedures
-xiu-
-------
Page
Tables - Continued . Number
V-20 Cyclic Intermediates - SIC 2815, industrial V-43
Organic Chemicals - SIC 2818, Waste Streams
and Treatment Procedures
V-21 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals - SIC 2819, V-45
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
V-22 Explosives - SIC 2892, Waste Streams and V-46
Treatment Procedures
V-23 Department of Defense, Waste Streams and V-47
Treatment Procedures
V-24 Radioactive Wastes AEC, Waste Streams and V-49
Treatment Procedures
V-25 Rating Guideline Sheet V-53
V-26 Rating Worksheet - How to Use Rating System V-54
V-27 Removal Efficiencies of Waste Treatment V-55
Processes
V-28 Industrial Water Treatment Practices V-70
V-29 Evaluation of Industrial Treatment Practices V-72
V-30 Approximate Characteristics of Dust and Mist V-73
Collection Equipment
V-31 Hazardous Material Use, Production and Wastes V-81
by Type Industry
V-32 Quantitative Data on Off-Site Disposal Tonnages V-84
-XIV-
-------
Page
Figures j Number
i
I-1 The Hazardous Materials Waste Quantification I- 22
Problem
III-1 The Hazardous Materials Waste Quantification III- 3
Problem
III-2 Layout, Card Type 1 HI-5 6
in-3 Layout, Card Type 2 HI-57
III-4 Layout, Card Type 3 III-58
V-1 Candidate Waste Water Treatment Processes - V-4
Substitution and Sequence Diagram
V-2 Solids Handling, Treatment and Disposal V-12
V-3 Waste Disposal Procedure Small Spill or Package V-77
Lots
-xv-
-------
FOREWORD
This report presents the results of the study of hazardous waste
materials conducted under Contract No. JS8-03-0032 for the Solid Waste
Research Division of the National EnvironmentaT He"Search Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
The report consists of three volumes. Volume I describes the
purpose and scope of the study, describes the approach followed in
conducting the study, provides a summary of the study, and presents the
study results. Volume I also provides listings of principal literature
references at the end of each chapter and includes a full bibliography.
Volumes II and III consist of appendices describing the industries
(by Standard Industrial Classification Code) and government operations
which are the manufacturers and users of hazardous materials. In the
interest of promoting improved understanding of the occurrence of
hazardous materials and potentially hazardous wastes on the part of
users of this report, the appendices provide descriptions (in a single
reference source) of industry size, products, production processes,
typical wastes and waste treatment and disposal processes.
The study was conducted over a six-month period ending with
publication of the draft report on January 12, 1972. This report is the
result of integration of the Solid Waste Research Division's draft
report review comments, the draft report itself, and a limited amount
of additional material incorporated by the contractor.
-XVI-
-------
I. SUMMARY
Presented in this Chapter are summary discussions of the
background to the study, its objectives, the approach followed in
conducting the study, and the principal study findings and
recommendations.
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study was originated as the first in a series that would
assist the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in complying with
Section 212 of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, which requires
that a "National Disposal Sites Study" be completed and reported to
the Congress within two years after enactment of the Act. For the
sake of clarity, the controlling portion of the Act is reproduced below.
National Disposal Sites Study
Sec. 212. The Secretary shall submit to the Congress
no latter than two years after the date of enactment of the
Resource Recovery Act of 1970, a comprehensive report
and plan for the creation of a system of national disposal
sites for the storage and disposal of hazardous wastes,
including radioactive, toxic chemical, biological, and
other wastes which may endanger public health or welfare.
Such report shall include: (1) a list of materials which
should be subject to disposal in any such site; (2) current
methods of disposal of such materials; (3) recommended
methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery, or
disposal of such materials; (4) an inventory of possible
sites including existing land or water disposal sites
operated or licensed by Federal agencies; (5) an estimate
of the cost of developing and maintaining sites including
consideration of means for distributing the short- and
long-term costs of operating such sites among the users
thereof; and (6) such other information as may be
appropriate.
1-1
-------
This study was structured to address points (1) and (2) in Section
212 (previous page), and a Scope of Work to be performed was developed
and published by the EPA.
The study was essentially designed by the EPA as a comprehensive
literature search for the information and data of interest. Thus, the
extent and depth of the results are directly dependent upon the availability
of the desired information and data in the literature.
The study had four principal objectives:
Provide a list of hazardous materials which should be
subject to special disposal techniques
Document the harmful effects that we know now and provide
a mechanism for revising this information as new data
becomes available
Develop a rating system for delineating the degree of
hazard
Provide an inventory of current disposal practices and an
evaluation of these practices.
The study ends with the conclusion of the fourth objective above.
This report provides information which satisfies those objectives,
subject to the limitations of information available in the literature,
and provides direct inputs to the second study in the hazardous wastes
program series.
It is recognized that the scope of this first study is very broad,
perhaps too broad, but included no preconceptions as to identity of
hazardous materials, the form in which they might be encountered,
the potential for hazardous effects, or the nature and extent of present
treatment and disposal methods.
1-2
-------
2. APPROACH TO THE STUDY
The overall approach to conduct of the study consisted of a
general study design and a detailed approach, followed within the
framework of that design. These two features are described below.
(1) Study Design
The general study design established the overall guidelines
for conduct of the study, and comprised three principal elements:
Information available from literature sources
Information screening and categorization by
Standard Industrial Classifications
Exclusion of municipal wastes from detailed
consideration.
Since no defined subject-matter preconceptions were
provided by the EPA, it was necessary to establish guidelines
for the literature search in order to identify the potentially
useful literature references in the shortest possible time.
Therefore, as references were identified, they were initially
screened for possible value to the study, the categorized
according to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and the
associated identifier codes. The SIC groups were selected to
reflect the major manufacturers and users of potentially hazardous
materials, and to aid in geographic location of those materials.
The latter is especially important with respect to the occurrence
of hazardous materials as—or in—wastes, since the principal
thrust of the study was to identify materials whose associated
hazards are such that special waste management techniques
might be required during disposal operations. Within the context
of categorization by industry groups, the federal government
agencies most involved with hazardous materials, the
Department of Defense and the Atomic Energy Commission,
were also treated as industry groups.
1-3
-------
The remaining principal guideline in the study design was
the exclusion of municipal wastes from detailed consideration.
This was done because domestic and municipal wastes represent
so varied a mixture of materials of all types that the study
resources could easily have been consumed in investigating that
area alone (i.e., this area was considered too broad for this
contract). Limited consideration had to be given to these wastes,
however, to take into account the practice in some areas of
industrial wastes being discharged in municipal waste systems.
(2) Detailed Approach
The detailed approach to conduct of the study included the
following principal elements:
Identification of literature sources
Identification of industry and government groups
for information categorization
Collection of information
Literature
Industry associations
Government agencies
Plant visits
Data recording
Rating systems.
Identification of Literature Sources. To assure that
comprehensive coverage would be obtained in identifying
potentially valuable literature sources of information, a
review was made of the subject-matter fields of interest of
the leading technical abstract services. As a result of this
review, and in view of the many topical duplications that exist
among these services, the following abstract journals were
decided upon as the principal literature reference sources:
1-4
-------
Applied Science and Technology Index (Wilson Co.;
New York, New York)
British Technology Index (Library Association;
London, England)
Chemical Abstracts (American Chemical Society;
Columbus, Ohio)
Engineering Index (Engineering Index, Inc.; New
York, New York)
U.S. Government Research and Development Reports
(U.S. Department of Commerce; Washington, D.C.)
These abstract journals were searched beginning with
calendar year 1960 and moving up through the 1971 mid-year
issues. No limitations were placed on subjects; rather, the
search included all subject matter that might, in any way, be
considered applicable to the purposes of the study.
This search resulted in the identification of some 4, 000
publications (books, papers, articles), and the collection and
review of the abstracts of each. The abstracts were subjected
to an initial screening for applicability and content, which
reduced the number of publications to be reviewed to about
2, 000. The 2, 000 publications were reviewed by the study
team members, and final decisions were made as to whether
the included information was worthwhile to the study. As a
result of these reviews, the number of publications from the
above sources deemed to contain information useful to the
study, and therefore worthy of detailed study, was reduced to
approximately 700. This group was later supplemented by
publications from other sources to bring the study bibliography
to about 800 publications.
Identifications of Industry and Government Groups for
Information Categorization. The subject matter of the
publications identified and collected through the literature
search covers a wide variety of interest in materials and their
sources, production processes, uses, environmental pollution,
and disposal methods. It became apparent, however, that
certain industries constituted the principal manufacturers and
users of potentially hazardous materials, and experienced many
environmental pollution problems.
1-5
-------
For this reason, it was determined that the collected
information could be handled most systematically if it were
categorized according to industry grdups. To complement the
industry group identification indicated by the literature,
reference was made to a listing entitled "Major Sources of
Pollution", which was developed during 1967-1968 by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (see Table II-1,
page II-6). The list covers the top 50 pollution sources (from
the viewpoint of water use), and includes natural and nonindustrial
sources as well as the industrial sources. In addition, the list
presents a priority ranking indicating the relative severity of the
pollution problems created by the sources named.
The pollution sources named in the list referenced above,
were compared to the industry group identities indicated through
the literature search, and a list of industry groups was
developed for use in categorizing the study information (see
page II-9). A distinct added advantage of this approach is its
use in geographically locating the major hazardous material
use-points, and consequently the location of potentially
hazardous wastes. These industry groups are identified by
their Standard Industrial Classification codes. The industry
group list has also been supplemented by identities of federal
government agencies most concerned with the manufacture and
use of potentially hazardous materials. The appendices to
this report (Volumes II and III) provide descriptions of the
listed groups, 'products, production processes, wastes, and
waste treatment and disposal methods.
Collection of Information. The information utilized in
this study was collected from:
Literature sources
Associations (industry and professional)
Government agencies
Plant visits.
As stated previously, the essential information source
was the comprehensive literature search, and the latter three
sources were used to supplement the literature where possible.
1-6
-------
Contacts were made with 20 industry associations (see
page 11-15), in an effort to collect up|to-date information on the
hazardous materials production, handling, and disposal problems
of their member organizations. '
Government agencies contacted!were those deemed most
likely to be concerned with potentially hazardous materials.
These were:
Atomic Energy Commission
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense (and the military agencies)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
A limited number of plant visits were made for the purpose
of confirming or verifying information obtained from the
literature. Such visits included industrial plants, hospitals,
and private disposal companies, but were limited in number
since the project did not envision a major survey effort.
Data Recording. As the hazardous materials were
identified, pertinent data for each describing material
characteristics, toxicity values, production quantities and
locations, and disposal procedures were collected, formatted,
and reduced to punched cards. At the conclusion of the study,
all punched-card data was converted to a computer print-out
which was submitted separately from the report.
Rating Systems. In accordance with the study objectives
rating systems were developed which indicate relative severity
of effects of the hazardous materials, and for the associated
waste treatment and disposal methods currently in use. The
rating system for hazardous effects includes effects on man
and on the environment, and takes into account, as weighting
factors, the production quantities and the scope of distribution
of the materials in the economy. A rating system for treatment
and disposal methods was established which is based on the
relative efficiencies of the methods used in nullifying the strengths
of certain wastes to levels acceptable in sewage treatment plants.
1-7
-------
3. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS OF THE STUpY
The principal findings resulting from this study are discussed
below under appropriate topical headings.
(1) Adequacy of the Literature
The literature search which formed the basis of the study
was very broad, covered over ten years' span of publications,
and initially included some 4, 000 documents. It was found,
however, that the literature is insufficiently definitive to permit
full achievement of the objectives of the study, because the
literature:
Provides no common definition of the term |
hazardous material;
Provides little quantification of specific wastes
or waste streams;
Contains little information on chronic effects of
materials on man or the environment, and is
inconclusive with respect to acute effects;
Indicates that, as a rule, the nature and extent
of technology applications in waste treatment
and disposal are based on economics rather than
on pollution control considerations;
Is very repetitious in that single sources of
information and statistical data are used
repeatedly by many different interests;
Provides considerable research and development
engineering information for materials and for
waste treatment and disposal processes, but little
information on practical applications; and
Indicates that proprietary interests preclude
disclosure of much information that would be
pertinent.
1-8
-------
Each of these findings is briefly discussed below.
\
,i
Many writers have struggled with the term hazardous
material, in this country and abroad, but the definition problem
has yet to be resolved. In fact, the literature also demonstrates
that the same problem exists regarding the term toxic, which
is usually regarded as the more specific term. There is, of
course, general agreement with respect to labeling certain
materials as hazardous (e.g., radioactives, known deadly
poisons, explosives), but the list of materials for which such
agreement exists is short.
The matter of quantification of specific materials in wastes
is one which has received very little attention. The literature
indicates that, at any one installation, wastes from many
processes are routinely collected into single flow paths, or
streams, for treatment and disposal. These mixed waste
streams may contain several materials that could be classified
as hazardous materials,. but the waste streams are not analyzed
for constituency or to determine the results of possible reactions
after mixing. Rather, if analyses are made, the parameters
determined are those commonly measured in sewage disposal
operations (e.g., BOD, COD, TDS, TSS, and perhaps the
heavy metals). The result is that neither the quantity of any
one material going into the waste streams, nor the actual
make-up of the mixtures, are known. The principal assistance
provided by the literature with respect to quantification of wastes
is that, in some cases, waste generation factors are given
(e.g., factors indicating the amounts of total process waste
produced per pound or per ton of product), but on a generalized
basis rather than for wastes from specific plants in specific
plants in specific locations.
The literature utilized in this study as hazardous effects
information sources included many well-known references on
human toxicity of materials, similar works with respect to
animals, research reports, and listings such as that published
by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The
greatest information gap was found to exist in the area of chronic
(long-term) effects. It appears that very little testing has been
done, even for determining the long-term effects of materials
known to have serious acute (short-term) effects. Further, for
materials known to have.minor acute effects, or materials that
1-9
-------
have demonstrated no acute effects, Research into possible
long-term effects is nonexistent. The few exceptions involve
materials which have little or no shoht-term effects, but which
are known to be accumulated by the human or animal body.
In the area of acute effects, especially with regard to
human toxicity, the literature indicates much lack of agreement
among medical researchers. The essential reasons for this
situation are the wide variations that have been observed in
effects of the same materials on different people, and the many
problems inherent in translating laboratory animal test results
into human toxicity values.
With respect to waste treatment and disposal methods,
the literature contains considerable information on research
and development of specific methods for specific materials, but
little definitive information concerning practical applications
of the resultant technology. The bulk of the methods currently
in use appear to be those applied to treatment of mixed wastes
for the general parameters noted above (i.e., parameters of
interest in general sewage treatment, with little attention given
to specific materials). Business economics determine the
nature and extent of waste treatment technology applications
and the choice of final disposal methods, except in cases where
the wastes are known to be hazardous. If wastes contain
materials whose value makes recycling and reuse economically
attractive, the treatment methods (aimed at extraction of the
valuable materials) are likely to become sophisticated, and
generally beneficial in terms of "detoxification" of the ultimate
waste discharge. In situations where the producer feels that
the wastes contain nothing worth recovering, the economic
choice becomes one of selecting the least costly disposal method.
Characteristically, this choice quickly reduces to one of "dumping
the wasteload—to water if a stream or body is convenient, or
to landfill. For solid wastes or heavy, high viscosity liquids
(e.g., sludges, filter residues, paints, grease), landfills have
long been the preponderant disposal choice, but with little regard
for any consideration except getting rid of the wastes. Finally,
the literature indicates that in many industrial sectors, waste -
characteristics and treatment methods employed are not
revealed since such information would reveal information about
proprietary production processes.
1-10
-------
Study of the literature also demonstrated that, in many
areas, a limited number of information and statistical data
sources are used repeatedly in different publications and that,
in the end, sources of original data arle relatively few in number.
In some instances, for example, study of publications obtained
from industry associations showed that the included data were
identical to those given by the Census 'of Manufactures and
extracted from the latter. In other cases, it was found that
technical data furnished by certain technical groups (e.g., the
Manufacturing Chemists Association), was used by many authors.
(2) Information Sources Other Than Open Literature
Beyond the open literature, potential information sources
in the study were trade and technical associations, government
agencies, and individual plants.
The industry association contacts met with varying degrees
of success in terms of information collection. While some have
published reports, etc., which are available in the literature,
many of these groups have only recently initiated work with
respect to environmental pollution and waste disposal problems
of their memberships, or have undertaken no specific technical
work at all. Naturally, the more technically oriented of these
groups were able to provide some assistance. As a whole,
however, while all of these organizations are interested in and
concerned about pollution control problems, they were able to
provide only limited assistance.
The government agencies most directly concerned with
hazardous materials are the Department of Defense and the
Atomic Energy Commission. Each of these was able to provide
considerable information, especially the Atomic Energy
Commission, since the radioactive materials are under continuous
regulatory control throughout their life cycles. The Department
of Defense agencies also have the opportunity for close control
but, with the exception of munitions, have only recently initiated
widespread control measures with respect to environmental pollu-
tion. These agencies find themselves in a situation similar to
industry, in that the many installations, utilize a wide range of
potentially hazardous materials and produce potentially
hazardous wastes, yet lack definitive background information and
data that would be helpful in understanding pollution problems
and alleviating waste treatment and disposal problems.
1-11
-------
Visits to industrial plants generally confirmed the lessons
learned from the literature, and arei
Industry has not made detailed, comprehensive
analyses of its wastes, and cannot provide quanti-
tative data, especially with respect to specific
materials contained in wastes.
Waste treatment in industry is generally limited to
treatment of mixed wastes for a limited number of
parameters (e.g., oxygen demands, solids content,
acidity, alkalinity) rather than for specific materials
content.
The nature and extent of waste treatment and disposal
methods is based on economic factors rather than
on pollution control considerations.
By far the dominant disposal method is
discharging to water with landfilling a close
second.
Many production processes which emit wastes which
are of interest in environmental quality control are
considered proprietary processes, for competitive
reasons, and industry refuses to disclose process
information that would aid in understanding the
wastes generated.
In many quarters, industry feels it is being unfairly
attacked with respect to pollution and therfore is
unwilling to discuss waste emissions, even where
no proprietary processes are involved, for fear of
stringent controls being imposed.
A number of industrial firms across the country
have been cited by the EPA, and by state and local
environmental protection agencies, for violation of
air and water quality regulations and, in some instances,
these citations have resulted in litigation. In such
an atmosphere, industrial firms in general have
become extremely wary of disclosing any information
about their wastes.
1-12
-------
I
The findings on the previous page were also borne out
through the contacts with industry associations. A final important
consideration with respect to industry is that of attitudes and
concepts regarding just what constitutes a hazardous material.
Many individuals involved in daily handling of acids, caustics,
pesticides, etc., especially as wastes, simply do not consider
these as hazardous materials. The lack of agreement on definition
of hazardous materials does nothing to help this situation.
(3) Definition of Hazardous Materials
Initial guidance with respect to definition of hazardous
materials was provided by the EPA, as follows:
"For the purpose of this study, hazardous wastes materials
are defined as those materials or combination of materials
which require special management techniques because of
their acute and/or chronic effects on the health or welfare of
the public (or those individuals who handle them) when they
are disposed of by waste management processes (e. g.,
storage, transport, incineration, sanitary landfilling,
composting, dumping, industrial waste treatment). "
While the definition provided was imprecise, it remains a good
general definition. Precision in definition must address the
question, "Hazardous to what and in what way?". If hazards
to humans are under consideration, for example, a distinction
needs to be made as to whether toxicity (which implies personal
medical problems) is being considered, or whether safety hazards
(e. g., explosion) are the subject. Both may be injurious, even
lethal, but the nature of the hazards is distinctly different.
Similar considerations would apply to the definition of materials
hazardous to animal and plant life.
For purposes of the analyses and hazardous effects ratings
in this study, materials (and to some extent, waste streams)
have been defined as hazardous if they have the known inherent
ability to produce:
Toxic effects on mammalian species (whether lethal
or only damaging)
Damaging or lethal effects oi\ non-mammalian systems
Some significant undesirable change in man, such
as carcinogens, teratogens, 'or mutagens.
1-13
-------
(4) Hazardous Materials List
The list of hazardous materials developed in this study
(see page 11-29) was assembled in a three-step process. First,
as the literature was reviewed, search was made for reference
by the various authors to identify:
Materials commonly accepted as dangerous to man
and the environment
Materials which might present difficult disposal
problems
Materials known or suspected to have the ability
to cause environmental damage
Materials for which treatment and disposal
processes were the subject of research efforts
Materials involved in accidents.
The identities were recorded for all materials discussed
in the literature, so long as it appeared, even superficially at
the outset, that they might be hazardous and therefore require
special waste management techniques in disposal. From the
general literature a list of approximately 175-200 hazardous
materials was compiled.
In the second step, existing lists of hazardous materials
published by various organizations (see page 11-26) were
obtained and reviewed. In general, it was found that these lists
had been structured to include materials presenting fire or
explosion hazards and human toxicity hazards, but from the
viewpoint of safety in transportation, i.e., hazards that would
result from transportation accidents. It was also found that
many of the materials appearing on these lists had been placed
there as a result of admitted subjective judgments on the part
of the groups responsible. For this reason, it was determined
that a basic criteria for including materials from the published
lists onto the list developed in this study was that the material
should appear on at least two of the published lists. Thus, the
final developed list of hazardous materials represents an
integration of materials turned up by the literature search and
materials lists.
1-14
-------
The final step in developing the hazardous materials list
was to screen the materials against toxicity and other effects
references to determine whether sufficient hazardous effects
information was available to justify inclusion of each material
on the final list.
(5) Hazardous Effects Determination and Rating
The available literature reveals a wide range of effects
of various materials that have been observed as a result of
planned experiments involving laboratory animal and plant
(vegetation) exposures to varying concentration levels and
exposure time periods, and observations resulting from acci-
dents. Industrial health studies also show a wide range of
observed health effects, both acute and chronic, resulting
from worker exposures to various materials.
Despite the many observations of effects reported by both
the practicing medical community and research scientists, it
was found that the contributing concentration levels are generally
not documented—because they are unknown. This is true of
observations made in industrial work places and in investigations
of accidents. The problem of effects on humans is an especially
difficult area since few human-subject experiments are conducted.
and while good data have been obtained in controlled experiments
with laboratory animals, the extrapolation of these results to
human effects continues to be an area of great uncertainty.
Research results from similar experiments frequently differ,
and thus cast doubt on the validity of human extrapolation.
Further difficulty arises from the fact that observations
of toxic effects on humans have been made for a relatively
limited number of materials, with emphasis having been given
to the metals and some metallic compounds. Very little data
has been taken concerning plants and animals in their natural
habitat. Plants suffer especially in this regard because, until
very recent years, little research has been done to determine
effects of materials on plants. Even the research done recently
has been limited to a few compounds (e.g., oxides of sulfur,
oxides of nitrogen, pesticides, herbicides).
In the end, the result is that the body of knowledge of
hazardous effects of materials on man and the environment is
essentially limited to acute (short-terin) effects, much of it
1-15
-------
based on after-the-fact medical observations rather than
predictions based on experimental results. An extremely serious
gap remains in the knowledge of chroftic (long-term) effects of
materials on man or the environment; Laboratory-type
research into chronic effects has been, for ail practical purposes,
nonexistent and the research that has been done has taken the
form of long years' collection and analysis of case histories
by individuals in the medical profession.
Pressed with the need to establish reasonable bases for
the protection of health and safety, the medical community
has promulgated guidelines in the form of data describing
concentration exposure limits (threshold limits) for many
materials, for both humans and animals. These values are
useful in developing a method for rating the hazardous effects
of materials. The rating method developed during this study
is based on these guidelines (see Chapter IV), but takes
additional factors into account as well.
It is also a flexible rating system which actually includes
several types of ratings:
Total Effects Rating (TER), basic rating developed
from known effects, with allowance for weighting
based on priorities
Maximum Potential Effects Rating (MPER). a rating
which includes the TER and an allowance for
unknown effects
Hazard Extent Rating (HER), a rating which repre-
sents material pervasiveness as a function of
production and distribution
Hazard Rating (HR), an overall rating which is the
product of TER times HER
Maximum Potential Hazard Rating (MPHR), an
overall rating which is the product of MPER
times HER (produces the highest overall rating score).
Principal among the additional factors are the media
(air, water, land) wherein the hazardous materials might be
transmitted to man and the environment, since the nature of
the effects are dependent upon the nature of the contact between
1-16
-------
the.material and the "host" (e.g., ing'estion, respiration,
surface contact). An important aspect of the media viewpoint
is that it permits direct correlation wdth the disposal media when
the hazardous materials become wastes requiring disposal.
For each hazardous material on the final listing (Chapter
II), air disposal, water disposal, and land disposal were
considered and for each medium, rating values were assigned
which numerically express the level of severity of effects in
three classes:
Human toxicity effects
Flame/explosion effects
Ecological effects.
Table 1-1 below indicates the nine basic factors assigned
rating values.
Table 1-1
Matrix of Factors for Rating the Level of Effects
for the List of Hazardous Substances
Medium
For
Disposal
Air (A)
Water (W)
Soil (S)
Hazard in Terms of Potential Effects
.
Human Populations Eco Populations
Toxic Effects
ATH
WTH
STH
Flame/ Explosion/
Reaction (FH)
APH
WFH
SFH
Toxic Effects
-------
The numerical values assigned to each factor above were
selected on a scale of 1-3, as follows;
3 - Severely hazardous
2 - Slight to moderate hazard
1 - Minimal hazard
U - Effects unknown.
The resultant scores for the nine individual factors were
weighted, then summed to produce the basic rating score, here
termed the Total Effects Rating (TER), which comprises the
"known effects" rating.
In cases where effects are unknown or where data is not
available, a value of three (maximum hazard value) was
assigned to each "U" on the assumption that it would be
desirable to produce conservative final ratings, especially for
materials with a high number of unknowns. Adding these
U-scores to the basic Total Effects Rating produces the
Maximum Potential Effects Rating.
It is recognized that the scale of 1-3 is a narrow band
likely to produce ratings that tend to group many materials
into clusters in the overall rating scale, and that a wider
spread in the relative ratings would be desirable. However,
the limitations noted earlier with respect to knowledge of human
and ecological effects of materials are such that the rating
precision needed for use of a wider scale (e. g. , 1-10), or the
precision that would be implied if a wider scale were imposed,
are not justified by the data available.
A final element that needs to be considered in rating
materials according to hazardous effect is the concept of a
"Hazard Extent Rating, " which reflects the opportunity for the
effects to occur. Many materials exist whose effects are
severe and well-known, but which are neither produced in
large quantities nor are widely distributed; thus, they present
a localized and limited hazard problem, in terms of geographic
area and population affected. Many other materials, however,
whose effects might be lesser on a pound-for-pound basis, can
1-18
-------
pose a much more pervasive hazard'problem if they are produced
in very large quantities, and see widespread distribution and
use throughout the economy. Pursuing this concept, values
were assigned to ranges of production quantities (where production
data is available) and to distribution! the latter indicating the
extent of national distribution.
Table 1-2 provides an example of the rating development.
Table IV-18 (Chapter IV, page IV-25), shows the hazardous
effects ratings for the list of hazardous materials developed in
this study.
(6) Quantification and Location of Hazardous Materials
i
One of the fundamental purposes of this study was to ;
provide information that would be useful in the overall EPA ;
context of identifying materials that might require special '
waste management techniques in disposal because of their
potential hazardous effects, and in the more specific context
of the possible need for a national disposal site system for such
materials. Among the desired results was quantification data
describing the waste quantities and their geographic locations.
The literature search revealed, however, that waste .
quantification for specific materials does not exist. Among
the principal reasons for this situation are:
Historically, there has been no interest or objective
in quantifying waste amounts of specific materials,
with the exception of radioactive wastes, which are
subject to a stringent control system
For certain materials, such as pesticides and
herbicides, the utilization and disposal cycles
were one and the same, but geographic location
data were not recorded
In nearly all waste disposal processes, whether
industrial, governmental, or domestic, materials
being wasted are thrown together and become
streams of mixed wastes
1-19
-------
Table 1-2
Sample Worksheet for Computihg Substance
Hazard Rating
Compound Aluminum Sulfate
Air
Disposal
Water
Disposal
Soil
Disposal
Human toxic effects
Flame / Explosion
Ecoeffects .
Human toxic effects
Flame /Explosion
Ecoeffects
Human toxic effects
Flame /Explosion
Ecoeffects
Initial
Rating
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
U
Weight
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total Effects Rating (Sum of above)
dumber of Unknowns above
Maximum Potential Effects Rating
Production
rating
(unknowns x 3 plus
total effects rating)
Distribution Rating
Hazard Extent Rating (Sum of Production &
„. , „ .. (Total Effects Rating x
Hazard Rating1 _ . , , TT , „ .. v
s Extent of Hazard Rating)
Maximum Potential Hazard Rating
Distribution)
Max. Potential Effects
Rate & Extent of Hazard
Rating)
Final
Rating
3
3
2
2
3
2
U
20
_L
_23_
_J-5
_JL5
2. 0
40
46
1-20
-------
Pre-disposal waste treatment, where employed at
all, has been applied to a- limited number of waste
stream characteristics, father than to character-
istics of specific materials.
t
It follows that without waste quantity data for specific
materials, geographic location cannot be considered. The
impact of the latter two factors above on the hazardous waste
quantification problem cannot be overstated. The difficulties
imposed can be more succinctly observed when it is noted that
mixed waste streams:
Can have hazardous materials as inputs,
Are not analyzed in detail, if at all.
Might be chemically indeterminate, as a result
of unknown reactions,
Might exhibit some, all, or none of the character-
istics of individual input materials, and
Might become hazardous in itself through combina-
tions of nonhazardous input materials.
Investigation of the overall problem of quantifying waste
hazardous materials has to consider the problem of disposing
of such materials in their pure (or relatively pure) form as
well as in waste streams. Many of these materials are created
as (or in) marketable products not meant to be wasted, yet for
various reasons (shelf-life, contamination, etc. ) at some time
become wastes. In such cases, however, someone has to
declare them to be no longer needed and thus ready for disposal.
This waste quantification problem is graphically compared to
the mixed waste problem in Figure 1-1.
In addition to the literature search, attempts were made
through industry associations, federal government agencies,
and individual plants to collect the needed data. Some success
was achieved through the government agencies. The industrial
sector remains a problem area, for reasons discussed
previously in Section (2), yet that sector is the major producer,
user, and distributor of hazardous niaterials.
1-21
-------
FIGURE 1-1
The Hazardous Materials
Wa£te Quantification Problem
RAW
MATERIALS
PRODUCTION
PROCESSES
MIXED
PRODUCTION
WASTES
(B)
FINISHED
PRODUCTS
DISTRIBUTION
QUANTITIES
DECLARED WASTE
AT ANY ONE
TIME OR PLACE
(A)
RANDOM, NON-QUANTIFIABLE
POTENTIALLY QUANTIFIABLE,
WITH WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS
1-22
-------
Lacking factual data, then, th& alternative is to develop
a computation method for estimating waste quantities. This has
been done, but is limited to estimating total waste quantities
for industry types (by SIC code). T&ese estimates were made
by industry types for each of the 50 states and for each of the
50 largest Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA), and
are listed on Tables III-5 and III-6 (Chapter III, pages 111-14
and III-19).
To estimate these total waste quantities, a series of
"waste factors" were calculated (one for each industry type)
which represent the amount of wastes generated per 1, 000
pounds of product (WPPP). Data were then extracted from the
Census of Manufactures which show, for regions, SMSAs, and
states, the production and value added in production by each
industry. These data were reduced to value added per 1, 000
pounds of product (VAPP). Then:
WPPP Ib. waste/1, OOP Ib. product _ pounds waste
VAPP = $ value added/I, 000 Ib. product ~ $
and:
Pounds waste
5 x Total $ value added = Total Ib. waste
Early in the study it was determined that of the 231
SMSAs in the country, the 50 largest account for approximately
60 percent of American industry. The remaining 181 would
account for no more than 20 percent of industry. Thus, the
arbitrary break was made at the top 50. From that point,
total wastes estimates were made on a state basis since all
industry could be accounted for in that manner. Further, in
some states (e. g. , Florida) which have few SMSAs, the bulk
of industries of interest would not be included in the SMSAs
in any event.
With respect to the potential national disposal site system,
the value of approaching the quantification problem by studying
the 50 largest SMSAs is that it demonstrates where the greatest
quantities of wastes are generated which can include hazardous
materials, and therefore indicates the locations that would most
likely need to be served by such disposal sites. The wastes
estimates by industries and states can readily be correlated
1-23
-------
with the hazardous materials information indicating which
industries use which materials. From that point it is not
difficult to identify the locations withiA the states (but outside
of SMSAs) where the more important industries are situated,
and therefore to determine other potential disposal site locations.
The remaining waste quantification problem regarding
hazardous materials is to arrive at some means of determining
what portion of the total wasteloads is composed of hazardous
materials. The lack of such data, particularly in the critical
industrial sectors, however, makes development of any
reasonable estimating method highly improbable, if not impossible.
This stems from the almost universal waste handling practice
of collecting many plant wastes into common streams of mixed
wastes. The problem is especially acute with respect to liquid
wastes and for many solids which are put into solution for
waste handling purposes, since such wastes typically include
the chemical compounds that are among the most hazardous of
materials. A limited amount of information was obtained, ,
however, which provides rough quantification factors indicating
the generation of certain commonly-known (by "trade" names)
waste streams as a function of production. In some cases,
these quantification factors also show typical amounts of specific
hazardous materials contained in those waste streams. Where
such data were available, estimates of total waste stream pro-
duction and estimates of contained hazardous materials were
computed. The results are presented in Table III-7 (Chapter
III, page III-29).
(7) Hazardous Materials Accident Data
In searching the literature for accident data involving
hazardous materials, the objective was to identify sources of
statistical data for:
Accident reports (e.g., frequency, apparent causes,
human factors, effects)
Materials involved in accidents (e. g. , hazardous
material properties, material weights or volumes,
container characteristics)
1-24
-------
Disposal problems (e.g.
effects of quantity;
characteristics of the environment such as meteoro-
logical conditions and terrain features including
soil, vegetation, and drdinage pattern; details of
handling problems such as salvage possibilities
and specific handling instructions).
While some accident data were discovered with respect
to waste materials (and are discussed as part of the industry
descriptions in the appendices), such information is extremely
scarce, and reports or articles are written only when the
accidents are spectacular. Thus, minor accidents or accidents
that may have latent effects, because of the materials involved,
are not routinely reported. Beyond the literature search,
various organizations concerned with safety and accident
prevention (e.g. , National Safety Council, Navy Safety Center)
were contacted, but were unable to shed light on the subject.
It appears that there are no organizations, public or private,
which make a routine practice of collecting and analyzing
accident data involving hazardous materials, with the exception
of transportation interests.
Hazardous materials accidents involving public trans-
portation are reasonably well reported. However, such acci-
dents present no surprises, since the materials involved are
in pure form (as marketed products), and their effects are
known in advance. Therefore, the transportation community
seeks to prevent accidents, and new knowledge rarely, if ever,
evolves from investigation of these accidents.
A full discussion of the situation surrounding hazardous
materials is given in Appendix A-6 through D-2 (Volume III).
(8) Disposal Practices
Disposal practices for hazardous materials are discussed
in detail in Chapter V. These practices involve two important
considerations, depending upon whether the materials are in
pure form or represent some portion of mixed waste streams.
1-25
-------
The only adequate published information describing
disposal methods for hazardous materials in pure form is that
available from the Manufacturing Chejmists Association, and
representative listings are presented in Chapter V (see page
V-77). In the automatic data processing records developed
for this study, the appropriate MCA-recommended disposal
technique is given for each of the hazardous materials on the
final list (Chapter II). These methods can apply whenever the
materials must be disposed of in pure form, in answer to the
finished product question discussed previously in Section (6).
The real, but undefined, problem which remains,
however, is the treatment and disposal of waste streams having
hazardous materials as partial inputs. The common practice
is to analyze waste streams for only a few characteristics,
and to treat the streams based on these results, if the streams
are treated at all, prior to disposal. Since the mixed wastes
are not analyzed in detail, little or nothing is known about
what actually happens, in terms of reactions and the resultant
detailed characteristics of the waste streams. It follows that
knowledge does not exist which can reveal the possible hazardous
nature of the wastes discharged after treatment. The prepon-
derant media used to dispose of wastes are landfill and discharge
to surface waters (rivers, lakes, oceans), and the medium
selected is based on economics rather than on environmental
protection.
A final objective of the study was to determine the extent
to which manufacturers of hazardous materials provide disposal
instructions as a part of package labeling. The literature
search and discussions with industry sources both revealed that
disposal instructions are not made a part of labeling practice.
Further, the consensus among manufacturers is that such
instructions should not be put on labels, for the reason that
many handlers or users are not knowledgeable enough concerning
the nature of the materials, can too easily misinterpret the
instructions, and cause serious harm to themselves and others.
For these reasons, the manufacturers, particularly the
chemical companies, prefer that users return hazardous mater-
ials for disposal. For many years, these manufacturers have
provided the return service with regular points of contact
identified to the users. Recently, in a cooperative effort among
1-26
-------
the chemical firms and the Manufacturing Chemists Association,
the materials return services have;been placed under the
jurisdiction of MCA, with a "hot lirie" established so that quick
response can be made to special problems.
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) Principal Conclusions
Key conclusions resulting from this study include:
At present a comprehensive body of knowledge
which describes the hazardous effects of most
substances does not exist.
Little evidence was obtained to indicate that current
disposal methods are creating a human health
hazard. Environmental damage is more likely to
occur than are health hazards to humans.
A review of disposal processes established the
existence of a variety of useful technology, and
more importantly, the fact that much of the
technology is not widely used.
The development of a list of hazardous substances
is not equivalent to the development of a list of
hazardous wastes because of the many unknowns
with respect to industrial mixed waste streams.
Wastes to be hazardous must contain one or more
hazardous substance in sufficient concentration
to be detrimental to human health or other elements
of the ecological system.
Accurate characterization of waste streams is
essential to the evaluation of hazard potential and
the design of waste treatment to abate such hazards.
1-27
-------
Disposal of hazardous materials is best handled
at the point where the hazardous material is
produced (process) or released (plant).
These conclusions are presented in greater detail in Chapter VII.
(2) Recommendations
The principal recommendations resulting from this study
are:
A national control system is needed and should be
developed for designated hazardous materials and
wastes. The control system should include:
Identification of critical waste processes
or products
Licensing of production and disposal processes
Specification of handling and treatment methods
Inspection for conformance
Prescriptions for labeling of warnings and
disposal methods
Designation of collection points for specific
waste categories requiring special handling
Licensing of contractors for disposal or
recycling
Designation of ultimate disposal methods
Development of implementation plan.
Special disposal sites should be designated or
developed only if needed in the context of a
comprehensive hazardous waste control system.
1-28
-------
Packaged hazardous cdnsumer products should be
controlled throughout their distribution cycle, and
residential containers collected for reuse or
approved disposal.
Indepth studies should be made of a selected
number, say 10 to 15, of hazardous materials based
on highest production quantities and widest distri-
bution.
The recommended studies should include investi-
gation of production, distribution, and disposal
patterns for the selected materials.
A major research effort should be implemented
toward the specific task of identifying the hazardous
effects of various materials. This research effort
should give major consideration to long-term
(chronic) effects.
An extensive set of criteria needs to be developed
for defining hazardous materials, including
hazardous wastes.
Extensive research is needed for determination of
the composition of industrial waste streams.
Waste treatment research is needed to establish
the feasibility of separating certain hazardous
compounds from general waste streams (e.g.,
heavy metal wastes, phenols).
1-29
-------
II. IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS
Fundamental to the development of a plan which will recommend
ways to handle and dispose of wastes involving hazardous materials is
the development of an extensive list of materials, compounds, or
products which require special handling techniques. A hazardous
substance list should take into account all important characteristics
of substances which could cause them to be or to become hazardous.
The hazard consideration should include not only people but also all
ecological subsystems which contribute to environmental balances.
The list should include hazards that may develop in all disposal media
(i. e., air, water, or soil). From such a list it will be possible to
develop insight into the total problem and to recommend preliminary
approaches for handling the wide variety of hazardous wastes which
are generated.
At present, a list of hazardous substances (for waste management
purposes) that would be all inclusive cannot be developed because of the
state of knowledge limitations in many of the hazardous waste material
areas. In particular, the potential range of adverse effects that may
be produced by hazardous wastes on a variety of receptors (which include
humans, animals and plants) is not fully known. It is imperative,
however, that any tentative list be as representative as possible of
the real world situation.
The analytical approach followed in this study for the development
of a hazardous substance list includes:
Literature surveys of waste disposal techniques, the
associated wastes, and previously published lists of
hazardous materials
Direct interviews with persons having knowledge of current
waste problems and procedures
II-1
-------
Identification of hazardous materikl manufacture and use
by industrial sectors.
Definition of hazardous materials remains a problem. Initially,
for the purposes of this study, hazardous wastes were defined as
follows:
"Hazardous waste materials are defined as those materials or
combinations of materials which require special management
techniques because of their acute or chronic effects on the health
or welfare of the public (or those individuals who handle them
when they are disposed of by waste management processes
(e. g., storage, transport, incineration, sanitary landfilling,
composting, dumping, industrial waste treatment)). "
Although necessarily imprecise, this general definition will serve to
outline the complexity of the problem of management of chemical
wastes in that these will almost always, by definition, contain some
materials which may, as are, or under conditions of waste management,
become injurious to public health and public welfare. This can best
be understood by examination of the concept "hazardous waste" and
of the definition given earlier.
The use of the adjective hazardous, defined as "left to chance"
implies that there are liabilities, potential problems, or risk
probabilities in the operation which is being described; in this case,
waste management. All chemical wastes have some hazard (some
risk probability) of becoming dangerous on disposal. These may vary
from minimal dangers such as salt dumping at sea, which damages
osmotic pressure of the microenvironment, with possible liabilities
on local life, to such indescribable potential problems as disposal of
nitrite dumping which may interact with other chemical species to
form nitrosamines (known carcinogenic) which may finally appear in
drinking water, to such clearly defined problems as mercury or acid
dumping. The problem is the characterization of the "hazard potential"
and the subsequent selection of some point below which the potential
is so minimal as to be arbitrarily defined as negligible. Then, only
those wastes which have hazard potentials above this point could be
considered as candidates for special handling, treatment and disposal.
Obviously, the characterization of "hazard potential" is based
on a number of factors, which can be arbitrarily assigned some
importance.
II-2
-------
(1) Route of Disposal
Some materials will vary in hazard based on the final
disposition. Readily biodegradable toxic or otherwise unwanted
materials from which no dangerous spfecies of chemicals can be
produced will be nonhazardous if put into an efficient sewage
treatment plant, but highly suspect if disposed of at sea or in a
watercourse, or by some technique through which the original
materials can appear in ground or drinking water. Biodegradable
surfactants are examples of this type of material; For the
purposes of this report, this factor has been minimized, assuming
that the basic unchanged character is the point of focus and not
the potential deactivation in special treatment situations.
(2) Mammalian Toxicity
Obviously, this is a key factor in consideration of hazard
potential. Basically toxic materials such as cyanide, heavy
metals, fluorides, radioactive wastes, etc., must be considered
as hazardous. These can affect all forms of life in the disposal
process or in the ultimate disposal media. Again, arbitrary
assignments can be made on the basis of current knowledge of
toxicity. Those materials which are defined in law (The Federal
Hazardous Substances Act, The Hazardous Materials Board of
the Department of Transportation) as very toxic (oral toxicity to
rats, LD5Q of 50 mg per kg or less) or highly toxic (LDso of 50
to 500 mg per kg) should be considered dangerous. Waste stre
which contain such materials, regardless of concentration,
should also be labeled "hazardous. "
(3) Non-Mammalian Toxicity
This is a much less clear concept, since less is known
about effects of materials on fish, birds, etc. Nevertheless,
some factor such as that given above for the mammals is needed.
(4) Chemical and Biochemical Change
Prior to this decade, the scientific community did not
recognize secondary hazard liability where materials can undergo
chemical or free radical changes in thk environment, or under
II-3
-------
special microenvironmental conditions,.t to become species which
have greater hazard liability. Now thede changes are commonly
recognized; for example, the mercury conversion to methyl
mercury, the photo-oxidation of hydrocarbons, or the anaerobic
conversion of nitrilotriacetate to nitrosamines. Where such
change can occur, then, the waste must be considered as
hazardous and processed to remove the potentially labile species.
(5) Imbalances
Some materials, phosphates may well be the most readily
recognized offender at present, may cause imbalances when
added to the microenvironment. These imbalances may result
in changes in the food chain of a waterway, the economic value
of the ultimate disposal site, or the health value of land or water.
For example, disposal of large amounts of sodium ion into a
watercourse, resulting in its appearance in a drinking water
system, could cause a change in the propensity of the consuming
population for cardiovascular disease. Thus, imbalance too
should be considered.
For the purposes of this study, the tendency has been to
ignore this problem, as has the question of route of disposal.
Where the material classified as waste is neither inherently
toxic nor dangerous, imbalance alone is not a factor in causing
assignment of a hazardous rating.
(6) Miscellaneous Factors
Occasionally, it must be recognized that materials can be
offensive because of their non-biological effects. Materials
can be visualized which cause structural degradation, offensive
but not injurious odors, unsightly accumulation, etc. For the
purpose of this analysis, these were also not termed "hazardous"
despite the fact that improved disposal practice may benefit the
public good.
In summary, materials have been defined as hazardous if they
have the known inherent ability to produce:
II-4
-------
Toxic effects on mammalian species (whether lethal or
only damaging)
Damaging or lethal effects on noh-mammalian systems
Some significant undesirable change in man, such as
carcinogens, teratogens, or mutagens.
2. APPROACH TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IDENTIFICATION
The approach outlined in the preceding section was implemented
for the study. An extensive literature search was conducted which
included both manual and computer screening of pertinent literature
sources to identify useful references (see pages I- 4 to I- 7 ). While
the literature search covered all aspects of information applicable to
the study, simultaneously, emphasis was placed on identification of
hazardous materials, since all other aspects (e. g., handling, treat-
ment, disposal) had to be related to the materials. It should be noted
that no preconceived notions were held as to what materials might be
hazardous. Rather, any materials that were identified were initially
listed, then cross-checked through references describing hazardous
properties of materials to determine whether they should remain on
the list.
As the literature was reviewed, it became apparent that certain
industry types constitute the principal manufacturers and users of
potentially hazardous materials, and experienced many environmental
pollution problems. Therefore, it was determined that the collected
information could be handled most systematically if it were categorized
according to industry groups. To complement the industry group
identification indicated by the literature, reference was made to a
listing entitled "Major Sources of Pollution, " which was developed
during 1967-1968 by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
That list covers the top 50 pollution sources (from the viewpoint of water
use), and includes natural and nonindustrial sources. In addition, the
list presents a priority ranking indicating the relative severity of the
pollution problems created by the sources named. The list is
reproduced in Table II-1.
Comparisons were made between the industries listed by Table II-1
and the industry-type identities indicated through the literature search,
and a list of industry groups was developed for use in categorizing
II-5
-------
Table II-1
Major Sources of Pollution
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Source
Pulp & paper industry
Municipal sewered waste
Power (thermal) production
Agriculture runoff
Storm & combined sewers
Food processing industry
Petrochemical industry
Irrigation return flow
Petroleum refining industry
Feed lots
Metal & metal products industry
Unsewered domestic waste
Marine
Dredging
Oil pollution & production
Organic chemical industry
Acid Mines
Impoundments
Recreation boats
Unsewered urban runoff
Textile industry
Inorganic chemical industry
Commercial vessels
Construction activities
Potato processing
Priority
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
14
14
15
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
PPBS Category
1204
1101
1203
1302
1102
1103
1206
1202
1303
1205
1304
1201
1105
1501
1507
1402
1202
1401
1504
1501
1104
1209
1202
1502
1503
1206
II-6
-------
No.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Table II- 1
(Continued)
Source
Pharmaceutical manufacture
Pesticide industry
Saltwater intrusion
Phosphate mining '
Logging
Milk products & handling
Fertilizer manufacture
Fish processing industry
Lumbering
Mining
Coal processing
Strip mining (coal, sand & gravel)
Uranium" mining
Meat packing
Natural pollution
Canning industry
Sugar beet industry
Cattle industry
Brines
Copper mining
Log storage
Agricultural chemical production
Tanning & leather industry
Nuclear installations
Brewery wastes
Priority
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
36
37
37
37
38
39
39
40
41
41
42
-
PPBS Category
1202
1202
1505
1404
1301
1206
1202
1206
1210
1404
1205
1404
1403
1206
1506
1206
1206
1304
1212
1404
1210
1202
1212
1212
1206
f Developed 1967-1968 By Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
II-7
-------
the study information (Table II-2). These industries are identified by
their Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) bode numbers. A distinct
advantage of this approach is its use of geographically locating (through
reference to the Census of Manufactures) the major hazardous material
use-points, and consequently the location of potentially hazardous
wastes. The industry group list was also supplemented by identity of
federal government agencies most concerned with the manufacture and
use of hazardous materials, and with the category of power utilities.
The SIC code listing of Table II-2 breaks down to the four-digit
codes where the industry group identification becomes more specific
than is indicated by the two-digit general codes, and it was to the four-
digit level that the initial literature search was directed. However, the
extent and quality of information available proved to be so limited that,
with a few exceptions, the more realistic approach was to utilize the
two-digit codes for aggregating and reporting purposes.
As the industry groups were identified, the more prominent
trade associations representing each industry were also identified.
Contacts were made with 20 such associations (Table II-3) to determine
whether they were publishing any materials involving wastes, waste
disposal, or hazardous materials data. There were a few notable
exceptions, but, as a rule, these groups were unable to provide assis-
tance. Many have undertaken either no specific technical work or have
only recently become involved in technical matters related to the environ-
mental pollution problems of their member firms. Those able to provide
information were the larger and more technically oriented groups
(e. g., American Petroleum Institute). A limited number of visits
were made to industrial plants since the study program did not envision
an extensive survey effort, but little factual information was gained
from these sources. A survey was made among nine hospitals in the
New York-New Jersey area, and the results are reported in Appendix A-11
but little worthwhile information was gained with respect to
pathological and other potentially hazardous materials as wastes.
Key findings of these early discussions and data collections
included the following:
Detailed information on the composition of industrial
waste streams could be located for only a few representative
industries or single processes within an industry.
II-8
-------
Table II-2
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Used
for Information Categorization
SIC Code and Title
10
Metal Mining
11
Anthracite Mining
12
Bituminous Coal and Lignite Mining
20 Food and Kindred Products
2011 Meat Packing Plants
2013 Sausages and Other Prepared Meats
2015 Poultry Dressing Plants
2021 Creamery Butter
2022 Cheese, Natural and Processed
2023 Condensed and Evaporated Milk
2024 Ice Cream and Frozen Desserts
2026 Fluid Milk
2031 Canned and Cured Seafoods
2032 Canned Specialties
2033 Canned Fruits and Vegetables
2034 Dehydrated Food Products
2035 Pickles, Sauces and Salad Dressings
2036 Fresh or Frozen Packaged Fish
2037 Frozen Fruits and Vegetables
2041 Flour and Other Grain Mill Products
2042 Prepared Feeds for Animals and Fowl
2043 Cereal Preparations
2044 Rice Milling
2045 Blended and Prepared Flour
2046 Wet Corn Milling
2061 Raw Cane Sugar
2062 Cane Sugar Refining
2063 Beet Sugar
2071 Confectionery Products
II-9
-------
Table II-2
(Continued)
2072 Chocolate and Cocoa Products
2073 Chewing Gum
2082 Malt Liquors
2083 Malt
2084 Wines, Brandy and Brandy Spirits
2085 Distilled Liquor, Except Brandy
2086 Bottled and Canned Soft Drinks
2087 Flavoring Extracts and Syrups, N. E. C. *
2091 Cottonseed Oil Mills
2092 Soybean Oil Mills
2093 Vegetable Oil Mills, N. E. C. *
2094 Animal and Marine Fats and Oils
2096 Shortening and Cooking Oils
2095 Roasted Coffee
2097 Manufactured Ice
2098 Macaroni and Spaghetti
2099 Food Preparations, N. E. C. *
22 Textile Mill Products
2211 Weaving Mills, Cotton
2221 Weaving Mills, Synthetics
2231 Weaving and Finishing Mills, Wool
2241 Narrow Fabric Mills
2251 Women's Hosiery, Except Socks
2252 Hosiery, N. E. C.
2253 Knit Outerwear Mills
2254 Knit Underwear Mills
2256 Knit Fabric Mills
2259 Knitting Mills, N. E. C. *
2261 Finishing Plants, Cotton
2262 Finishing Plants, Synthetics
Not Elsewhere Classified
11-10
-------
Table II-2
(Continued)
2269 Finishing Plants, N. E. C. *
2271 Woven Carpets and Rugs
2272 Tufted Carpets and Rugs
2279 Carpets and Rugs, ~N. E. C. *
2281 Yarn Mills, Except Wool
2282 Throwing and Winding Mills
2283 Wool Yarn Mills
2284 Thread Mills
2291 Felt Goods, N. E. C. *
2292 Lace Goods
2293 Paddings and Upholstery Filling
2294 Processed Textile Waste
2295 Coated Fabrics, Not Rubberized
2296 Tire Cord and Fabric
2297 Scouring and Combing Plants
2298 Cordage and Twine
2299 Textile Goods, N.E.C. *
26 Paper and Allied Products
2611 Pulp Mills
2621 Paper Mills, Except Building Paper
2631 Paperboard Mills
2661 Building Paper and Board Mills
28 Chemicals and Allied Products
2812 Alkalies and Chlorine
2813 Industrial Gases
2815 Cyclic Intermediates and Crudes
2816 Inorganic Pigments
Not Elsewhere Classified
11-11
-------
Table II-2
(Continued)
2818 Industrial Organic Chemicals, NJ E. C. *
2819 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, fr. E. C.
2821 Plastics Materials and Resins
2822 Synthetic Rubber
2823 Cellulosic Manmade Fibers
2824 Organic Fibers, Noncellulosic
2831 Biological Products
2833 Medicinals and Botanicals
2834 Pharmaceutical Preparations
2841 Soap and Other Detergents
2842 Polishes and Sanitation Goods
2851 Paints and Allied Products
2861 Gum and Wood Chemicals
2871 Fertilizers
2872 Fertilizers, Mixing Only
2879 Agricultural Chemicals, N. E. C. *
2892 Explosives
2895 Carbon Black
29 Petroleum and Coal Products
2911 Petroleum Refining
2951 Paring Mixtures and Blocks
2952 Asphalt Felts and Coatings
2992 Lubricating Oils and Greases
2999 Petroleum and Coal Products, N. E. C. *
31 Leather and Leather Products
3111 Leather Tanning and Finishing
3121 Industrial Leather Belting
3131 Footwear Cut Stock
Not Elsewhere Classified
11-12
-------
Table II-2
(Continued)
33 Primary Metal Industries
3312 Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills
3313 Electrometallurgical Products
3315 Steel Wire and Related Products
3316 Cold Finishing of Steel Shapes
3317 Steel Pipe and Tubes
3321 Gray Iron Foundries
3322 Malleable Iron Foundries
3323 Steel Foundries
3331 Primary Copper
3332 Primary Lead
3333 Primary Zinc
3334 Primary Aluminum
3339 Primary Nonferrous Metals, N. E. C. *
3341 Secondary Nonferrous Metals
3351 Copper Rolling and Drawing
3352 Aluminum Rolling and Drawing
3356 Nonferrous Rolling and Drawing, N. E. C. *
3357 Nonferrous Wire Drawing and Insulating
3361 Aluminum Castings
3362 Brass, Bronze and Copper Castings
3369 Nonferrous Castings, N. E. C. *
3391 Iron and Steel Forgings
3392 Nonferrous Forgings
3399 Primary Metal Products, N. E. C. *
34
3471
3479
Fabricated Metal Products
Plating and Polishing
Metal Coating and Allied Services
Not Elsewhere Classified
11-13
-------
Table II-2
(Continued)
80 Medical and Other Health Services
806 Hospitals
Atomic Energy Commission
Department of Defense
Power Utilities
Source: Standard Industrial Classification Manual, Executive
Office of the President, Office of Statistical Standards,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.
11-14
-------
Table II-3
Trade Associations Contacted
1. Technical Association of Pulp & Paper
1 Dun woody Park
Atlanta, Georgia 30341
2. American Electroplaters Society
56 Melmore Gardens
East Orange, New Jersey 07017
3. American Association of Textile Chemists & Colorists
Box 12215
Research Triangle, North Carolina 27709
4. American Textile Manufacturing Association
Charlotte, North Carolina
5. American Paper Institute
260 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
6. National Association of Metal Finishers
248 Lorain Avenue
Upper Montclair, New Jersey
7. Institute of Makers of Explosives
420 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
8. Manufacturing Chemists Association
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20009
9. American Petroleum Institute
1801 K Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
10. National Agricultural Chemicals Association
1155-15th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
11-15
-------
Table II-3
(Continued)
11. Fertilizer Institute
1015-18th Street
Washington, D. C.
12. Sulfur Institute
1725 K Street
Washington, D. C.
13. National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association
1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
14. National Petroleum Refiners Association
1725 DeSales Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
15. American Petroleum Refiners Association
717 Ring Building
Washington, D. C. 20036
16. American Chemical Society
1155-16th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
17. U.S. Can Sugar Refiners Association
1001 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
18. American Pharmaceutical Association
2215 Constitution Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
19. National Pharmaceutical Council
1030-15th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
20. National Solid Waste Management Association
1145 - 19th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
11-16
-------
The large masses of data needed to provide definitive
information on specific, hazardous constitutents of industrial
waste streams and waste piles Was not available except
as indicated previously.
With definitive information on waste hazard characteristics
and amounts lacking, the list of potentially hazardous waste
materials must rely for definition upon certain limited,
commonly-measured properties of waste such as acidity
or alkalinity, biological oxygen demand (BOD), odors,
radioactivity, etc.
A substantial amount of useful information does exist
relative to the toxic effects and explosive characteristics
of many chemical elements and compounds (i. e., basic
data not related directly to industrial products or industrial
waste streams).
From the above findings, it was concluded that the development
of a list of hazardous waste substances should proceed along two main
lines. As originally planned, data relative to a list of waste materials
was assembled by industry through detailed analysis of selected
industrial sectors as defined by the Standard Industrial Classification
Code (Reference 1). These lists included not only materials found in
waste streams, but also materials believed to be hazardous and found
as input materials (materials included in product process cycling),
and materials included as products whether they were intermediate
products or final products for consumer distribution and use.
It was expected (and confirmed) that the lists of potentially
hazardous materials developed from industry references would include
the identification of many materials or substances in generic or
collective terms such as "solvents, " "slimes, " "oxidizers, " etc.
Specific chemical compounds or elements embraced by the generic
categories were defined, to the extent possible, for each industry and/
or by commonly employed industrial processes within each industry.
Simultaneously, a more basic list of known hazardous substances
was compiled. The basic list evolved from data and information
extracted from detailed study. These reports and references include
biological data that resulted from experimental or accidental animal and
plant exposures to various substances suspected of being toxic,
explosive or otherwise hazardous to human and/or other forms of life.
11-17
-------
Among the information assembled were also a number of reports
which included lists of materials and compounds deemed hazardous for
a variety of reasons, depending upon the purpose of each study (or
mission of each group) that developed such a list. Many of the chemical
substances included on these individual lists appeared on several of
the lists, lending credence to the claims that rthey comprise a hazard.
Substances included on more than one list were identified and became
part of a nucleus to which other substances, identified as hazardous
elsewhere in the literature, were added to complete the second, more
basic, list of hazardous substances.
The dual approach, then, for the development of a list of
hazardous materials was to assemble lists of hazardous materials
based on industry references by specific chemical elements, compounds
and substances, and concurrently review existing lists of hazardous
materials prepared by major associations and government agencies
(see Table II-4, page II-2b). Relationships needed to be determined
among the lists to establish the extent of hazard that prevails as a
result of hazardous materials and wastes involved in industrial
processes. Such relationships were to be established to the extent
possible at available bridging points; that is, those industries and
specific industrial processes for which representative or typical
composition of product and waste materials have been made available.
Accordingly, emphasis was placed on establishing a compre-
hensive list of materials which require special handling and disposal,
and on establishing techniques which would identify hazardous waste
streams and the disposal processes they require. Additional data on
disposal practices were gathered in terms of current industrial prac-
tices and available guidelines. Data were also collected on industrial
production and consumption quantities. These latter data were
developed further to provide a measure of the movement and
geographical distribution of potentially hazardous materials which may:
Be used in the closed production cycle of a single industrial
plant
Be produced as an intermediate product by one type of
industrial plant for use as input material for other industries
Be produced as part of a variety df consumer-type products
which move freely in commerce oh a nationwide (or even
global) scale.
11-18
-------
By viewing patterns for the production and flow of materials
known to be relatively hazardous (i. e., the basic list), it is possible
to make some preliminary estimates of the .magnitude and extent of
corresponding hazard and disposal problems. The details of the
development of the list of hazardous substances are documented in
Section 5 (page 11-24). All of the above described data and information
became input to the development of a system for rating the individual
items included on the list of hazardous substances. The development
of this rating system is described in Chapter IV.
3. OCCURRENCE OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
Hazardous wastes involve materials discarded because they are
either unneeded or unwanted, but which can have toxic effects on man
or his environment in adequate controls are not exercised throughout
their life-cycles, from initial extraction or production until final
disposition. The concept of adequate control (management) of such
materials is fundamental to an evaluation of hazardous materials
disposal practices. The places and times when control over material
passes from one responsible group to another are likely to be danger
areas in this control system.
Each material which enters the economic system has a 'life
style1 of its own. Some are relatively simple; others may be quite
complex. Coal, for example, may be extracted and consumed
immediately in a local stove, or, it may be shipped to a major industrial
site to initiate the production of a series of complex chemical compounds.
At each stage in conversion processes, the possibility of hazardous
wastes arises. Typically, control over potential hazards will be
greatest when ownership interests are involved, and least when no
ownership interest exists. The conversion of the material from one
form to another also increases risks and requires close controls.
Toxic materials may be produced where formerly no toxicity existed.
These materials may be either main products, by-products, or waste
materials with potentially significant environmental effects.
Hazardous waste materials occur in two general forms:
Hazardous materials in the form of finished products,
which are declared by the owner to have no further value
and thus ready for disposal
11-19
-------
Hazardous materials which are generated as wastes from
production or use processes, and immediately enter the
disposal process.
The first type comprise materials whode characteristics and
properties are known, and whose hazardous dffects are known to some
extent. Since they are originally manufactured as valuable, marketable
products, and since they may pass through several ownerships during
their lives, the time or place at which they may be declared waste is
both unknown and unpredictable. Therefore, to protect man and the
environment from adverse effects of careless disposal practice, a
system of control is needed through which owners are continuously held
accountable for the status of the materials.
The more pressing problem of hazardous wastes occurs as a
result of production and use processes, since materials are represented
which are generated routinely and continuously as wastes, are
immediately ready for disposal, and are usually disposed of quickly.
Production process wastes, with the exception of off-spec products,
very seldom consist of pure materials and since they are wastes, are
usually thrown together into mixed wastes. The properties of the input
materials to mixed waste streams may be known, but very little is
known, as a rule, of the hazardous properties of the waste stream,
because detailed analyses of these streams are not made. Thus, the
mixed v-, aste stream might:
Exhibit some or all of the characteristics of certain of its
constituents
Produce chemical reactions which are unknown and
indeterminate
Create, in the mixture, hazardous conditions greater than
those attributable to any of its constituents
Nullify, in the mixture, hazardous properties of any or all
of the constituents-
The fact that knowledge of these factors is not available contri-
butes the greatest threat to the ecology today, since these mixed wastes
are a daily fact-of-life, yet cannot be properly included in a list of
hazardous materials since nearly nothing definitive is known about
them.
11-20
-------
The most toxic materials can be, anq routinely are. safely
controlled throughout their life cycles. Industry and government
continuously produce, utilize and dispose of extremely toxic materials.
Where the dangers are recognized and controls carefully engineered
and operated, no hazardous conditions arise. The materials may
present hazards if uncontrolled, but the controls applied assure that
the occurrence of hazards is minimized.
The numbers of existing compounds that can have toxic effects
on man or his environment are in the tens of thousands. New
compounds are being developed daily. The knowledge we have of the
ultimate toxic properties of present compounds is quite limited, and
new compounds are likely to be developed more rapidly than are our
.capabilities to unravel their short- and long-term toxicities. Establish-
ment of an ultimate list of compounds for designation as either
hazardous materials or hazardous wastes is foredoomed. By the time
the hazardous effects of the included compounds can be made known,
the list will be outdated. This is particularly true in the consideration
of chronic (long-term) effects, where the time required to ascertain
the effects is measured in years, and frequently the materials are no
longer produced or used by the time the results are known. The
economic aspects of this situation have retarded chronic effects
research, since even the most concerned parties are unwilling to
commit the necessary resources to research in so uncertain a situation.
Any selection and listing of hazardous materials, then, must be
viewed as a useful sample from the universe of toxic materials, which
can be utilized to evaluate existing management techniques (capabilities
and limitations), and to assist in the development of management
systems which will ensure better control over similar materials. It
is in this context that the list of hazardous materials developed in this
study should be viewed and utilized.
The investigations conducted during this study have explored
both the toxic challenges to the environment which exist and the means
now in use to control and safely dispose of materials having dangerous
properties. As the study progressed and the concept of adequate
controls assumed more significance, greater importance came to be
attached to the capabilities of treatment and disposal systems to control
hazards, than to the capabilities of the materials to create hazards.
The best techniques and combinations of techniques now available can
provide a means to devise a national control system over hazardous
materials which will ensure safe handling throughout their life cycles,
and safe disposition when their economic utility has been exhausted.
11-21
-------
An additional problem exists that has significance to the way in
which hazardous wastes are treated and disposed of—the problem of
attitudes on the part of individuals. As discussions were held with
representatives of industry and government, it,quickly became apparent
that many individuals are daily handling and disposing .of hazardous
materials (e. g. , acids, caustics, pesticides), but who will flatly state
that they are not involved with hazardous materials. Part of this prob-
lem stems from close familiarity with the materials handled, but the
lack of clear-cut definition of hazardous materials contributes signifi-
cantly to the problem.
4. ANALYTICAL PROBLEMS
Despite the apparent straightforward analytical approach, a
number of analytical problems prevail that require attention. The
definition provided initially by the EPA implies that the state-of-the-
art includes quantitative measures of health or welfare effects caused
by human exposures to hazardous wastes. However, relatively few
of the many substances considered as potential toxic pollutants of
the environment have been studied sufficiently to permit full definition
of concentration and effects relationships, which may vary consider-
ably as a result of numerous factors. In a limited number of cases,
data are adequate to define the full spectrum of effects that may be
obtained. In many instances, however, the effects criteria in common
use are educated guesses at best. Many of the effluents of industrial
society, while not specifically hazardous to humans or other populations,
can exert slow but extensive changes to the ecology. Materials which
have no discovered effect on man or his environment may impose
unrecognized, subtle effects which can irreversibly disturb the genetic
patterns of man or other living specie.
For such reasons, the identification and quantification of specific
hazardous materials should be approached most cautiously. What is
not known about material toxicology is immense. The proliferation of
organic and inorganic compounds may exceed the capability of man to
rigorously identify the hazards associated with each. As stated in the
1969 American Chemical Society Annual Report:
"Several problem areas emerge as explicit themes in this report.
One such theme is the primitive conditions of our fundamental
knowledge of how living things are affected .by long-time, low-level
exposure to pollutants. Partly related to this theme is a second,
11-22
-------
the even more primitive condition of ouf^ knowledge of the effects
of pollutants on the ecology, that is on the aggregate of living
things as they exist in nature. The relationship of contaminants
to the ecology is very nearly a total mystery. A third theme is
the analytical methods that are used to thonitor, control and study
the environment and related phenomena. Those methods generally
are not as good as they ought to be. "
Not all hazardous effects are toxic. Some materials may cause
biological effects (disease or illness), and an area of important consi-
deration results from'the flammable and explosive potential of some
compounds (see References 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 at the end of this chapter).
Other materials are capable of violent self-reaction or reaction with
other compounds, including moisture or water (References 7, 8).
Not all effects resulting from hazardous substances, particularly
as wastes, are direct and immediate. The fact that toxic substances
may persist and accumulate in several echelons of the food chain leading
eventually to humans is an example of the indirect, long-term implica-
tions of hazardous materials. There is also a growing concern that
certain chemical wastes (e. g., some pesticides) may persist for periods
of time that permit them to become entrained in the water cycle to
reach surface or subsurface ground water and thus contaminate clean
water supplies (References 9, 10, 11).
Better understanding and growing concern for all ecological
populations comprising the total environment have introduced additional
factors that must be considered in developing a list of hazardous sub-
stances. For example, substances which would not be directly damaging
to particular plant or animal species may nevertheless produce dele-
terious effects on related forms of life which comprise their food
supply or their pr editor/competitor relationships. Thus, the balance
of nature, achieved through long-term natural selection processes,
can be upset and undesirable consequences result.
As substance or material may produce nontoxic effects from
acute exposures (i. e., exposures of relatively large concentrations or
doses over short time periods), but may produce serious effects from
chronic exposures (i. e., exposures involving low concentration or
dose levels over extended periods of time) (References 7, 9). Relatively
good data have been obtained concerning acute exposures of humans as
a result of reconstruction of industrial or other accident situations,
but amounts and detail of such data are limited (Reference 12). Chronic
11-23
-------
exposure data on humans is more difficult to obtain because of the
longer time periods involved and the difficulty df linking long-term
deleterious effects definitively to a specific hazardous compound.
Extrapolations from experimental animal data tb estimates of human
effects have been considered acceptable (with some reservations) for
short-term acute or chronic exposures (i. e., days to, perhaps, weeks).
But, longer-term animal exposures are not compatible with long-term
human exposures and effects (i. e.,. order of years).
The difficulty of identifying hazardous waste substances is
aggravated further by the wide spectrum of industrial and commercial
activity that occurs. Consequently, waste effluents which may be
discharged to the air, water, or the land, vary from municipal sewage
and large amounts of ordinary household solid or liquid wastes to
complex industrial mixtures containing an array of organic and inorganic
compounds and drugs. The composition of these effluents cannot be
predicted with certainty because of the variations of industrial produc-
tion processes and the great diversity of products that are produced
during any given period.
Thus, in partial summary, the analytical problems that evolve
in developing a list of hazardous substances include the need for:
Definitions of exposure concentration or dose levels
and corresponding acute and chronic exposure effects
Knowledge of subtle effects that occur, such as those
caused by persistent toxic compounds
Knowledge concerning the complex nature of effluent mix-
tures found in waste streams and in waste disposal processes
Data on the complex composition and scheduling of industry
which produces the wide spectrum of potentially hazardous
products as well as by-products;
5. PREPARATION OF LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The basic list of hazardous substances, which was developed
independently of the industrial sector analyses, evolved primarily from
seven lists of hazardous materials which have been developed separately
by interested government agencies or industrial associations. Pertinent
11-24
-------
information on derivation of each of the sevdn lists is provided in
Table II-4. The reports themselves are included among the list of
references (see References 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18).
Each of the lists summarized in Table II-4 was prepared by a
different organization. Each list includes a particular set of criteria
which provides a hazard profile for each substance on the list. As
evident in the table, the criteria are not consistent from list to list,
but a substantial amount of information concerning hazardous effects
and/or characteristics is provided for each substance or compound of
each list. Where the same substance appears on several lists, the
total amount of information made available is quite large and is
useful for identification and relative rating of hazardous substances.
The preparation of each list of hazardous materials (Table II-4)
by its authors could be considered as an effort to select and list those
materials of particular impact on the mission of the publishing
organization and thus includes some subjective judgments. The
development of each list, however, represented a research and analysis
effort involving masses of information and data which are worthy of
incorporation into the current study. Accordingly, the lists were
compared on an item by item basis to draw a basic list of a manageable
number of substances. Only compounds found on two or more lists
were included in an initial selection (see Appendix B for comparison of
current, hazardous compounds lists). A further screening and reduction
was desirable to reduce the list for ease of handling. This reduction
was accomplished by introducing production amounts as an added
criterion of relative hazard to the ecology and to the human population.
The matrix shown in Table II-5 presents the production criteria
and the rationale for selecting compounds from other lists of hazardous
material. These criteria were used for the second screening of the
preliminary list of 900 hazardous substances. As a result of this
screening, the initial list was reduced to approximately 400 chemical
compounds.
Subsequently, additions were made to the basic list to bring its
total to approximately 500 chemical substances or compounds.
These additions were made singly or by small groups. All were
derived from study of the texts, reports, bulletins, etc., which were
gathered during the information and data search phases of the study.
For example, a series of 27 reports summarize 30 basic substances
11-25
-------
to
O3
Title and Agency (Date)
C'ritt-rh for Selection of Elements and Compounds
to be designated as Hazardous Polluting Substances
E.P.A. Office of Water Programs, (1971)
Control of Splil.-tc of Hazardous Polluting Substances
!'OT P.C.A.. Department of Interior, (1970)
Oar.f.cious Chemicals Code
Lor Angeles Fire Department
Laboratory Waste Disposal Manual
Manufacturing Oicniists Assn. (1970)
OccuwrtiwKri-So^v-af^He^th Standards
National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health (1971)
Evaluation ol' the Hazard of Bulk Water
Transportation of Industrial Chemicals
National Academy of Sciences (1970)
Chemical Safety References
National Safety Council
Number of
Items In
List
(Approximate)
400
800
1900
1200
600
200
500
Focus
of
Attention
Water
Quality
Water
Quality
Explosion
and Fire
Hazards (Air)
Ail Quality
and Air
Hazards
Air
Quality
Water
Quality
Air and
Water
Quality
Criteria for
Classification
of Hazards
Persistence
Health Effects
Ecological Effects
Radioactive
Health Effects
Ecological Effects
Aesthetic
ul.v plosive Range
•r. Air
Human Toxicity
miscellaneous
Health Effects
Fire Hazard
Reactivity
Human Health
Explosion, Health
Effects, Ecological
Effects, Aesthetics
Varied - Health Effects
Ecological Effects
Explosion & Fire
Reactivity
Remarks
Simple "Yes" to any one of five questions
involving hazard criteria leads to classification
as hazardous substance
Finul Hazard rating and ranking based on production
quantities, fractions shipped by various transport modes
and historical probabilities of accident by each mode in
addition to listed hazard criteria.
Profiles only, Iwscd on listed hazard criteria for classifi-
cation of hazards plus other parameters
•i..
Profile provided based on listed criteria for classification
of hazards plus other parameters
List of threshold limit values for Kumari exposures
Hazard evaluation system for bulk dangerous cargoes.
Not applicable to other transport modes.
Flexible Format for presentations of information on
list of substances. Composit of several other lists.
" *'
I
2j Ow
3 ""£
3 a^
3 8 2,
a 8 v
> 3. «f
TO O "
ft) C o
3 co ^
2 ^ «>
S *§"
P n 2.
3 2. c
a p a.
_ >—« fo
ET w D-
O- rl ••••
a-a. a,.
en fO
g- < o
2. {1 s
p o i
|-"° 2
K^ n n
^°-S
I E
2 • co
o
CO
p
a
-------
Table II-5
Criteria for Reduction of Preliminary List
of Hazardous Substances
Production
Levels
Large
>1 x 108 Ibs. /yr.
Medium
>1 x 107 but
<1 x 108 Ibs. /yr.
Small
>1 x 107 Ibs. /yr.
i
Number of Lists Substance Was
Included On
1-2
Include
Omit
Omit
3-4
Include
Include
Omit
5-7
Include
Include
Include
and their compounds which have been identified as air pollutant hazards
(see Bibliography). A number of metallic, organic and inorganic
compounds, shown by experimental and accident data to be very toxic
to humans, animals and plants, were added to the basic list of hazardous
substances as a result of information contained in these reports.
Similarly, several summary type reports have been prepared on
pesticides as hazardous substances (References 10, 11, 21), and a
number of pesticide compounds were added to the list based on informa-
tion contained in these reports.
6.
THE LIST OF HAZARDOUS COMPOUNDS AND ITS USES
The objective sought in the selection of compounds was to
establish a comprehensive list rather than ah exhaustive list of
potentially hazardous materials. The list is representative of the
11-27
-------
toxic compounds which may require special wlkste management controls
to minimize hazards to people and to the environment.
Such a list, then, represents materials Which are likely to be
hazardous if not properly controlled. Proper control of toxic materials
can completely avoid hazardous exposures of people or the environment
to such toxic effects. Only when proper management does not exist,
or accidents occur in spite of precautions, do the potential hazards
become real hazards.
The main utility of a comprehensive list of potentially hazardous
materials is to identify the type and extent of the present and necessary
management systems. Such systems might require development of
special facilities to dispose of materials when such facilities are not
readily available to consumers. They may also be used to identify the
need for management controls in the production, shipment, storage and
distribution systems of such materials as well as waste disposal
problems. By and large, the producers of such materials maintain
excellent controls which preclude hazardous conditions in the production
processes. Less-skilled competency is available once these materials
most into the commerce and consumer distribution systems.
The list of hazardous materials developed in this study is
presented in Table II-6 along with the SIC codes identifying the basic
producing and using industries, and the annual production figures,
where available. The production figures given as "#10" indicate less
than 10 million pounds total annual production. Certain hazardous
materials of interest in Department of Defense and Atomic Energy
Commission controlled activities are indicated in Chapter III-(page III-41
and Chapter IV (page IV-44 to IV-48).
11-28
-------
Table II-6
List of Hazardous Materials
I n
MUM
SUHSTANCF (COMMON) NAMF
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CODE
MFR / USER
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ACFTIC
I
CO
CO
3
4
10
n
IP
11
14
I*;
1ft
17
\f>
IQ
PO
?7
?«
?Q
in
11
1?
""•
17
IB
44
47
4°
•in
CYANHYORJN
AC.PTONITPILF (WFTHYI C
ACPTYI.FNE
ACPTDTNF
AC3Yi_ir. AC 10
ALDRIN
ALL YI. AI COMOL
aL""TMU"
AL'IMINDM OX TOE
AI.IIMTNIIM SUl.FATF
AMMONIA ( AODA-AMMONIUM HYp°oxinF)
AMMOfJIUM
AMMONIUM
AMMONIUM
AMMONIUM
AMMOMJIJW
(r»PY)
AMYL ACFTATF
OTL>
(Fi.lSFl. OR)
AM 1 1 T'lF
Ar4THPACFNFS
PFMTATHl.OPIDF.
ANTIMONY
ANT1"ONY POTASSIUM TARTPATF
ANTIMONY SULFATF
ANFTMOMY TPTCHI OPIOF
ANTIMONY TPIMf'THYL
ANTJMOMY TPfOXIOF
OIFTHYI
20. 28. 3«
20. 2ft. 28. 36
28. 38
19, 28
22« 26« 28. 31
22. 28. 30
28
19. 28
20. 28. 32. 13
28. 32
20. 22. 2ft. 31. 40
28
20. 2B« 3ft
22. 38
27. 28. 32. 38
20. 22. 24. 28, 32
28, 39
28
202 8.1 4.3 8
28
28
22. 33
20, ??. ?«. 30
?2« ?H» 38
28. 30. 3B
28
??. 28. 30, 32. 13
28
28
28. 30. 39
28
28. 39
28, 38. 3<»
28
28. 33
28. 32
28
28
28
28
32
1652
1770
1675
1598
970
150
•10
468
•10
•10
150
1037
115
•10
•10
286
•10
2354
26634
450
•100
•100
•100
22400
200
•100
•100
•100
100
•10
64
372
100
72
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
14
1040
•10
•10
•10
•10
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION-
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
L-B-S-"
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
-------
Table II-6
I
00
O
t o
N1JM
51
52
53
5ft
55
5ft
57
59
ftO
ftl
ft2
63
ftft
ftft
ft7
ft8
70
71
7?
73
7ft
75
7ft
77
78
79
80
81
°2
9ft
87
an
39
91
9?
93
9ft
95
9ft
97
99
1 on
SURSTANCF (COMMON) NAME
TRICHLOPIOF
TRIOXIDF
ASRFSTOS PARTICLES
RADplM CARRONATE
RADIUM CHLORIDF
RAPIMM CYANTOF
RAPTIIM FLUORIDE
RAPIIIM MITPATF
RAPIUM SULFIDF
REN7FMF
RFM7FNF HFXACHl.OPIOF
RFM7FNE SULFONIC ACID
REN70IC ACIO
nfM7Yi. C.HLOPIOF
PFPYLLIUM CARRONATF
"EPYLLIUM
IM oxinp
IM POWDFW
BERYLLIUM SFLENATF.
ROPOM TRICHLOPIOF
ROPOM TPIFLUORTOF
PPOMINF
OROMINF
PENTAFl.UORinE
RUTANF
RIJTAMOL (PUTYL ALCOHOL)
RUTFMF - 1 (ETHYL FTHYLENE)
RIITYLACFTATF (oilTYI. ETHAMOATF)
RUTYlACPYLATE
«UTYL MFRCAPTAM
RUTYL PHENOL
eUTYPALOEHYOE MUTYL ALOFHYDF - N)
CArnOYI.IC ACIO (OIMFTHYLAPSINIC ACIO)
CHLOW10E
CYANIOF
FLuoPinr
NITRATF
OXIDE
PHOSPHATF
POTASSIUM TYAMTOF
SUtFATF
ftRSENATF
APSENIOF
CAOMTU"
CAOMTUM
caOMjuv
CAO'MUM
CAi.CI'i*.;
CAI.CI'I"
CALCIUM
CA| CIlIM
CAI rillM
CYANYDF
FI.MOPlnF.
(Continued)
STANDARD INO
28.
22.
22.
28.
28
28.
28.
28.
2fl.
28
2ft
28
28,
33
28
28
28,
33.
28
2«.
28.
28
28
28
28.
28.
?8
28
22.
28*
2«
28 "
28
28
28.
2?.
3ft
3ft
28
28.
28
28
28.
28
28-
22.
28
28.
MFR /
32
28. 31«
28. 32
32« 33
3ft
32. 3ft
3ft« 39
30
38
32
3ft
33
33
30
29
2ft. 2«
30
3ft
28. 32.
30* 32.
3ft
3?
28
32
USER
32
3ft.
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MItLlON- t&9~
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
MILLION LBS
• 10
100
177
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
8000
100
•10
55
08
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
362
•10
3054
2160
404
1630
127
63
4
•10
•10
•10
•10
11
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
2.9
•10
15RO
32
2100
-------
Table II-6
(Continued)
SUHSTANCF (COMMON) NAME
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CODE
MFR / USFR
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
CO
101
10?
ins
lo«.
107
111
1 \?
111
1|&
IIS
D<,
1 17
I IP
1?1
1 ;>Q
r*n
IM
r«?
I'll
1 '1^
1 'IS
1 "!*>
1 1:7
p,p
1 TO
]^,0
141
TAI.CIUM HYOPIDF
TAI.CIUM HYPOCHlOPITF
CAI CIUM OXIDF
"ISULFIPF
2P
ao
3?
nn
nriT
ORO
?0. ?«. 33
?0. ?P
?p
30
?P
?p
2fl
?P
ni°HnNiYL-TP IC'
nir.H|/iPnFTnrL
•10
100
1640
100
935
447
•10
?8232
•10
•10
700
•10
239
154
52
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
94
118
?45
•10
1500
•10
•10
2flO
716
704
72
162
29
75
72
36fl
70
418
«f>
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION-
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
k&S-
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LflS
GAL
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
-------
Table n-6
(Continued)
I f>
" IM
SM«STA>>'CF (COMMON.) MAMF
STAMOAPO iNnusTPTAi. CODE
MFP / IJSF»
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
00
to
1S7
1M
167
1 70
1 71
1 7?
1 73
1 1U
1 7S
1 76
1 77
1 "S
Iflfr
1Q7
1 qa
1 «Q
1 3ft
Til
13?
103
1 •»<•
107
1 JO
190
nin»ir.iF i . <• -
?p
|-,]CTHV|_OT II
?0
- TTM f
_ 0 -
?. i - r I
(PI''IT>vnTOI..llO| )
(FTnyl. 41
rF IACFTIC. FT
ATf-
FT-(YI. A" IMf (Mf)Mflc T-tYL A'-' I'
CT^VL pt-r-i7«:-'K (UMFMYL t T
' IDF (C
FT-JYLFI.it
FT-JV|_r|.f p [^^(l"1 ( OF (DTPUrv'i-
!••>• r-i. roil ir,i YCOI. )
^;F Ox t r:.K
f TMVI rn | M jMr
^-FT'-Y) HF X A.X'OL (OfTYL ALT'"-" H.)
FTMYl
FJMYI
T"A|. ATF )
?P
M
i IO^TC ATI'1)
'
?p
FOO'MT /i
92
7
ina
32
7^»
??2
.9
?S9
35
45
5^3
120
320
?.f>5
1S9
167
16
4700
600
15600
65
6700
?4f)0
3671
1.5
440
340
1400
4312
40
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
LBS
LHS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LfiS
LBS
LRS
LRS
LRS
LRS
LRS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LRS
LBS
LBS
LBS
GAL
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS.
LRS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LRS
LBS
LRS
LRS
LBS
LBS
LRS
LBS
LRS
LRS
LBS
LRS
LRS
LBS
LRS
LRS
LPS
LRS
LPS
-------
SIIHSTANCF (COMMON) NAMF
Table TJ-6
(Continued)
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CODF
MFR / USFR
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
CO
CO
?04
?OS
?<)*.
?07
?()«
?(>«
?|0
?I3
?1.4
?17
?;pi
?;>4
?;'S
>;•«.
?1:0
??.!
?17
?44
ALCOHOL
HFPTA1.CMQP
HPPT4NF
MF.XACHIOWOPHENF ("FTHYI.f.MF I
HFXAFTHYLTFTHAPHOSPHATF
HFKANF (HF.XYL
HYDOA7IMF (ANHVnPOI.IS niAMlr-I
ACID
i OPIC Acin (MIJRIATIC
HY^OOCYAMC ACIO IHYDROGFN
HYlonrLiiORIC ACIO (MYOPOfiFM
HYOOOOFM CH| OPlllF
P - HYDROOUTNONF
ALCOHOL
ISOPPFMF
(JSOSPOPYL
ACFT4TF
AM IMF
TSnPPOPYL F.Trtfu
i Fan
LFM) ACFTATF
LF40 ARSEK'ITE
I FAO CHLOPI Tt
LF4O C
i F«n nx IHF
LITHIUM ALUMINUM
SULPATF
MFPCMPTC 01 AMMn(\III|H
28
28
28
34. 38
?8, 34
28
28,
?8
28.
28
?8
?8
?8
?8
?8
Irt
33. 34
2<». 33. 34
34
33
34
30
31
?8
28, 34
33. 3S. 3«S
33
34. TQ
30. 3?
31. 3?. 3
-------
Table II-6
(Continued)
I n
MUM
SHHSTANCF (COMMON) NAMF
STAMOAPO INOUSTPIAL CODE
MFP / (JSEP
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
?=;?
CO
?77
P7Q
?79
pan
poq
nxirtF
SIH.FATF
(nP<",ANlC)
Al.COHOL )
ACCTATF
ACWYl.ATF (ACPYLTC
AMINF (in DFPCF^T «-OLMTIOM)
•'FTHYL AMYl ALCOHOL
MFTHYI. BWO'-MOF (PDOMOMFTMANF )
MFT«YL CHLOi^IOF (C'-'LOPOMFTHANF )
MFTHYI. CHLOPOFOWMATF
MFTWYL. FOPMATF (MFTMYL MFTHaNOATF)
KFTHVI. iso«ijTY| KFTO.NF (HFYONFI
MFTHYI '-'fPCAPTANS (MFTHAMFTHIOL)
26.
33.
31
30
30
?6
. INE
NiAPMTHA (CP'IOF)
NADHTHAI.FMF
TNf (M-MFTHYLfl"IIL TNS)
INF )
MICKFL
SlJLFATF
flHTIMONtHF
CAPPONYL
C YAM 01-
L M1TCATF
28
3?
33-
30. 34
31. 34
33. 34
3?. 34
SMLFATF
33. 34
(MITPOPFN70I)
(MFTA iv
30
Mf TPOFTHANF
MITPOMFTHAMF
P - NITPOPhFNOl.
NITPOPOOPANF (1
p - MTPOTOI.UOt (MTTPOTOl HFNF)
MIT°OllS OX I OF
0X41.1C ACID
PAPAFOPWALOFHYOF
PAPATHIOM
DFMTi'JO^AMF
19, ?8. 34
?0. ?P
2?« ?«« 31
?P
TOO
OFT-
1 F T * /i N- 1 T w /»T F )
.5
9245
9
120
?1
432
430
51
?1
1420
700
30
40
6P.R7
10
515
100
50
1 4
951
23
47
5
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILCFON
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
CBS"
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
GAL
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
-------
i n
NUM
SURSTANCF (COMMON) NAMf
Table II-6
(Continued)
STANOAWO INDUSTRIAL COOP
MFR / USFP
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
31)1
3D?
303
304
30«>
306
307
30fl
30Q
310
31.1
31?
313
H
i
CO
01
31S
316
317
318
319
320
3?'l
32'2
3?'3
32*
325
326
327
328
329
331
33?
333
33S
336
337
339
340
341
34?
341
344
34S
34ft
347
34R
349
3?n
N - PENTANE (AMYL HYD»IOF)
PERCHLORIC ACIO (S 72 PFRCFNT)
PE&CHLOROFTHYLFNF (TETRArnLOwoFTHYLFNF>
PF.RCHLORYL FLUOR.IDF
PHFNOL (CARBOLIC ACID)
PHENYLHYDSOGINF HYOROCHunR inr
PHOSPHORIC ACIO
PHOSPHORUS (REO)
PHOSPHORUS (KHITF OR YFLLOW)
PHOSPHORUS OXYCHLORIOF
PHOSPHORUS PENTACHLORIOF
PHOSPHORUS PENTASIILFIOF
PHOSPHORUS TRICHLORIOF
PHTHALTT ACtD
-------
Table II-6
(Continued)
I n
SURSTANCF (COMMOM) NAMF
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CODF
MFR / IISFR
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
I
CO
151
151
FISUt.FITF
157
Iftl
164
IfSP
170
173
174
177
37B
179
m?
187
190
191
19?
197
199
400
CHLORATF
CHPOMATF
SOnilJM HYO»IOF (CPYSTALS)
SDOTUM
DHOSPHATF
SO^IU" SiJLFIDfc
snoiiiM HYOPOXIPF. (CAUSTIC
inninF
NJTRATF (SOLID)
SnnTUM MITPTTF (SOL ID)
AI.I.OV
(SODIUM
STYPFMF (PHFNYL FTMVLFMF)
SIM FUR TSIDXIDF
siji.FnRnus AGIO
SUI.flPYI F
TAP (
TfAP f,AS (CM)
TFTPACWl.O*OFTH^4F ( ACF.T YLFMF TFTP 4CHLOR I OF
TFTPAFTMYL LFAO
TFTOAWYOROFURAM
TfTPAMFTHYl. LFAO
TFTOAMITPOMFTH4MF
THALI.III"
THALI.T'IM. Sli| FATR
TITANIUM TFTRATHLOPIDF
DISnCYANATF
TO| IIIOlNf - 0 (?./» -MFTHY.LAMlLFMF)
(A OP »)
?P. 3?. 1.1
2ft. 2P« 12
26. 2P
2*. 2P
2fl
2ft
2P
19
2P
2H.
?9
19
?P
29
2P
?9
19
2P.
31. I
3?.
?P. 30, 11. 14, 1*. 39
?P
?P
3?
.11
19. ?P
11
33. 34
19. 2P. ?°
?P. ?9
2?. 2P
?P
2?. ?P. 11. 14
1348
1340
374
13
13
79
?1000
783
2900
203
452
?6
4400
2S6
59077
769
371
76
5380
9
15
340
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MruroN
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LRS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LRS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LRS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LRS
I
-------
Table II-6
(Continued)
T n
HIJM
SUHSTANCF (COMMON) NAMF
STAMDARD INDUSTRIAL CODE
MFR / USER
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
401
40?
403
404
40<>
407
40"
410
411
41?
411
4)4
41=;
I
GO
417
4iP
41Q
450
4?1
4??
4PT
TPtrHLOPOFTHYLFNF
TRTCHl nPOFUJOROMFTMAIMF (FPFON 11)
TRif THANOLAMJNF
TWTFTMYLAMJNE
TRT^THVI ENF GLYCOL
TPITTHYIENE TFTP.AMINF
TRTMETHYLATNF
VAM40IIIM SULFIOE
ACETATE
(XYI.OX)
7IMC 4PSEN1TE
7INC CYANIOF
ZIMC NTTRATF
7IMC
7JMC
7INC PFPOXinE
7 IMC SIILFIPP
28
28.
2P
2P.
2P
2P.
28
28
28
22.
20.
28
28
28,
28. 34
32
20
28. 3?. 38
32
30. 34
30. 33. 3ft
34. 3S
28
22. 28. 30. 3?. 34
3ft
630
239
77
80
20
48
31
799
4040
15
106
420
1
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
MILLION
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
6AL
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Standard Industrial Classification Manual, Executive Office of
the President, Bureau of the Budget, Office of Statistical
Standards, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.
2. Design of an Overview System for Evaluating the Public Health
Hazards of Chemicals in the Environment, G.A. Lutz et al.,
Battelie Memorial Institute, for the U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National
Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-194-398, July 1967.
3. Study of Health Effects of Air Pollution Related to Solid Wastes,
B. Linsky, Final Report, 1969.
4. 1969 Analysis of Accident Reports Involving Fire, U. S.
Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Carrier
Safety, 1970.
5. Hazard Survey of the Chemical and Allied Industries, American
Insurance Association, Division of Technical Services
Engineering and Safety Department, Technical Survey No. 3,
1968.
6. Dangerous Chemicals Code, Los Angeles Fire Department,
Parker & Sons, Inc., 1951.
7. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, N.I. Sax et al.,
Reinhold Book Corp., Third Edition, 1968.
8. Laboratory Waste Disposal Manual, Manufacturing Chemists
Association, May 1970.
9. Toxicity of Industrial Metals. Dr. E. Browning, Butterworth
and Co., Ltd., Second Edition, 1969.
11-38
-------
10. Ground Disposal of Pesticides: The Problem and Criteria for
Guidelines, Working Group on Pestidides, National Technical
Information Service, Pub. PB-197-1!44, Report WGP-DR-1,
March 1970.
11. Air Pollution Aspects of Pesticides, Litton Systems, Inc., for
the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Air Pollution Control Administration, National
Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-188-091, September
1969.
12. Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, National
Safety Council, Sixth Edition, 1969.
13. Control of Spillage of Hazardous Polluting Substances, G.W.
Dawson et al.. Pacific Northwest Laboratories, for the U.S.
Department of Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration,
November 1, 1970.
14. Criteria for Selection of Elements and Compounds to be
Designated as Hazardous Polluting Substances, C.H. Thompson,
Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Oil and Hazardous
Materials, October 22, 1971.
15. "List of Toxic Substances, " The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc., Occupational Safety and Health Reports, Reference File,
1971.
16. Chemical Safety References, National Safety Council, Chemical
Section, 1968.
17. Evaluation of the Hazard of Bulk Water Transportation of
Industrial Chemicals - A Tentative Guide, the Committee on
Hazardous Materials Advisory to the U. S. Coast Guard,
National Research Council, 1970.
18. Occupational Safety and Health Standards, National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health, 1971.
19. Designation of Hazardous Substances, Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, Environmental Protection Agency, Pub. 18CFR,
Part 618, May 14, 1971.
11-39
-------
20. Consolidated Hazardous Item List, U.;S. Department of Defense,
Navy Fleet Material Support Office, J^ub. 4500, COG 1 Stock
No. 0588-005-000, October 1, 1969.
21. Veterinary Toxicology, R.D. Radeleff, D.V.M., Lea & Febiger,
1964.
11-40
-------
III. QUANTIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents estimates of the amounts of wastes
produced in the various industrial sectors and limited geographic
locations. Estimates have been made necessary because of the nearly
complete lack of data describing waste quantities in the literature.
With the exception of radioactive waste data available from Atomic
Energy Commission reports, the literature is silent on the subject
of hazardous waste quantities. The reasons for this situation are
many, but principal among them are:
Historically, there has been no interest or objective in
quantifying waste amounts of specific materials, with the
exception of radioactive wastes, which are subject to a
stringent control system.
For certain materials, such as pesticides and herbicides,
the utilization and disposal cycles were one and the same,
but geographic location data were not recorded.
In nearly all waste disposal processes, whether industrial,
governmental, or domestic, materials being wasted are
thrown together and become streams of mixed wastes.
Predisposal treatment, where employed at all, has been
applied to a limited number of waste stream characteristics,
rather than to characteristics of specific materials.
The impact of the latter two factors above on the hazardous waste
quantification problem cannot be overstated. The difficulties imposed
can be made more apparent when it is noted that mixed waste streams:
Can have hazardous materials as inputs
Are not analyzed in detail, if at ail
III-l
-------
Might be chemically indeterminate, as a result of unknown
reactions
Might exhibit some, all, or none oi? the characteristics of
individual input materials
Might become hazardous through combinations of non-
hazardous input materials.
Investigation of the overall problem of quantifying waste
hazardous materials has to consider the problem of disposing of such
materials in their pure (or relatively pure) form, as well as in waste
streams. Many of these materials are created as (or in) marketable
products not meant to be wasted, yet for various reasons (shelf-life,
contamination, etc.) at some time become wastes. In such cases,
someone has to declare them no longer needed and thus ready for
disposal. This waste quantification problem is compared to the
mixed waste quantification problem in Figure III-l.
The result is that in order to present waste quantity estimates,
it has also been necessary in this study to develop calculation methods
for estimating purposes. Most of the calculations that have been made
are based on waste generation as a function of production (e.g., pounds
of waste per thousand pounds of production). In some cases, these
general waste quantification factors appeared in the literature. When
such factors were not obtainable in literature references, values
were calculated from the best available data. Derivation of these
factors for industries which are relatively homogenous (e.g., textiles)
provides a reasonable factor estimate for the industry as a whole.
Other industries are so diverse that derivation of general quantification
factors for the industry is unrealistic. This is especially true of the
chemical industry, with its great diversity (many thousands of
processes, products, and their combinations). The chemical industry
factors were separately derived from results of a 1967 survey
conducted by the Manufacturing Chemists Association.
The waste quantification data is presented in three ways:
Total wasteloads of various industries in each of the 50
largest Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA)
and in each of the 50 states
III-2
-------
! FIGURE 1-1
T?he Hazardous Materials
Waste Quantification Problem
RAW
MATERIALS
PRODUCTION
PROCESSES
MIXED
PRODUCTION
WASTES
(B)
FINISHED
PRODUCTS
DISTRIBUTION
QUANTITIES
DECLARED WASTE
AT ANY ONE
TIME OR PLACE
(A)
(A) - RANDOM, NON-QUANTIFIABLE
(B) - POTENTIALLY QUANTIFIABLE.
WITH WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS
III-3
-------
Estimates of commonly-known mixed, potentially hazardous,
waste streams generated by variou.s industries, with
breakdowns of specific hazardous materials, where such
data is available ;
Reported quantities of hazardous and potentially hazardous
wastes from the Department of Defense, Atomic Energy
Commission, and the mining industry.
It must be borne in mind that these discussions and the quantity
estimating methods are generalized, referring to entire industries.
In some industries, the production processes and materials used
change frequently, so general estimating methods produce results
that are only indicators rather than facts, and should be utilized in
that light. Further, the methods and results cannot be extrapolated
to individual plants, since all plants in an industry do not produce the
same products, nor do they all utilize the same processes. This
is mitigated to some extent in the relatively homogenous industries,
but in any case, caution is the byword in application of these data.
2. PRODUCTION QUANTITIES OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The data which has been developed provides limited information
as to the number of pounds of specific hazardous waste compounds
which are produced in each geographic area. Such information may
be impossible to produce completely, since it involves, at minimum:
consideration of great numbers of water waste streams whose toxicity
or other hazards might not be related to specific compounds, product
wastes from a wide variety of industrial and consumer sources,
toxic substances which have become intermingled with solid waste
trash and municipal sewage, and finally, no knowledge as to whether
threshold concentrations had been reached or if susceptible populations
were present.
The best estimation of the total amount of any particular compound
is, of course, the amount produced. Determinations as to the amounts
which will enter waste streams must be made for each compound.
Many are converted to nontoxic compounds. Others are neutralized.
Still others may remain toxic and be widely distributed intentionally
(pesticides), while residual amounts of many compounds may enter
few or many municipal waste streams. Only Specific life-cycle studies
III-4
-------
which are made compound by compound for. say, 10-15 compounds
initially, will provide accurate distribution patterns and reasonable
estimates of the geographic distribution of residual quantities. Where
production data are available, they have been included in the hazardous
material listing in Chapter II (Table II-6, p*age 11-29), developed from
the punched-card data records developed during this study.
3. TOTAL WASTELOAD ESTIMATES
Utilizing the general waste quantification factors, data indicating
total wasteloads of various industries have been computed for those
industries in the 50 largest SMSAs, accounting for about 60 percent
of industrial production, and for the 50 states, accounting for all
domestic production. Initially, it was planned to develop the data for
each of the nation's 230 SMSAs, but it was discovered that many
chemical plants and other production facilities are located outside
such metropolitan areas. These conditions apply particularly to the
smaller SMSAs.
The value added in manufacture was the scaling factor used to
convert ratios of pounds of waste to pounds of product, to pounds of
waste by industry by SMSA or by state. This was done by first
relating the production output to the value added and then by relating
the pounds of waste/1000 pounds of product to the production-value-
added ratios.
The quantity estimates which have been prepared in this manner
provide estimates as to the relative amounts of waste which are
produced in each geographic area. They are most accurate in depicting
the relative amounts produced in each geographic area. They are
likely to be most inaccurate if used to predict the waste output from
a single facility.
The difficulties in arriving at accurate estimates for use in
projecting gross quantities are manifold. A graphic display of the
results of these difficulties is shown in Table III-l, which compares
predictions made by two separate studies, one by Combustion
Engineering for the Solid Waste Management Office and the other by
the California Department of Public Health. These two studies
separately estimated solid waste quantities for all the manufacturing
industries. The vast differences between results of the two studies,
demonstrate the lack of consistent quantitative data.
Ill-5
-------
Table III-l
Comparison of Solid Waste Estimates
SIC Industry
19 Ordnance and Accessories
20 Food and Kindred Products
21 Tobacco Manufacture
22 Textile Mill Products
23 Apparel and Textile Products
24 Lumber and Wood Products
25 Furniture and Fixtures
26 Paper and Allied Products
27 Printing and Publishing
28 Chemicals and Allied Products
29 Petroleum and Coal Products
30 Rubber and Plastics Products
31 Leather and Leather Products
32 Stone, Clay and Glass Products
33 Primary Metal Industries
34 Fabricated Metal Products
35 Machinery, Except Electrical
36 Electrical Equipment and Supplies
37 Transportation Equipment
38 Instruments and Related Products
39 Miscellaneous Manufacturing
'*' Technical-Economic Study of Solid W
Volume II, Industrial Inventory, Con
U.S. Department of Health, Educatio
Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific
Report SW-7c, Pub. PB-187-712, 1£
'2' California Solid Waste Planning Studj
Health, 1969.
Waste in Million Pounds per Year
(Total U. S. )
Combustion
Engineering
.Study <1J
711
14, 260
813
2, 158
719
76, 107
3,877
10, 189
15,221
6,048
1, 148
4,927
6, 325
4, 915
3, 503
7, 660
3,047
3,479
1, 665
1,696
aste Disposal Needs E
bustion Engineering,
n and Welfare, Public
and Technical Inform
69.
rf California Departm
California
Study <2)
NA
43, 880
—
340
650
137, 660
430
2, 550
1,030
5, 050
5,800
2, 690
2, 830
9,800
3, 300
8,400
4, 640
3, 080
nd Practices,
Inc. , for the
Health Service,
ition, Pub. 1886
ent of Public
III-6
-------
The area waste generation calculations are augmented by data
of various types which relate to specific coriipounds. These data are
contained in the Appendices (Volumes II andj III) describing the various
industries, which provide a single source 01 information for useful
data compiled from a variety of sources.
Two basic parameters were developed to estimate the quantity
of waste material produced in-each industrial sector. The first is
an estimate of pounds of waste produced per thousand pounds of
product, or an equivalent ratio. The second is the value added by the
manufacture of an equivalent amount of production.
(1) Value Added as a Measure of Production
Value added by manufacture is derived by subtracting
the total cost of materials, (including materials, supplies, fuel,
electric energy, cost of resales and miscellaneous receipts),
from the value of shipments (including resales) and other
receipts, and adjusting the resulting amount by the net change
in finished products and work-in-process inventories between
the beginning and end of the year. The value of shipment is net
selling value, f. o. b. plant, after discounts and allowances and
excluding freight charges and excise tax.
The value added factor is considered by the Department
of Commerce to be the best value measure available for
comparing the relative economic importance of manufacturing
among industries and geographic areas. The value added figure
provides the measure for industrial activity and for indices of
industrial production, productivity, and price, all of which are
essential for estimating industrial waste production.
The other measures, such as number of employees and
value shipped, have been used by other studies. These measures
have some inherent flaws which make value added the desired
factor. The number of employees factor cannot be applied to
seasonal industries because the number of employees data is
collected for one given period and does not consider changes in
employment during the year. The value added figure also avoids
duplication in the value of shipments figure, which results from
the inclusion of the shipments of establishments producing
materials and components, along with the shipments of
establishments producing finished products.
Ill-7
-------
(2) Waste Production Factors
Waste production factors are multipliers which can be
applied to production data of a particular Industry in a given
geographic location for estimating waste Quantity. As pointed
out earlier, the value added has been considered a good measure
of production. Therefore, the waste production factors have
been developed such that they can be directly multiplied by the
value added figure for any given industry to determine the
amount of waste produced by the industry.
The major products and the manufacturing processes of
the selected industries were studied and are reported in
Appendix A. The literature study of these industries resulted
in derivation of values indicating amount of waste generated per
1,000 pounds of product (WPPP). The WPPP values for the
selected industries are listed in Column (2) of Table III-2, and
their data sources are listed in Column (5). To derive waste
factors, the WPPP for each industry was divided by the dollar
value added per thousand pounds of product (VAPP) listed in
Column (3). Waste factors are given in Column (4). Thus:
WPPP _ Ib. waste/I, OOP Ib. product _ pounds waste
VAPP ~ $ value added/1,000 Ib. product $
and:
Pounds waste
$
x Total $ value added = Total Ib. waste.
This method for computing the waste factors was not used
for the chemical industry. The waste streams from the various
types of chemical plants differ extensively because of the great
variety of products which are produced. Instead, data from the
1967 survey of members of the Manufacturing Chemists Asso-
ciation (MCA) was used. This survey showed the amount of
waste produced by the plants, which were surveyed in each
state, and the total employees in these plants. From this
information,' the total annual waste produced per employee was
computed for each state. The data used for this calculation were
based on the "estimated amount of waste if no treatment or
control measures were in use. " Therefore, the waste quantities
are the totals produced by the industry, ahd are more than the
amount of waste discharged to the envirortment. According to
III-8
-------
Table III-2 '
Computation of Waste Factors
SIC Industry Col. (1)
;
20 Food Industry
201 Meat Products
203 Canned Foods
2.08 Beverages
2261 Finishing Cotton
2262 Finishing Synthetics
2231 Finishing Wool
261,)
265 pulp, Paper and Paperboard Mills
263
266J
28 Chemical Industry
2812 Alkalis and Chlorine
282 Plastic Materials and Synthetics
2821 Plastic Materials and Resins
2822 Synthetic Rubber
2823 Cellulosic Manmade Fibers
2824 Organic Fibers, Noncellulosic
2871 Fertilizers
29 Petroleum and Coal Products
2911 Petroleum Refining
3111 Leather Tanning and Finishing
3292 Asbestos Products I
331 Primary Metal Industries
3312 Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills
333 Primary Nonferrous Metals
3331 Primary Copper
3333 Primary Lead
3333 Primary Zinc
3334 Primary Aluminum
WPPP :
Waste (IBs
per 1000
Ibs. of
Product
Col. (2)
NA
52
NA
720
299
1872
975
X"
(see Tat
800
143
30
31
36
35
950
3. 7
3. 7
650
87000
72. 5
72. 5
1250
3000
159
177. 5
910
VAPP
Value ($)
Added per
1000 Ibs. of
Product
Col. (3)
NA
58. 5
NA
160
180
950
50
le VI-2)
70
31
102
93
373
260
20. 5
3. 95
3.95
278
8
40. 3
40. 3
112. 5
91. 3
49. 7
55.5
128. 5
WPPP/SAPP
(#/$)
Waste
Factor
Col. (4)
1.42
0.89
4.20
0.20
4. 50
1.66
1.97
1.95
11.40
0. 22
0. 30
0.33
0. 10
0. 14
46.20
0. 96
0. 96
2. 34
Neg.
1.80
1.80
11. 10
33.00
3.2
3.2
7. 1
Data
Source
Col/(5)
;
1,2,3
4
5,6,7,8,
9, 10
11, 12, 13
14, 13
11, 13
15
,
16
17
18, 19
18, 19
18, 19
18, 19
18, 19
20
21, 22, 23
21, 22, 23
24, 25
26
27, 28
27, 28
29
29
29
i
29
29, 30
(1) NA — Not applicable. The waste factors shown in Column (5) were not
computed, but obtained directly from the literature.
(2) Neg. —Negligible. The value added factor is sd low that the computation of a waste
factor on that basis would be misleading. t
III-9
-------
the MCA, waterborne inorganic and organic effluents were
reduced by 27 percent and 57 percent respectively through treat-
ment, and the airborne wastes were rediiced by 65 percent.
s
!
Table III-3 shows the total annual waste per employee, the
total number of employees, and value added by the chemical
industry in each state. Waste factors we'(re developed by
multiplying the waste per employee factors by total number of
employees, then dividing by the total value added. The range
of waste factors shown in the table vary from 0. 65 for Indiana
to 63. 9 for Arkansas. The waste factors for the states of Arkansas
and Florida are high because they include large amounts of
fertilizer, mining and processing wastes. The average waste
factor applicable over the whole United States was computed
without using the factors for these two states.
(3) Computation of Waste Quantities
Quantities of wastes were computed by multiplying the
value added by the waste factors. Tables III-4 and III-5 show
the computed quantities of waste produced by each of the signi-
ficant industries in the 50 states and the 50 largest SMSAs,
respectively.
(4) Sources of Data
The two types of data used in quantification of wastes are
industry production data and waste production data.
«*
1.
Industry Data
Value added figures used in the computations were
taken from the 1967 Census of Manufactures. Dun and
Bradstreet data files were also considered as an alter-
native source, but were not used due to the relative difficulty
of their direct application compared with that of the Bureau
of Census data.
2.
Waste Production Data
An intensive literature search and interviews with
people in industry uncovered few data sources which
identified and quantified the waste from different industries.
Ill-10
-------
Table III-3 \
Chemical Industry Waste Factors
State
Alabama
Arizona (also includes Utah
Nevada, New Mexico,
Oklahoma)
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho (also includes
Minnesota, Montana)
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine (also includes New
Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Vermont)
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
• Missouri
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tenned.^ee
Texas
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Annual Total
Waste Per
Smployee
ton/employee
year
x 103
0.052
0.074
0.756
0.178
0.013
0.023
0.070
0.69
0.133
0.250
0.253
0.011
0. Ill
0.023
0.118
• 0.367
0.011
0.090
0.017
0.151
0.029
0.091
0.052
0.091
0.159
0.141
0.051
0.023
0.009
0.116
0. 105
0.138
0.023
0.082
0.010
All
arptoyaes
(1000)
11.7
3.9
4.1
42.0
1.9
11.5
9.4
20.7
11.7
13.1
57. 4
94.7
5.3
10.1
13.3
19.1
4.9
17.6
17.0
37.2
5.2
22.3
97.3
63.4
17.7
47.7
2.0
49.5
19.9
52.1
47.9
40.9
6.4
22.5
0.5
Value
Added
(million $)
418.2
77.4
96.9
116.7
61. 1
378.8
263.1
466. 1
308.1
435.1
1565.8
832.9
243.6
276.3
391.6
679.5
74.3
422.5
367. 1
1039.6
157.5
545.8
2822. 1
1639. 7
370.6
1358.6
50.8
1361. 1
474.6
1155.5
2076. 7
762.0
166.0
836.3
257.4
Waste
(million
tons)
0.608
0.289
3.099
7.476
0.025
0.265
0.658
14.283
1.556
3.275
14.522
0.272
0.588
0.232
1.569
7.010
0.054
1.584
2.89
5.617
0. 151
2.029
5.060
5.769
2.814
6.726
0. 102
1. 139
0. 179
6.044
5.030
5.644
0. 147
1.85
0.095
108.65
Waste
Factor
Added
2.91
7.46
63.95
13.39
0.81
1.40
5.00
61.29
10.10
15.05
18.55
0.65
4.83
1.68
8.02
20.63
1.45
7.50 -
1.57
0.81
1.91
7.44
3.59
7.04
15. 19
9.90
4.02
1.67
0.76
10.46
4.84
14.81
1.77
4.41
0. 74
Ill-ii
-------
Table III-4
Waste Quantities Produced by Industry
by Geographic Location -
50 States
(In Million Pounds Per Year)
WiUr |-|Lli>r»
(founds S Value \ddrd)
I'nitrd ilalw Tout
Valor Added I Milton Dollan)
Wa»lr Quantify
STAfFS
•\LAIIAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CAIIIOHNIA
COLORADO
(ONNIOKTr
III LAUAKI
1 IOKIDA
UOKUA
IIAUAII
IDVIIO
III INOIS
INDIANA
urn A
KANSAS
" KmrrtTCT
LOI'ISIANA
MAINI
MARYLAND
MASSAllll'SI IIS
MICHIGAN
MINMSOFA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOl'KI
U2
26*21
37.100
37u
75
120
.175
4.255
4411
280
-25
815
715
265
2u5
.».58u
l.OXd
1.165
395
73d
650
230
750
81)5
I..12"
1.075
225
1 I4u
O.H9
1.951
3.200
55
in
55
2.1"
611
III
15
45
•*u
5
15
185
85
l(i5
811
.15
3d
III
60
50
75
2i.ul
411
115
4.1
3.588
15.100
50
190
15
205
J.ilu
45
40
115
Hill
2d
2<>(l
295
H25
255
'(I
411
45
155
215
245
25
55
i
;
IS
0.20
4.790
1.000
10
5
10
95
2(1
Id
20
20
8(1
411
5
j
70
15
35
15
30
15
5
50
4.5
314
1.400
70
5
20
5
.'0
so
10
15
9U
1.66
271
500
5
5
5
5
<
70
5
1.97
429
800
20
5
20
55
65
15
105
5
1.95
4.199
8.200
390
65
15
10
.141
572
15
120
55
15
10
380
95
290
300
100
70
23.555
217.000
1.220
120
6 SO
14.955
45
530
1.315
3.260
J.I 10
1.665
29.045
540
I.I8II
465
3.140
I4.U20
15
3.170
575
840
3.395
300
4.060
11.4
419
4.800
190
185
30
30
190
190
15
0.22
3.799
800
15
20
10
15
15
5
15
5
10
5
30
20
15
25
30
46.2
434
20.100
1.685
1.180
45
772
625
310
2.50(1
25rt
450
1.600
345
215
120
200
360
0.96
5.426
5.200
40
40
530
5u
30
|0
15
15
3?li
210
175
30
330
75
75
105
45
30
55
0.96
4.745
4.600
35
30
480
50
10
30
Hi
2SS
190
170
30
315
5
90
40
30
50
2.34
319
800
20
45
5
55
5
c.
10
10
50
5
145
35
10
10
1.80
10.170
I8JOO
670
680
90
180
55
3'i
35
5
1.495
J.270
i>
280
100
115
1.005
60
10
175
1.80
8.910
16.000
635
670
90
180
55
20
30
5
1.345
2.020
270
100
75
850
50
5
170
II. 1
IJ82
15.300
500
505
500
NO
335
125 ,
500 '
500
500
110
110
-------
Table III-4 (Continued)
CO
Gtoptphic Areas
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
N1.VAOA
Ni:w HAMPSHIRE
NliW Jl RSI V
NLWMLXICO
NLW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
ORCGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RIIOOl. ISLAND
SOL'TII CAROLINA
SOimi DAKOTA
TLNNI:SSI:I.
TI-XAS
UTAH
VI-:RMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WtST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
80
610
2(1
55
1.79(1
('I
3.790
575
6(1
I.H60
350
425
3.3.15
llpfl
1711
135
6S<|
745
145
J5
56d
735
135
1.395
20
10
165
III
65
"fc
I4(j
65
5
140
35
'(i
155
35
40
65
155
30
65
45
Hi
100
70
670
340
130
10
7*0
30
46O
t 010
5
45
IUO
435
35
330
595
4n
475
5
10
15
60
Kit
10
40
5
5
45
5
5
15
45
5
10
IS
!
55
10
70
85
3H5
10
5
50
5(1
595
70
35
15
5
130
45
100
5
30
35
65
3o
3o
III
55
10
70
65
10
10
40
35
85
15
5
50
10
5
5
100
330
395
335
460
30
340
380
365
135
1.380
180
10
10.130
35
11.530
5.630
13.45(1
145
830
2.375
70
360
310 13.090
300 i 111.050
30
330
600
s
710
100
10
11.385
395
3.69(1
190
90
35
50
700
45
100
500
500
330
670
15
45
30
50
10
50
85
65
105
45
5
360
430
700
360
385
330
1.940
535
40
5
190
15
75
5
15
315
140
10
300
10
1.730
50
16
60
10
10
35
30
18
10
70
5
155
140
245
10
1.695
50
16
60
10
5
35
20
'65
60
5
18
45
20
5
5
20
20
120
10
150
840
10
3.045
10
22
5.065
SO
10
•
55
345
80
20
65
545
85
70
830
5
2.375
10
11
4.790
20
5
•"* • ' k '
30
340
80
30
611
530
80
700
100
110
410
35
705
315
585
500
50
705
-
""
655
3.520
50
2.070
500
-------
Industries
Geognphk Anu
WMte Ficton
(Poundt/S Value Added)
Sundud Mctropolilon SutUtkil Areu
New York, N.Y.
Chicago. 111.
Los Angeles - Long Beach. Calif.
Detroit, Mich.
Philadelphia. Pa. • N.J.
Cleveland, Ohio
St. Louti, Mo.-Ill.
Boston, Mass.
. - Newa*,.!>M,-
Pittsburgh, Pi.
San Francisco - Oakland, Calif.
Milwaukee, Wis.
Rochester, N.Y.
Houston, Tex.
Baltimore, Md.
Minneapolis • St. Paul, Minn.
Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-lnd.
Buffalo, N.Y.
Paterson • Clifton - Passaic, N.J.
Louisville, Ky - Ind.
Kansas City, Mo -Kans.
Seattle - Everett. Wash.
Anaheim - Santa Ana - Garden Grove. Calif.
Dayton, Ohio
- SMKhBer&Kfr •
Indianapolis, Ind.
Dallas, Tex.
Gary-Hammond - East Chicago, Ind.
Atlanta, Ga.
Jersey City, N.J.
Greensboro • Winston-Salem - High Point. N.C.
Providence - Pawtucket - Warwick. R.I.
Hartford. Conn.
Akron, Ohio
Youngstown - Warren, Ohio
Toledo, Ohio - Mich.
Korl Worth, Tex.
Beaumont - Port Arthur - Orange. Tex.
Columbus. Ohio
Bridgeport, Conn.
Denver, Colo.
Portland, Oreg. • Wash.
Allentown • Bethlehem - Easton. Pa. • N.J.
Grand Rapids, Mich.
Springfield - Chicopee - Holyoke, Mass. - Conn.
Syracuse, N.Y.
Birmingham. Ala.
Canton, Ohio
Alabany - Schenectady - Troy. N. Y.
New Orleans, La.
1.42
1.400
2.305
1.345
465
1.075
260
695
535
505
345
975
545
750
380
520
455
590
325
295
405
320
215
200
115
550
210
335
90
270
440
85
100
100
100
35
ISO
125
20
175
30
300
240
135
95
60
150
120
85
115
295
0.89
71
115
120
50
85
10
65
45
25
20
40
30
15
15
35
60
25
20
20
30
20
4
20
10
40
5
10
20
10
5
20
15
30
10
5
5
10
25
20
5
4.2
235
310
480
40
535
130
135
45
540
35
602
20
35
70
115
70
30
85
140
515
60
25
40
100
25
30
95
60
25
65
0.20
55
50
35
20
20
10
50
10
35
5
25
45
10
5
30
20
35
5
5
35
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
5
5
5
10
5
5
4.5
75
35
30
15
70
50
15
1.66
30
15
95
20
15
20
10
1.97
20
25
20
1.95
15
15
175
60
55
40
55
190
55
20
90
6.265
21.620
8.330
260
1.700
2.975
9.050
240
4.015
215
3.855
50
360
4.050
2.410
2.910
5.290
1.600
1.370
205
1.250
40
590
310
185
600
95
995
920
985
70
25
855
100
125
1.300
455
30
40
135
100
70
170
1.000
85
220
690
1.000
11.4
0.22
5
20
35
10
16
30
10
30
5
46.2
15
220
1.325
345
160
0.%
25
145
280
65
280
25
185
10
205
530
10
35
10
5
10
190
105
10
740
10
5
30
0.%
250
245
170
525
180
100
2.34
10
10
110
50
85
50
1.80
1.030
200
960
735
590
15
30
60
640
20
1,875
810
40
30
490
450
1.80
905
625
560
590
1.815
11.1
140
100
o 01 -
73 O
p
CO
c
p>-.
o' •-: L"1 ° S-'
H ^^ ^ M ^\
3 SJ.
w '
15 8
' t— • HJ
co
CD
V CO
Ir 13
»-• >-j
O o
S1*
2 o
S a
o' t7"
P.X-
HH
3
a
c
en
-------
Most of the data available were in terms of quantity of
waste discharged to aquatic environment. The industrial
waste studies sponsored by EPA were heavily used, along
with information provided by thfe trade associations. The
references used are listed at the end of this chapter.
(5) Assumptions Used in Estimating Waste
Some assumptions made during the process of estimating
waste quantities are applicable to all the industries, while others
apply specifically to a single industry.
1. Overall General Assumptions
The two major assumptions generally applicable to
all the industries are:
Technology within an industry is homogeneous
and does not change according to geographic
location, therefore a single waste factor can
be used to compute amount of waste across
the country.
Industry production data used are for the year
1967. Therefore, the waste quantities estimated
are for that year, but these estimates can be
used for the present level of industry, since
the changes in production quantity and
improvements in waste reduction technology
are assumed to offset each other.
2. Specific Assumptions Applicable to Industries
Some of the assumptions used to compute waste
quantities for specific industries are presented in this
section.
Food Industry—Canning waste does not include
those wastes left in the field from harvesting,
which are considered agricultural wastes.
Meat processing waste does not include hair
and blood which are routinely collected and
sold as by-products 1 Also, wastes from
stockyards and pens are not included in the
wastes considered hbre.
Ill-15
-------
Textile Industry—"^he wastes included in this
study are only thole from wet finishing oper-
ations: the fiberouis wastes from dry
processing, knitting and weaving, etc., are
not included.
Pulp, Paper, and feaperboard Industry—The
paper and wood chips waste from wood cutting
and-cleaning are not considered. The wastes
from pulp, paper, and paperboard-making are
the ones accounted for in this study. Further,
the by-products made from the black liquor
are not included.
Fertilizers — Wastes produced in mining of
phosphates are considered as mining waste
and therefore do not add to fertilizer industry
wastes.
Petroleum Products Industry— Brines from the
earth are pumped back to earth. Therefore,
the brines do not contribute to the potentially
hazardous wastes of this industry.
Primary Nonferrous Metals—Mining operation
wastes are not considered to be waste from this
industry, but from the mining industry.
(6) Reasons for Presenting Data by 50 States and 50 SMSAs
The quantities of waste produced by the industries have
been computed for all the 50 states, and for the 50 largest SMSAs.
Presenting waste data by the 50 states provides full coverage of
the whole United States, while presenting the data by SMSA isolates
the waste location to a small geographic area. The SMSA data
is computed for only the 50 largest SMSAs for three reasons:
first, all 231 SMSAs represent only about 75 percent of the
total manufacturing industry; second, the detailed value added
figures for the smaller SMSAs are not collected by the Bureau
of Census; and third, some states with smaller SMSAs had as
little as 15 percent of the value added industries within the
SMSA.
Ill-16
-------
(7) Other Quantitative Data
Other quantitative data helpful to an understanding of the
problems associated with waste generation and disposal are
interspersed throughout the report. Each of the industrial
descriptions contained in Appendix A provides information as
to:
Relative size of the industrial sector
Number of establishments and geographic distribution
Economic data as to size of establishments and
number of employees
Growth patterns.
Many of the industrial sector descriptions contain additional
data relating to the products made, processes used and wastes
produced. Special studies which contain detailed data of signi-
ficant value are also referenced in these descriptions.
4. ESTIMATES OF COMMONLY KNOWN MIXED WASTE STREAMS.
WITH BREAKDOWNS OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Among the various industries, certain production processes are
in use which produce mixed wastes that are also similar throughout
these industries. Over the years, many of these mixed waste streams
have come to be known by common or "trade" names, which generally
refer to their color, appearance, odor, etc. While such waste
streams have seldom been analyzed in detail or subjected to continuous
analysis, at least parts of their make-up have been identified and
reported in the literature. During the course of this study, it was
found that some of these commonly-known waste streams do have as
inputs, at least some of the materials that have been designated as
hazardous. In a few instances, data were obtained which not only gave
waste stream quantity generation as a function of production, but
also provided some measure of specific materials that might typically
be contained.
m-17
-------
Where such data were available, they have been extracted and
tabulated. The waste stream quantities aAd the specific hazardous
materials contained have been extrapolate^ to produce estimates, on
a regional geographic basis, for certain industries.
(1) Methodology for Estimating Wkste Streams and Specific
Hazardous Material Quantities
The literature referencing the industrial sectors within
the scope of the study was surveyed to obtain available infor-
mation for quantitatively correlating the list of hazardous
substances with industrial wastes. These wastes are generally
not homogeneous. Rather, in each waste a complex mix of
specific components are found. A given chemical, identified
as hazardous, is most often to be found in such a situation.
The procedure used in accomplishing this task was, in
sequence:
Identify the waste source by industrial sector
Identify the waste stream and the component(s) in
the stream that are correlatable to the list of
hazardous substances
Develop quantity estimates of the production, in
industrial waste, of each identifiable hazardous
substance, using whatever quantification factors
are available in the literature, i.e., percentages
or ratios of each substance in the waste stream
were used directly from the literature.
A set of tables across the various industrial sectors were
developed using these procedures (Table III-6). A general
comment is that the hazardous waste quantities indicated present
boundary, or "ballpark, "figures of production rates of these
unwanted substances. A further note of explanation is that often
the literature reports a component in simple terms, such as
"chromium, " even though the more accurate expression might
be "dichromate". In assigning identification numbers from the
list of hazardous substances to specific waste components, the
following ground rules were used:
III-18
-------
Table III-6
Hazardous Materials Expected in Waste Streams of Producers and Users
CD
WASTE SOURCE
SIC
22
223
221
225
226
226
m
229
261
262
263
266
-
28
2812
DESOUPTION
Textile Mill Product!
. Wool
. Cotton
. Polyester
. Orion
Pulp. Papei, and Board
Mm
Chemlcatiand Allied
fr*to«j
AUiiUei *nd Chlorine
Industry
WASTE TYPE
LD.I
2
382
350
350
363
301
357
418
126
399
126
305
265
424
255
218
380
264
382
103
354
252
53
228
DESCRIPTION OF
HAZARDOUS COMPOUNDS
RawWute
. Acetic Acid
. Sulfuric Acid
. Chrome Mordant
. Chrome (NayCrjOj)
Ra*WM«
. Cauitic Soda
. Phoiphortc Acid
. Chromium
. zinc
. Copper
. Trichlorabenze&e
RIM Wute
. Copper
'. PhGaob
. Black Uquor
. Black Liquor So lid t
. RetinAcldi
. Methyl Mercapun
. Zinc HvdronilfUe
. Methanol
. Hydrogen Sulftd*
. Sulfu Dloiide
. Methyl bobutyl Keione
Cell Ptoceu Wine
. SuKurlc Acid
. Calcium Oxide
. Sodium Carbonate
. Mercury
. Aibeuot
. Lead
. Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
GENERAL QUANTIFICATION
FACTORS
Up to 70,000 gal. /t, 000 Ib.
product
24 ppm, 12 Ib. /1, 000 Ibt.
4 ppm, 2 lb/1.000 Ibt.
8 ppm. 4 Ib. /1. 000 Ibt.
12 ppm, 6 lb/1,000 Ibt.
». 000 gaL /1. 000 Ibt.
pnxtuct
512 ppm
12 ppm
2 pom
O.Tib. /1, 000 Ibt. goodt—
cotton or 50/50 cotton/
polyetter
Sib. /1. 000 Ibt ftomiulfur
dying of cotton yam
»
g.OOOgaL/1.000 Ib*. product
25 to 50 ppm.
100 to 150 ppm
400 gab. /ton
605 Ibi. /ton
5. 3 Ibt. /ton
0.6611». /ion
11 Ibt. /ion
.8 Ibt./ion of down cell Cl2
2 lb»./ionof down cell Clj
.18 Ibt, /ton
. 8 Ibt. /ion
0.3Slbj./ton
1 Ib. /ion
ANNUA
UNITS
Million gaL
1.000 Ibt.
1.000 Ibi.
1.000 tbt.
1.000 Ibi.
l.OOOgaL
l.OOOgM.
1.000 gaL
1,000 Ib*.
1.000 Ib..
1,000 Ibt.
1.000 Ibt.
Million gaL
Million gaL
Million Ibt.
1.0001th.
1,000 Ibt.
1,000 Ibt.
1,000 Ibt.
1.000 Ibt.
1,000 Ibt.
TOTAL
U.S.
5,000
820
1.650
3.410
60.000
1,500
230
1,500
6.045
2,000
16,000
40.000
50.000
400
55,000
170.000
NA
NA
1.800
900
3,500
10.000
NORTHEAST REGION
"TSTS — OTE
England Atlantic Total
Divtiioa Diviiion
950 350 1.300
50 160 210
100 320 420
ISO 500 650
4.140 11.400 15.500
110 280 390
16 44 60
110 280 390
415 1.140 1.550
140 370 520
1.120 2.960 4.160
4.600 4,100 9.300
5.100 5,900 11.600
46 47 93
6,300 -6,500 12.800
200 12,200 12,400
130 130
65 66
5 255 260
10 120 130
PRODUCTION OF HAZARDOUS
NORTH CENTRAL REGION
E. North W. North
Central Central Total
Divition Diviiion
75 20 100
28 3 30
55 6 61
85 10 95
1.000 150 1.200
25 5 30
3 1 4
25 5 30
100 15 120
30 8 40
240 70 320
7.200 1,600 8.800
9,100 2.000 11.000
72 16 88
10.000 2,200 12.200
16,300 1.900 18.200
170 20 190
85 10 95
340 40 370
960 110 1,010
WASTE QUANTITIES
SOUTHERN REGION
Atlantic Central Central Total
Diviiion DlvUion Diviiion
3.000 480 60 3.51.0
490 80 10 585
980 160 20 1.110
1.410 240 30 1.14S
35,000 5.600 600 43.000
890 140 IS 1.070
145 23 2 170
890 140 15 1.070
3.500 560 60 4.300
1,200 18S 20 1.430
9,600 1.500 160 11,440
9,000 3,400 3,800 16.300
11.300 4.300 4.800 20.400
90 34 38 163
12,400 4.100 6,200 22,400
21. 800 15. 800 90. 800 128.400
230 110 960 1,360
115 85 480 680
450 330 1.810 2.600
1.280 930 5,340 1.550
WESTERN RK310N
Diviiion Diviiion Total
100
2
4
6
60
.5
2
.5
6
2
15
900. 4,700 5.600
1,100 5.900 7,000
9 47 66
'"
1.200 6.500 7.700
3.700 1,500 11.200
40 80 120
20 40 60
80 160 230
220 440 660
-------
Table III-6
(Continued)
i
to
o
SIC
111*
2118
WASTE SOURCE
DESCRIPTION
Qcllc fcyBjJfctp
'laditxrial Orvflric
Chemleab
. Phenol Productioa
P^rorjrt! **" n"""-l
cibriuM o**u«
. Ace tan*
. Adfotc MM «a
CyeloBtiaM ffctdiri«i
. ItlUtttM rti N4MBM
DebfdMfcMilo*
. fan&*Ud))4c «U
UMtttMl OUtBttOM
. MttbMot «• Carbon
MoaomMr %•*•*
. EBtybuK Diebtort** *U
Ouy •ChtorlBAQ'an of
I.D.*
60
3t2
363
3U
39B
113
M6
M»
to
400
105
126
...
121
III
...
373
lit
106
114
147
...
Ill
411
US
tfASTC TYPE
DESCRIPTION OP
HAZARDOUS COMPOUNDS
. PlrtfkMlom M*d
•MM SvtfbMw
.•MUM***"
. Salfwlc Acid
. CauMlct
UuneM Oxidation
PtOGCH Wattt
. PalrchJarld* 9attne
. T«
OUortnationofteMen.
- OrnMte Cbtortd*
' "»•«•
. Phcoob
- O*A«*« CMorWw
. Oriufe CUorMtt
Camtm PMCCM Warn
. Pteool
«*» WMU
. Copper
. VBOAtflMn
. COM*
Raw WMM
. Cfaraniiwn
. OtgMic CMotldc
.• Sutridu
faw Wutt
. Cbramlum
. OrgMk Cbkttdt
tow Warn
. OffioJc ChteMc*
. CbMcnlHi)
. ZbK
Rav warn
' °li"-e Chton*M
GENERAL QUANTIFICATION
FACTORS
Mlb^/.on
5, 900 It*, /ion Ptod.
'
--
200 te. /ton Ptod.
--
-.
670 tab. /1. 000 IbuProd.
M •«./!. 000 tb». Ptod.
ft lbh/1.000 lb». Ptod.
0. 1 to. /1 . 000 Ibt. Prod.
0. 03 Rw. /I.OOO tt». Ptod.
Mtbk/1.000 tbi. Prod.
5M|>lk/1.000U». Ptod.
24 Ibi./l.OOO a*. Prod.
1.700§ab./1.000 Ite. Ma*.
0. Jib.. /1. 000 Ibt. Prod.
0.06 lbk/t,000lbk Pied.
0.001 Ibt/l.OOOIbj. Plod.
2.400 fili./1. 000 B». Pro*.
0.07 Ita./ 1.000 U»- ftad.
6.11bi./1.000lbi. ftod.
O.JIbt./l.OOOft*. Prod.
490gjb,/I.OOO Ite. Pto*.
0.00371bj./1.000ltMt Pro*.
0. 1< to/1, 000 tbi Pro*.
1.612 ib*. i.ooo to. nod.
0.18 RM./ .000 Itm. Pro*.
0.01 RM./ .000 Ita. Prod.
0.011 Ib*, 1.000 to. Pio*.
320 |»b. / .000 to. Prod.
32 to*./ 1.000 to. Ptod.
UNITS
MlUIOQlbL
Million to.
i.ooo n».
1.000 fib.
1.000 to.
1.000 Ibk
1.000 to.
l.OOOIb*.
MillioM ga hi
I.OOO Ibk
MilUoBgab
1.000 Ua.
i.ooo to.
MtlUoa|ak
1,000 to.
1.000 to.
1.000 Ita.
Millioo |ab
1.000 tbi.
1.000 to.
Million tbi.
1.000 Ibk
1.000 Ibt.
1.000 Ibk
MilUoo gab.
1,000 to.
TOTAL
U.S.
MM
170
37.000
90,000
7.000
700
l.COO
300
7B.OOO
too
25.000
1.970
330
66
Mf,
•.000
265
23. MO
1,140
2.400
20
BOO
11,000
1.200
70
90
2.400
24. XO
ANNUAL
NORTH EAST REGION
New Ul*dk
England Attutic Total
DlvUoo Ot*Uoo
40 40
20.000 20.000
2.100 2.700
2.100 2.100
210 210
1M 190
1,000 1.000
WTPimnN "* MAZADontis u
NORTH CENTRAL REGION
E. North W. Nonb
Ctneral Ccairal Toul
Dlvldoo Dlvltlon
60 5 55
M M
i.0» S.OOO 10.000
«, 000 63, 000
40,000 4t.OOO
4.90ft 4,900
100 100
4.000 4.000
300 300
10 10
•00 tOO
40 40
30 60
1 1
20 20
250 230
21 21
2 2
2 2
.*T»ntl»MTlTTf«
SOUTHERN ttcriM
Soutb C. Somb W. So«fe
Ailuicic Central C*atral Toul
DlvUto) Dl viiion DlrtdOB
60 4i 270 190
H M
6,000 6.000
"^
16.000 16,000
12.000 12.000
1.100 1.300
NA
NA
10,000 66.000 75.000
40 250 310
3. iOO 10.020 12.600
t.100 TO 700 1.670
300 5 25 310
40 1 25 44
N.J. (Ml. Kg. NC|.
1. 300 1. 300
345 S*i
22.000 22.000
1.000 1.000
100 2.200 3.300
2 11 30
40 730 770
MO 10.000
55 1,100
3 W
4 73
240 3.100 2.340
2.400 21.000 23.400
wrcrnu trr.nu
Mooaa. Paclftc
OlottkM DlrtMoB Toul
10 10 »
1.000 1.000
II IS
600 #00
430 4SO
IS 15
1.200 1.200
100 100
^
100 100
1.000 1.000
-------
Table III-6
(Continued)
S
i
tc
SIC
2Mtf
"
282
2B21
WASTE SOURCE
DESCRIPTION
Indium*) Inorgaitir
Che m toll
. Pbotphorui
. Phoiphonc Acid (Wei
proceit)
. Hydrogen Pero>ide
. Aluminum Chloride
. Aluminum Sulfaie
. Nitric Acid
. Sulfuric Acid
. Hydrofluoric Acid
1 . Sodium Dlchromftte
PUlUci tod fellm
Aciyllci
I.D.«
,109
371
159
100
Ml
:ni
2 111
lOst
213
212
283
302
100
301
350
12
200
412
413
J7»
WASTE TYPE
DESCRIPTION OK
. Photphotui
. Rwtphile (lolubte)
. Fluotidc
. PonO Seit ling
• Calcium Fluoride
• Phoiphonc Acid
- Photphate
. Hydrogen Peroxide
. Chlorine
. Hydiochlotic Acid
. Settling Pood Mund
. Filter Aidi
• Nitric Acid
. Neuuttiution Pond
Settling
. Fillet Aidi
- Sulfuiic Acid
. Ctk-ium Fluoride
. Photpttoric Acid
. Chromium Sibi
(U- Wuie
. Acrytonitrife
. Formic Acid
. Vinyl Aeeute
. Vinyl Chloride
. Styrene
tlENKRALVUANTlFICATlON
10.5 Ihi. /ion
(. IrVton
IC44 Ibi. /ion ptodu>'i
lie Ibi. /ion product
1 IK /(on product
4?i lln. /(oil product
40 Iht. /ion prtxlui'i
« Ihi. /ion product
B Ibt. /ion product
MO Ibt, /ton
>> Ibt/ton produi-i
30 Ihi/ion product
I Ib. /ton product
"
1 Ib. /ton product
0. 13 g*li, /Ib. product
I'NITS
1, 000 Iht.
1 . 000 Ibt .
1 . 000 Ibt.
Million Iht.
1.000 IN.
1 . 000 lot.
1 . 000 11*.
1 . 000 Ibt.
1.000 Ibt.
1.000 Ita.
Million Ibt.
1 . 000 Ibt.
Million Ibt.
1.000 Ibi.
Million Ibt.
1.000 gib.
TOTAL
H.400
7.400
5,>iOO
«,200
340,000
5.000
•m. ooo
2,fOO
'JOO
200
350
36.000
t*0
26.000
300
25. 700
ANNtIA
NORTHEAST REGION
New Middle
Division Oivliion
100 100
100 100
N. A. N. A. N. A.
1,000 2,000 3.000
10 125 136
300 4,200 4.&00
35 65 100
3. 000 6, 000 9, 000
L PRODUCTION OF HAZARDOUS
NORTH CENTRAL REGION
E. North W. North
Divmon Diviuon
100 100
100 100
N. A. N. A. N. A.
1,000 5.000 12.000
20 160 180
900 5.100 o.OOO
5 63 10
640 5.600 6.000
WASTE QUANTITIES
SOUTHERN RK'ilUN
South £. Sou tli W. S'Mili
D iv ii ion Diviuon Divtiion
100 4,100 4,800
600 3.600 4,200
450 2,700 3.200
N.A. N.A. N. A. N.A\
5,000 5.000 10.000 19.000
160 100 1Gb 420
S.600 3.000 5.600 14.000
SO 30 35 115
4.300 2,500 3.200 10.000
WESTERN REGION
Mountain Pacific
:*. «>00 3. 600
3.200 3.200
2.400 2.400
N.A. N. A, N. A.
3. bOO 400 4. 000
20 60 BO
400 1. 100 1,500
ifr" rt-
100 100
-------
Table III-6
(Continued)
i
to
to
WASTE SOURCE
sic
2821
282i
2821
2821
2H21
2831
2823
287
DESCRIPTION
. Alkyd art Polyenei
Rriim
. Urea and MeUmine
bun*
. Phenolic Reims
. CcUulcw Encn
. Vinyl Reum
. Polytiyrene Reum *<*)
Copotymeti
. Rayon Fiben
Agricultural Cttcmicili
. Ammonium Nitrate
. Ammonium Salfate
. Urea
WASTE TYPE
I.D.*
242
318
3X
314
UOS
199
•2
382
247
JO.S
10.
114
35M
418
24
19
35T
ia
t5T
OESCR1PTION OF
HAZARDOUS COMPOUNDS
ftaw Wane
. Mafeif Anhydride
. Styrenc
. Prapytene Clycol
. Pbthilic Acid
Raw Wine
. Caumc
Riw Wuic
. Phenol*
. Formaldehyde
R*v w*ne
. Ace Iu Acid
. Sulfutic Acid
. Mercury Chloridef
R*. Wane
. Pttcnoh
. Cuhon Teitachlotide
. ChloroJwni
Rit> Wute
. M«th)Ul
iOK Salti
Raw Watie
. Ammonium Nitrate
. Amtnonu
Raw Wane
. Ctironuie
Raw Wane
. Uiea
. Ammonia
. Chronute
GENERAL OI'ANTIFICATION
FACTORS
V R»L>. /lh. product
P. 1 gall. /lh. product
0.lR«li./th. pradiH-i
M £.»]*, /tit ptOtfUfl
1. S ,tab. /lb. produ^i
1.5 K«ii. /lb. piiMlucr
12-SC Ihi. Zn/l.POC |h.
produc!
14 Ibt./ion
i lt». /ion
J4 Itn./ 1,000 torn pioduci
i •- Ibt./lcm
lr< [hi, /ton
->1 Ibt. / i.ODO tont pnxluL-t
ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES
UNITS
Million K't».
Million tiili.
Million B»U.
Million t*U.
Million eab.
Million o
121,000
4.1.000
4»
JU1<
10
•J21
NORTHEAST REGION
New Middle
England Atlantic Total
Divhion Diviiion
2bO MO BOO
•• 14 20
10 25 35
1.600 J.:tOO 4.900
SCO 1.000 1.500
500 1.000 I, SCO
•J.OOO -S.OOO 7.000
1,000 2,000 J.OOO
t^egbgibk
15 IS
Negligible
NORTH CENTRAL REGION
E. North W. North
Centrtl Centrtl Tout
Divltion Dlvttlon
50 4SO &QO
330 2.100 3,000
110 900 1 . 000
100 BOO 900
36.000 15.000 50,000
12,000 7.000 13.000
Negligible
35 D£ 100
Negligible
SOUTHERN REGION
South E, South W. South
Atlantic Central Central Total
Diviiion Diviiion Divulon
400 200 300 900
2.400 1,000 1.600 S, 000
BOO 400 500 1.700
100 400 SOO 1,400
15.000 IS. 000 I S.OOO 48,000
S.OOO 5,000 1.000 IT, 000
Negligible
35 SO 100 190
Negligible
WeSTTRN REGION
Mounuln Pacific
Diviiion Dlvlitoa Total
70 70
3 3
400 400
130 190
130 120
19.000 19.000
6.000 A.OOO
Negligible
SO SO
IS 15
Negligible
-------
Table III-6
(Continued)
i
CO
CO
WASTE SOURCE
SIC
tan
-
29
391
DESCRIPTION
. Nitric Add
(U Intermediate)
«-.
. Niiroglycerin
. TNT
. RDX
. HMX
Pfetrokum and Coal
Product!
fettokum RcftninR
I.D.«
331
41B
382
2a:i
J«2
2B3
3T4
3Mi
;WS
29J
'J30
VJI
2
2
"
305
;tij
19
•n.i
21*
29
:i05
55J
rfASTE TYPE
DESCRIPTION
HAZARDOUS COMPOUNDS
Raw Wane
. Chromate
• ziDC
. Sulfufic Acid
. Nitnc Acid
Raw wute
. Sulfuttc Acid
. mine Acid
Red Water
. Sodium SulfUc
. Sodium Nitri'e
. Sodium Nitrate
. NitrotOliKIle
. Priroar MAKlUb
- U*d AiMc
- Lead Aneuie
• U»d Aneniu
Raw Watte
. Acetic Acid .
. RDX
. Methyl Niiraic
Raw Wine
. Acetic Acid
. HMX
. PtwnoLt
. SulfiJci
. Amntonia
. Soui Waiei
- iulfidei
- l[)-dro)ten Sulftdc
• Ammonium SulfiJe
• Phenol
- Mwcaptani
GENERAL OUANTIFICA HON
FACTORS
3»lb»,/1.000 tonipfoduci
10 lb». /I.OOO totu product
1 ID. /I Ib. product
1 Ib./llb. product
S.100 Ihi. /100.000 Ibi. pt
S, 740 ItM. /100, 000 Lht.
product
34 Ibi./lOO |t». product
2.31t
3.W.
1.T5-
17. ft
--
ItiO Iht. /100 tont product
1 Ib. /100 torn product
200 Ib*./ 100 torn product
-
ItiO lbt./100(oru product
2 lhi/100 tont produn
lo.52 ltn.fl.000 haireli of
feed
.;.2.S tbi./ 1,000 barrel! of
feed
Iv.I Ibi./l.OOO hineli of
feed
i.-TBili./B*!. product
--
--
--
UNITS
1,000 Ibt.
1.000 Ibi.
See Tabte II
1,000 Ibi.
1 . 000 Ihi.
1 . 000 tbt.
Million gill
TOTAL
U.S.
ISO
30
-B fat Private
^0,000
i;>. ooo
49. 000
i;^: 1,000
ANNUAL PRODUCTION OP HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTIHES t
NORTHEAST REGION
New Middle
England Atlantic Total
Division Divition
induttry
4. (.00 4,"0(
1.400 1,400
4. SCO 4.500
ll.LJOO C, ;tO(
NORTH CENTRAL REGION
E. North W. North
Central Central Total
Olvinoo Dl viiloo
H.OOO ;i. ooo ii.ooo
2,400 300 .1,200
7.COO 2.UOO 10.000
IOC. 000 38.000 Mii.OOO
SOUTHERN REGION
South E. South W. South
Atlantic Central Central Total
Divliion Divuion Dlviiion
,
•
13.000 1.300 24,000 Zii.OOO
400 400 7,100 7,^00
1.200 1.200 23. 000 20.000
11, 000 IT. 000 I2ii.000 .UiO.OOO
WESTERN REGION
Mounuin Ptclflc
Divition Divliion Total
1,700 ii.700 8,000
500 2,000 2, iOO
i.uoo e.uoo e, ooo
23,000 91,000 114.000
-------
Table III-6
(Continued)
s
I—I
CO
SIC
291
WASTE sot'B.E
DES<:RIPTION
*et role urn Refining
(Continued)
,o,
IK.'
CM*
a
1 M
,.
' 1 1.1'
.Ittt
•2M
245.
12-S
124
1
!•!>
IW
2M
14
31
Tf
112
•J21
v:n
:ii
60
1W
178
IAS
18P
1(l Alvotk.!
- Alii.l AUohol
- Kutan.>l
• Ethanol
- Iiobuiyl Alcohol
• Itopiopyl Akonol
• Methane!
• Hen lent'
- Carbon Teltaclilonde
• Ethyl Benzene
- Ethylene Diehloridf
- illvcol
- £th>lene Oxide
- Formic ACld
• Tar
- Thallium
- Toluene
- Vinyl Acetate
. Mine Acid
. phosphoric Acid
. Sodium Hydroxide
'KNERAI. yilA M'lKH IA TION
FACTORS
;;„"""• "•""""""• "
I'NITS
M.llu.n IK
TOTAL
t'.S.
f.,000
ANNUAL
NOftrHKAST KEXiKIN
New Middle
En^Urtd At la tit ic Total
4..0
NURTH CENTRAL RFUION
E.Nonri W. North
Central Central Total
Divition Divuion
1.100
SOl'TllfUN Ht.'.Uiti
V'Dtli t. '-mtti W. tauih
Ailaniu- r;eniral Central Total
Divition IIivMxm Divnuifi
£.4H, ..-.GO
WESTTRN RC'.IUN
Mountain Pa< iflc
Divuion invluon Tola)
110 B90 KOO
„.,
-------
Table III-6
(Continued)
to
SIC
31
311
33
33
331
WASTE SOURCE
DESCRIPTION
Petroleum Refining
(Continued)
Leather and Leather
Product!
Leather Tanninx and
FiniAlng
Stone. Clay, Clan and
Concrete Produce
. Mirror
Primary Metal Induttriei
BUtt Fumacet, 3 eel
Work*, and RoUlfv and
finiming Mllb
. Coke Plant
I.D.I
118
126
196
218
418
341
313
UN
.105
iiti
359
19
JB2
HP
41r
•J1S
(06
H3(f
WASTE TYPE
DESCRIPTION OF
HAZARDOUS COMPOUNDS
Heavy Metali (ion)
- Ctom'iTm
- Copper
- Iron
- lead
• Nickel
• Zinc
(."town* Tan Liquor
- Chromium
• Sulfidet
Raw Watte
. Chromium
. Iron
Connlidated Plant Watte
. FtKDOlt
. Cyaaidei
. Ftuoridei
. Ammonia
. Sulfurtc Acid
. Chromium
. Zinc
. Hydrochloric Actd
Raw Watte
. Phenol
. Cyanide
. Ammonia
GENERAL QUANTIFICATION
FACTORS
Induttry Total Water Effluent
(1.U1Q9 gal/day)
>. 03 ppm
0/14 ppm
08 ppm
»ppm
15 ppm
042 ppm
13 ppm
20 ppm
..
9 It*. /1. 000 Ibi. Udct
3 Ibi. /1. 000 Ibi. hidei
..
0.019 lot/ 1.000 ft2 product
0.069 Ibt. 'l, 000 ft2 product
1.37 * 10* gab/ million
dollar value added (MIVA)
B24 Ibt/MIVA
305 Ira. /MSVA
391 Ibt. / MSVA
991 Iht, /MSVA
40.473 lbt./K1$VA
&&u int. /MSVA
. 1? Iht. /MfVA
l.Tlf Iht. /MSVA
3,000 ^alt. /ton coal
O.M ihi. /ton.-o»l
0.32 Iw. /too coal
<>.:£ lhi./ion.'0»l
ANNUAL PRODUCTION Of HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITI £5
UNITS
.000 Iba,
.000 Ibi.
. 000 Ibi.
. 000 Ibt.
. 000 It*.
.000 Int.
1.000 Ibi.
1,000 Ibt.
1.000 lb»
1.000 Ibi
10* Client
1.000 Int.
1.000 IN.
1.000 lot.
1.000 Ibt.
Million Int.
1.000 Ibi.
1.000 Ihi.
1.000 Ihi.
Million i;ali
1.000 Ihi.
1 . 000 IM.
1.000 Int.
TOTAL
U.S.
400
200
1.300
300
100
400
600
16,000
C.OOO
2.000
1.000
I. SOO
9.000
4.000
4.000
11,000
450
ti.OOO
.100
10.000
IBS. 000
35. COO
20.000
22, WO
NORTHEAST REGION
New Middle
England Atlantic Total
Di vlilon Dlvltion
31 37
18 IB
110 110
30 30
31 31
06 60
4.100 4.300 9.400
1,400 1.100 3.100
100 500 £00
100 1.800 2.500
30 500 S;tO
200 3.000 3.200
100 1.300 1,400
100 1,300 1,400
400 3,tiOO 4,000
10 150 ICO
100 2,000 2,100
40 2*0 :100
BOO -.200 7,000
4,000 i£,000 CtJ.OOO
300 11.000 12,000
400 G.OOO 7,000
700 7.300 ti.OOO
NORTH CENTRAL REGION
E. North W. North
Central Central Total
Divltkxi DlvUion
65 20 85
30 10 40
200 £5 265
50 15 65
65 20 85
100 30 130
5.300 SOO 5,800
1.100 200 1.900
SOO -- SOO
1.600 100 1.700
630 20 6SO
3,800 100 3.900
1.700 50 1,700
1,700 50 1.700
4.600 200 4,800
190 ' — 190
2.500 100 2.600
330 20 :iSO
T.900 350 Is. 200
79,000 2.000 91.000
15,000 400 15,000
*.400 300 C.600
9. COO 300 9.500
SOUTHERN REGION
South E. south W. South
Atlantic Central Central Total
Dl vlilon DlvUion Divltion
1.1 190 210
95 105
4 4 600 620
1 I 150 160
1 t 190 210
20 2 300 320
1.400 800 100 2,300
400 200 30 . 800
JOO 200 50 950
2,000 700 300 3.000
160 30 40 230
700 200 400 1.400
300 90 210 JOO
300 90 210 600
850 230 600 1.700
35 10 25 70
4SO 130 320 900
60 15 45 120
1.400 400 1,100 2.900
15. 000 4. 000 10. 000 29. 000
2,700 BOO 1,900 5,400
1.600 400 1. 100 3.100
1. 70(i 500 1,200 1.400
WESTERN REGION
Mountain Pacific
DlvUion DlvUion Total
10 60 60
50 25 30
40 170 210
10 40 50
3 13 16
10 &0 ' 60
20 CO 100
500 SOO
200 SOO
10 25 95
400 200 600
190 60 250
190 60 2W
500 200 100
20 10 30
280 100 380
40 10 50
900 300 1.200
9,000 3,000 12.000
1.600 600 2,200
900 400 1.300
1,000 400 1,400
-------
Table III-6
(Continued)
to
a>
WASTE SOURCE
SIC
333
3134
34
DESCRIPTION
BUii Fwnscet, Steel wotla
>nd Rolling and Fmuhinfl
Milli (Coaunued)
. Iron Manufacturing
. Cold Fiiuihmg
. Pickling
Non-Ferrout Mcuii
. Aluminum
. Ban Mill
Fabricated Metal Products
WASTE TYPE
l.D. n
'105
19
Mf
196
J57
:150
4IP
212
382
212
359
"
12«
..
350
382
362
126
350
124
126
196
279
2*2
419
DESCRIPTION Or
HAZARDOUS COMPOUND!
Raw Wane
. Phenol
. Ammonia
. ri) snide
finishing Watte
. Cyanide
. Iton
. Chromium (Tout)
. He «« vi km Chromium
. Zinc
(time Watei
. Hydrochloric Acid
. Sulfwir ACH!
Pickle Uquof
. Hydrochloric Acid
Primary Smelting Wane
. Fluoride
Plate and Sheet Wane
. Aluminum Phnphate
Liquor
. Copper
. Zinc
. Sodium Dichtomaie
. Sulfuric Acid
Bright Dip Liquor
. Sutfwic Acid
. Copper
. Zinc
. chromium
Fuudimg Cfnuenii
. Copper
. lion
. Nickel
. Zinc
GENERAL QUANTIFICATION
FACTORS
'.'.200 ^ali. /ton product
0. 02 llw. Aon ptoduct
0. 25 Int. /ton product
0.09 Ibt/ion product
•J.'JOO j;*b. /tun product
4.0 Ira. /ion ptoducr
0.5 It*. /ton ptoduri
0.4 ItM./ron product
1.0 Iht./ron product
500 gal), /im product
2.S Ibt. Aon product
2.5 Int. /ion product
199,000 Ibt./MlVA
1. 700 tbt. /MSVA
J Int. /1, 000 1* aluminum
1.5 lbt./1.00C Ibt. alumimiR
.00-1. OM.pl*. /ton produci
*i Ibt. .'ion produti
4 Ibi./ioo product
5 Ibi. /ton product
'.. Ibt. /ton product
(tO. 000 ppm
lO.OOOppm
lO.OOOppn.
20.000 ppm
N.A.
6 to 300 ppm
2 to 21 ppm
C to 300 ppm
0 to 300 ppm
ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES
I'NITS
Million K*li.
1.000 Ibt.
100 Ibi.
1 . 000 Ibt.
Million Ibt.
1 . 000 Its.
1.000 It*.
1. 000 Ibt,
1 . 000 Ibi.
Million RSb.
Million Ibt.
Million Ibt.
Million Ibt.
1 . 000 Ibt.
1,000 Ib*
1,000 Ibi.
M.lliongaU.
1 . 000 Iht.
1,000 Ibi.
1.000 Ibt.
100 Un.
TOTAL
U.S.
ISti.OOO
1.000
If. 000
ti.OOG
£.000
10.000
1.000
1.000
2.000
:o,oo<
350
350
218,000
19,000
Jti.QQb
5.000
K.OOO
10,000
12.000
14.000
NORTHEAST REGION
New Middle
England Atlantic Total
Division D wiiton
4.000 5,300 5,500
100 100 400
000 V9000 (.,500
100 2.000 2.000
100 1.700 1.800
200 1.300 J.500
100 UOO 400
100 LJOO 400
100 100 800
2.000 2.*.000 25.000
100 100
too too
4,000 72.000 T6.000
300 . 6.300 6,600
2.100 iOO 2. TOO
JM> 100 450
1-
400 J.100 3,600
200 2, HO 3.100
400 3.400 3,800
400 4.000 4.400
NORTH CENTRAL REGION
E. North W. North
Central Central Total
Dfviiion Division
65.000 2.000 C7.000
4uO — 40b
T.500 .100 7.800
2.500 100 2, bOO
2.000 100 2.100
4,200 100 4,300
400 •- 400
400 -- 400
B30 30 B>:0
29.000 |. 000 30.000
150 -- ISO
91.000 XOOO 94,000
7.900 300 9.100
6.600 3M- C.900
1.100 iO 1.150
100 3.100 .200
30 2,oOO .GOO
100 3.100 .200
300 J. 400 , 700
SOUTHERN REGION
South E. South W. South
Atlantic Central Genual Total
Divuion Divuion Diviuon
12.000 '1, itO 9,100 34,00(
f-0 H V, 160
1.400 400 1.000 2.800
4GO HC MO 9JO
390 100 290 7BO
800 200 COO 1.600
iO iO fiO 160
BO SO «0 180
160 40 120 310
5.500 l.S&O 4.000 It. 000
17.000 4,£OG 11.400 J4.000
1,100 400 1.100 3.006
t>. 000 1 . 000 6. OOC 13. uOO
1.000 200 1,000 2.100
TOO ^00 300 300
€00 250 250 .100
700 JOG 300 .300
EOO 300 300 .SCO
WESTERN REGION
Mountain Pacific
Dlvitlon Dl viiton
".300 2.700 10.000
50 10 00
BOO 300 1,100
300 100 400
730 90 330
470 130 BOO
M 10 60
10 10 BO
M 30 120
3,300 100 4,000
11 5 20
10,000 4,000 14.000
MO 300 1.200
7.200 200 T.400
1.3M 40 l.!«0
900 2.800 3,600
800 9,400 3..200
900 J.8M 3,800
J, 300 1,100 4,400
'
-------
Table III-6
(Continued)
R
to
WASTE SOU1CE
SIC
34
80
"*
DESCRIPTION
Fabricated Met* I Product*
(Continued)
116
Medical and CKhet Health
Service!
Radioactive Wine
WASTE TTPE
I.D.*
3SO
.168
118
282
116
126
383
124
134
--
371
B0
89
410
419
36J
124
419
124
419
L17C
377
:t*4
344
"
"
DESCRIPTION OF
HAZARDOUS COM POUNDS
. Heiava lent Chromium
. Cyanide
Plating Unuon
. Nickel
. Chromium
. Copper (Acid)
. - Solferic Acid
. Coppei (C.>an«Je)
- Cyanide
. Coppet (Pyrophoiphate)
• Sodium Fyrophot-
phate
. Cadmium
- Cyanide
Zinc
- Cyanide
- Outfit-
- Copper
- Zinc
• Cyanide
. Tin
. Silver (Cyanide)
- Cyanide
ftadioiioiopei
- Oniff
See Appcinlm
GENERAL QUANTIFICATION
FACTORS
0. 6 to TOO ppm
J9to 1,500 ppm
N.A.
82. 000 ppm
20*7,000 ppm
51. 500 ppm
U.OOOppm
12.400 ppm
28. 000 ppm
M. 000 ppm
210. 000 ppm
2U. 000 ppm
57. 100 ppm
33, 800 ppm
4d. 900 ppm
JB. 000 ppm
21. 000 ppm
*. 240 ppm
4 1, SOO ppm
ill. 000 ppm
24. .100 ppm
21. i-OO ppm
1.000 lht./yr./hd
A1U01
UNITS
1.000 IN*.
TOTAL
U.S.
10,000
NORTHEAST REGION
New Middle
England Atlantic Total
Diviiion Diviiion
14.000
. PRODUCTION OF HAZARDOI
NORTH CENTRAL REGION
E. North W. North
Central Cemril Toul
Diviiion Divition
23.000
WASTE QUANTITIES
SOUTHERN REGION
South E. South W. South
Atlantic Central Central Total
Diviiion Diviiion Diviiion
28.000
WESTERN REGION
Mountain pacific
DivliiOd Di vbloo Total
15.000
-------
Cations (such as heavy metals) are referenced to
the chloride or sulfate salt, unless a salt is more
precisely identified. Exalnple: often "copper" is
reported in the literature;' "copper sulfate" is
referenced. < •:
Anions (such as cyanide or sulfide) are referenced
to the sodium salt, unless more precisely identified.
"Chromium" is referenced to "Chromic sulfate" or
"sodium chromate, " depending on the process,
unless otherwise identified.
"Phenols" are referenced to "phenol", unless a
specific phenol derivative is noted.
"Organic chlorides" are referenced to a prevalent
component in the mixture that is indicated on the
list of hazardous materials.
A continuing problem encountered in accomplishing this
task is the scantiness of useful literature data. Even with an
extensive survey such as this, lack of information is a limiting
factor.
In some cases, specific constituent materials have been
identified, but no quantification factors were given. So long as
the identity was supplied, it has been included in the waste
stream constituency listing of Table III-6, to provide a "second
level" of hazardous material/waste stream correlation.
Table III-7 provides waste quantity data for the commercial
explosives industry.
(2) Geographic Areas
In the preceding tables, the geographic areas have been
limited to regions, rather than SMSAs and states. The regions
indicated are standard U.S. regions as identified by the Bureau
of the Census. The limitation of the waste streams and specific
materials estimates to regions rather than smaller areas reflects
the confidence place in the quantification factors which serve
as the computational base. Again, it must be noted that whole
111-28
-------
Table III-7 ,
Distribution, Locations arid Volumes
of Explosive Manufacturing Wastes
Federal Region
2
2
3
3
~ 1
4 5
1
5
7
8
8
10
Quantities in
pounds per day
»-*
Waste Material
Nitroglycerine & NG Mixtures
Cont. Waste Packaging
Combined Total
Smokeless Powder
Cont. Packaging
Combined Total
Industrial Exp. & Prop.
Cont. Packaging
Combined Total
Primer Materials & Caps
Cont. Packaging
Combined Total
Regional Total
/ •
/•52
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
2
2
/*
-
-
-
1000
3
2003
20
-
20
220
650
870
3000
/ tf
-
-
830
-
-
—
125
750
1705
-
-
415
2950
/ £'
800
800
1600
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1600
1*
125
200
325
-
-
-
_
-
-
5
2
7
330
1 •
10
-
10
- .
-
-
100
1000
1100
-
-
-
1110
/ •*•*
/ o
15
-
15
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
15 +
/ ^
200
150
1000
-
-
-
-
-
48
-
-
-
1050
i
10
-
10
-
-
-
50
250
300
-
-
-
310
0°
-
-
-
.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
5
/
525
750
1275
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1275
X - Materials detonated; quantity unspecified.
Notes: (1) Combined totals exceed sums of specified parts due to variance in
reports from firms.
(2) This table represents reports from four major firms, only, and
is not a complete inventory of rates of generation or locations;
6000 other plant operations are treated in a subsequent section.
Institute of Makers of Explosives, 420 Lexington Avenue, New York.
111-29
-------
industries are being considered here, not individual plants, and
the credibility limits of the approach /taken are such that produc-
tion of this type of estimates on a moire localized basis is not
justified. The results should be view)ed as points of departure
for future research rather than factual representations. Until
reliable waste stream analyses are niade at very specific
locations, this situation will remain unchanged.
For future research purposes, it will be necessary to
match the industries, according to SIC code, first to the states
included in each region, then to specific plant locations, to
determine the actual extent of production of the waste streams
and specific materials contained.
The data availability problem is also demonstrated by the
regional quantity data of Table III-6, in that the breakdown
figures do not add up to the totals. The reasons are that:
Independent estimates were made for waste streams,
compounds, and regional totals, based on Census
of Manufactures production data
In several cases, production data is not available
in the Census of Manufactures
Some errors result from data interpretation
Some errors result from rounding-off in a series of
computations.
Since only a limited number of hazardous materials (by
name) could be correlated with waste streams, there remains
the problem of assisting future research efforts by providing
come form of correlation that will at least aid in directing those
efforts toward the appropriate industry sectors. This is discussed
in the following section.
5. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EXPECTED IN NONIDENTIFIABLE
WASTE STREAMS OF INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURERS AND USERS
The preceding tables have listed, to the extent possible based on
literature data, the hazardous materials expected to appear in speci-
fically identifiable waste streams where certain manufacturing processes
111-30
-------
and commonly named waste streams are kjriown, and provide waste
quantity estimates where waste stream mdkeup has been reported in
literature.
The literature data base is severely limited however, and there
remain many hazardous materials that can'reasonably be expected to
be included in industrial waste streams, but where waste streams are
not identifiable by common names from the literature. Further,
waste generation rates, waste stream constituency and waste
concentrations could not be documented, even though the literature
data bank developed in this study is considered comprehensive.
Direct correlation with specific waste streams, then, cannot be made.
Rather, it can only be surmised that since certain industry groups
are known principal manufacturers and users of the hazardous
materials, the materials will appear in one or more of these
industries' general waste streams.
It is important as a minimum, therefore, to correlate the
remaining hazardous materials with the industry groups as specifically
as possible. In this way, useful information is provided which serves
as guidance in identification and direction of needed further research
related to the occurrence and quantification of hazardous materials
in mixed waste streams. Since the locations of specific industry
segments (plants) can be identified, research efforts can be directed
toward determination of specific materials' manufacture and use,
and thus potential point sources of hazardous wastes can be identified.
Table III-8 lists the hazardous materials for which neither
waste stream data nor quant if iaction data are available, and correlates
those materials with SIC codes. Where a substance is heavily used
or produced by a particular sector, specific codes, to the four-digit
level, are given. Otherwise, two- or three-digit SIC reference is
given. The inference is that these materials will be found in the
general waste streams from those industry groups, and that further
detailed research is needed to determine whether hazardous
conditions are generated and the precise nature of such conditions.
Ill-31
-------
7
Table III-8
Hazardous Materials Expected in Waste Strteams of Producers and Users
I. D.
Num.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
30
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
54
55
56
57
58
59
61
Substance (Common) Name
Acetic Anhydride
Acetone
Acetone Cyanhydrin
Acetonitrile (Methyl Cyanide) .
Acetyl Chloride
Acetylene
Acridine
Acrolein
Acrylic Acid
Aldrin
Allyl Chloride
Aluminum Flouride
Aluminum Oxide
Aluminum Sulfate
Ammonium Chloride
Ammonium Chromate
Ammonium Dichromate
Ammonium Flouride
Ammonium Perchlorate
Ammonium Persulfate
Ammonium Picrate (Dry)
Ammonium Picrate (Wet)
Amyl Acetate (Banana Oil) •
Aniline
Anthracenes
Antimony
Antimony Pentachloride
Antimony Pentafiuouride
Antimony Pentasulfide
Antimony Potassium Tartrate
Antimony Sulfate
Antimony Sulfide
Antimony Triethyl (Triethylstirine)
Antimony Trichloride
Antimony Trifluouride
Antimony Trimethyl (Trimethylstirine)
Antimony Trioxide
Arsenic
Arsenic Chloride
Arsenic Diethyl
Arsenic Dimethyl
Arsenic Pentaselenide
Arsenic Trichloride
Arsenic Trioxide
Barium Carbonate
Barium Chloride
Barium Cyanide
Barium Fluoride
Barium Nitrate
Barium Sulfide
Benzene Hexachloride
•Standard Industrial Code
Signi/icant Manufacturer and/or User
ProdUcer
t
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2813
2818
2818, 291
2818
2818, 291
2818
2819
3291
10, 14. 281S
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2818
2815
2815
3339
2819
2819
2819
2819
281!)
28 ID
281!J
2819
281!l
281!)
2819
3339
2819
281D
2819
2819
281!)
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2815
User
20, 26, 2818, 282, 36
28, 38
28
28
20, 28
28, 34
28
19, 28
22, 26. 28, 31
28
28
20, 28, 32, 33
28, 32
20, 22, 26, 31, 49
20, 28, 3692
22, 38
27, 28, 32, 38
20, 22, 24, 28, 32
28
20, 28, 34, 38
28
28
20, 22, 28, 39
2815, 2818, 30, 38
28
22, 28, 30, 32, 33
28
28
28, 30, 39
28
28, 39
28, 38, 3!)
28
28. 32
28, 32
28
28
28, 311
28
28
28
32
28, 32
22, 28. 31. 32
28, 32, 33
28
28, 34
28, 32, 36
28, 36, 39
28, 30
28
m-32
-------
Table III-8
(Continued)
I. D.
Num.
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
77
79
80
81
82
83
84
86
87
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
101
102
104
105
107
108
110
111
113
115
117
119
120
122
123
127
128
Substance (Common) Name
Benzene Sulfonic Acid
Benzoic Acid
Benzyl Chloride
Beryllium Carbonate
Beryllium Chloride
Beryllium Hydroxide
Beryllium Oxide
Beryllium Powder
Beryllium Selenate
Boron Trichloride
Boron Trifluouride
Bromic Acid
Bromine
Bromine Pentafluouride
Butane
Butene - 1 (Ethyl Ethylene)
Butylacetate (Butyl Ethanoate)
Butylacrylate
N- Butylamine
Butyl Mercaptan
Butyl Phenol
Cacodylic Acid (Dimethylarsinic Acid)
Cadmium
Cadmium Fluoride
Cadmium Nitrate
Cadmium Oxide
Cadmium Phosphate
Cadmium Potassium Cyanide
Cadmium Sulfate
Calcium Arsenate
Calcium Arsenide
Calcium Carbide
Calcium Cyanide
Calcium Hydride
Calcium Hydrochlorite
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Chloride (Phosgene)
Chloral Hydrate
Chlorine Trifluoride
Chloroacetophenone
Chlorodene
Chlorosulfonic Acid
Chromic Fluouride
Chromium Cyanide
Coal (Particle)
Cobaltous Nitrate
Copper Acetoarsenite
Creosote
Cresol (Cresylic Acid)
.Standard Industrial Code
Significant Manufacturer and 'or User
Producer
2815
2815 '
2815
2819
2819
2819
2819
3339
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
3339
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2818
2818
2818
2812
2818
2818
2818
2819
2819
2819
2819
2815,2861
2821
User
28
28. 38
28
33
28
28
28, 32
33, 36
28
28, 33
28, 33
28
28
28
23, 29
28
22, 26, 28
28, 30
28
28
28
28
28, 34
36
28
28, 30, 32, 33
28
28, 347
28, 36
28
28. 33
22, 28
28
28
28
2823
20, 28, 33
28
28
29
28
28
22, 28, 32, 34
28, 3471
29
28, 32
24, 28
24, 28
20, 28, 33
m-33
-------
Table III-8
(Continued)
I. D.
Num.
129
130
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
173
174
175
176
177
179
180
181
182
183
Substance (Common) Name
Crotonaldehyde
Cumene (Isopropylbenzol)
Cyanoacetic Acid
Cyclohexane (Hexanhydrobenzene)
Cyclohexanol (Hexalin)
Cyclohezanone
Cyclohexylamine
Demeton
Decyl Alcohol
Dibutyl Pathalate-n
o -D ichlorobenz ene
p-Dichlorobenz ene
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2. 4-D)
DDO (Dichloro Diphenyl Dichloro Ethene)
DDT (Dichloro Diphonyl-Trlchloroethane)
Diborane (Boron Hydride)
Dichloroethyl Ether
1, 2-Dichloropropane
1, 3-Dichloropropene
Dieldrin
Diethanolamine
Diethylamine
Diethyl Ether (Ethyl Ether)
Diethylene Dioxide (1, 4-Dioxane)
Diethylene Triamine
Diethylotilbestrol
Diisobutylene
Diisobutyl Ketone
Dimethylamine
Dimethyl Sulfate (Methyl Sulfate)
2,4-Dinltroaniline
o-Dinitrobenzol (1, 2-Dinitrobenzene)
2, 4-Dinltrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene (Dinitro toluol)
Diphenylamine (Phenylaniline)
Dipropylene Glycol
Dodecyl Benzene (Crude)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Ethane
Ethanolamine (Monoethanolamtne)
Ethers
Ethyl Acetate (Acetic Ether)
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethylamine (Monoethylamine)
Ethyl Chloride (Chloroethane)
Ethylene (Ethene)
Ethylene Bromide (Ethylene Dlbromide)
Ethylene Cyanohydrin
Ethylene Diamine
standard Industrial Code
Significant Manufacturer and /or U*w
Produder
2818 .
2818
2818
2815
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2842.2879
2842,2879
2842,2879
2819
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2815
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
User
20. 28
28
28
28
28
28
30
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28, 29. 30
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
26, 26, 29
28, 34
28
28, 34
28
28
28
28
28
20, 28
28
22, 28, 29, 31
28
28
22. 26, 28, 31
20, 28
28
28
28. 29
28
28
ni-34
-------
Table III-8
(Continued)
I. D.
Num.
184
186
187
190
191
193
194
195'
197
198
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
213
214
215
217
219
220
222
223
225
226
227
229
230
231
232
233
236
237
238
239
240
241
243
244
245
246
248
249
250
251
Substance (Common) Name
Ethylene Diapomide. (Dibromethane)
Ethylene Glycol (Glycol)
Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether
Ethylenimine
2-Ethylhexamol (Octyl Alcohol)
Ethyl Methyl Ketone (Butanone)
Ethyl Phthalate (Diethyl O-Phthalate)
2-Ethyl-3Propyl Acrolein
Fluorides (e. g. , Hydrogen Fluoride, etc. )
Fluorine (Hydrofluoric Acid)
Furfural Alcohol
Guthion
Heptalchor
Heptane (Heptyl Hydride)
Hexachlorophene (Methylene)
Hexaethyltetraphosphate
Hezamethylene Oiamine
Hexane (Hexyl Hydride)
Hydrazine (Anhydrous Diamlne)
Hydrobromic Acid
Hydrocyanic Acid (Hydrogen Cyanide)
Hydrofluoric Acid (Hydrogen Fluoride)
Hydrogen Chloride Anhydrous
p-Hydroquinone
Iodine
Isobutyl Acetate
Isophorone
Isoprene
. Isopropyl Acetate
Isopropyl Amine
Isopropyl Ether
Lead Acetate
Lead Arsenate
Lead Arsenite
Lead Carbonate
Lead Chlorite
Lead Nitrite
Lead Oxide
Lithium Aluminum Hydride
Magnesiumo-arsenite
Magnesium Chlorate
Magnesium Sulfate
Manganese
Manganese Arsenate
Manganese Chloride
Manganese Cyclorentadiehyltrlcarbonyl
Mercuric Cyanide
Mercuric Diammonium Chloride
Mercuric Nitrate
Mercuric Sulfate
i Standard Industrial Code
Significant Manufacturer and/or User
Producer
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2819
2819
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2819
2819
2819
2819
2815
2819
2818
2818
2822
2818
2818
2818
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
3339
2819
2819
2818
2819
2819
2819
2819
User
28
28
28
22. 26. 28, 34
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
34, 38
28, 34
28
28
28
28, 33. 34
28, 29. 33, 34
28
28, 34
2834
2821, 34
28
28. 30
28
28
22, 28
28
2879
28
28
18
28
2816. 30. 32
28
28
28
22. 26, 28, 31, 32, 36
28, 3295, 3313. 34
28
22. 28. 35. 36
28
28. 38
28
28
28. 33, 36
111-35
-------
Table III-8
(Continued)
I. D.
Num.
254
256
257
258
230
261
262
263
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
280
281
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
306
308
310
311
312
313
315
317
318
319
Substance (Common) Name
Mesityl Oxide
Methyl Acetate
Methyl Acrylate (Acrylic Esters)
Methylamine (30 Percent Solution)
Methyl Bromide (Bromomethane)
Methyl Chloride (Chloromethane)
Methyl Chloroformate
Methyl Formate (Methyl Methanoate)
Methyl Methacrylate Monomer
Methyl Parathton
Monomethylamiline (n-Methylaniltns)
Morpholine
Naphtha (Crude)
Naphthalene (Naphthaline)
Naph thy lam ine -beta
Nickel
Nickel Ammonium Sulfate
Nickel Antimonide
Nickel Arsenide
Nickel Carbonyl
Nickel Nitrate
Nickel Selenide
Nitroamilene (Nitraneline- meta-para)
Nitrobenzene (Nltrobenzol)
Nitrochlorobenzlne (meta or para)
Nitroethane
Nitroglycerin
Nitromethane
Nitrooaraffins
p-Nitrophenol
Nitropropane (1 and 2)
Nitrous Oxide
Oxalic Acid
Paraformaldehyde
Parathion
Pentaropane
Pentachlorophenol
PETN (Pentafrythritol Tetranitrate)
n-Pentane (Amyl Hydride)
Perchloric Acid (72 Percent Solution)
Perchloroethylene (Tetrachloroethylene)
Perchloryl Fluoride
Phenylhydrogine Hydrochlorine
Phosphorus (Red)
Phosphorus Oxychloride
Phosphorus Pentachloride
Phosphorus Pehtasulfide
Phosphorus Trichloride
Picric Acid (Trinetrophenol)
Potassium Arsenite
Potassium Pinoxalate
Potassium Chromate
Stkndard Industrial Code
Significant Manufacturer and/or User
Producer
i
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2911
2815
2815
3339
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2815
2815
2815
2818
2897
2818
2815
2815
2818
2813
2818
2818
2818
2819
2818
2818
2818
2819
2818
2818
2818
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2818
2819
2819
2819
User
28
28
28. 31
28, 30
28
28, 30
28
26
28, 29
28
28
28. 30, 34
2815,
28, 31. 34
28
28, 33. 34
28. 34
28. 34
32
28
28, 32. 34
36
28
28
28, 30
28
19, 28
29
19. 28
2818. 34
28
20. 28
22. 28, 31
28
2879
28
22. 24. 26. 28
19. 28
28. 38
28
22. 38
28
28
22. 28
28. 29
28
28. 29
28. 33
19. 28
28. 32
28. 34
28
111-36
-------
Table III-8
(Continued)
I. D.
Num.
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
345
346
347
348
349
351
352
353
355
356
360
361
362
364
367
368
369
370
372
375
378
381
383
384
385
387
Substance (Common) Name
Potassium Cyanide (Solid)
Potassium Dichromate
Potassium Fluoride
Potassium Hydroxide (Caustic Potash)
Potassium Oxalate
Potassium Permanganate
Potassium Peroxide
Potassium Sulfate
Potassium Sulfide
Propane (L. P. Gas)
Propionaldehyde (Propyl Aldehyde)
Propionic Acid
n-Propyl Acetate
n-Propyl Alcohol
Propylamine
Propylene
Propylene Oxide
Propylene Dichlortde (Dichloropropane)
Pyridine
Q uinone
Salicylic Acid
Selenium Powder
Silicon Tetrachloride
Sodium
Sodium Amide (Sodamide)
Sodium Arsenate
Sodium Arsenite
Sodium Azide
Sodium Bisulfite
Sodium Borate
Sodium Cacodylate
Sodium Carbonate Peroxide
Sodium Chlorate
Sodium Formate
Sodium Hydride (Crystals)
Sodium Hydrosulfite
Sodium Iodide
Sodium Oxalate
Sodium Oxide
Sodium Perchlorate
Sodium Peroxide
Sodium Potassium Alloy
Sodium Thiocyanate (Sodium Sulflcyanide)
Strontium
Sulfur Trioxide
Sulfurous Acid
Sulfuryl Fluoride
Tantalum
Tear Gas (CN)
Standard Industrial Code
Significant Manufacturer and/ or User
Proqucer
2819'
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2815
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818 •
2818.2815
2818
2818
3339
2819
3339
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2818
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
2819
3339
2819
2819
2819
3339
2819
User
10. 28. 33, 34
22, 26, 27. 28, 29, 31
20, 28, 32
28
28, 34
22, 28, 31, 38
28
28
28, 30, 33. 34. 35. 39
28, 29
28, 30, 32
28
20, 28
28
28
28, 29
28
20, 28
2822. 30
28, 34
2833. 30
19. 30, 32, 33. 36
19, 28
28, 33
28
22, 28
2879
19, 28
20. 26, 28
28. 32, 33
28
26, 28
26. 28
28
28
22. 28
28
28
28
19
28
28
28
28, 29, 32
19, 28
28
28
28. 33
19
m-37
-------
Table III-8
(Continued)
I. D.
Num.
388
389
390
391
392
393
395
397
398
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
414
415
416
417
420
421
422
423
Substance (Common) Name
Tetrachloroethane (Acetylenetetrachloride)
Tetraethyl Lead
Tetrahydrofuran
Tetramethyl Lead
Tetranitrom ethane
Thallium
Titanium Tetrachloride
Toluene Disocyanate
Toluidine-o (2.4-Methylanilene)
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Triethanolamlne
Triethylamine
Triethylene Glycol
Triethylene Tetramine
Trimethylamine
Tri-o-Cresyl Phosphate
Turrentine
Vanadium Pentoxide
Vanadium Sulfide
m-Xylene (Xylox)
Xylenol (3. 5-Dimethylphenol)
Zinc Arsenate
Zinc Arsenite
Zinc Nitrate
Zinc Oxide
Zinc Permanganate
Zinc Peroxide
Standard Industrial Code
Significant Manufacturer and/or User
Producfer
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
3339
2819
2815
2815
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2818
2861
2819
2819
2815
2815
2819
2819
2819
2819,2816
2819
2819
1
User
28
29
28
29
19
28. 33. 34
28
28, 29
22, 28
22, 28, 34
28
28. 32
28
28, 29
28
28
28, 29, 35
28
22, 28. 32, 38
28, 32
28
28
28
28
22. 28
20. 22. 28. 30. 32. 34
28
28
•
m-38
-------
6. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL WASTE QUANTITIES REPORTED
BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ANJ) ATOMIC ENERGY
COMMISSION
Both the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC) have long been concerned with control and disposal
materials, especially those peculiar to their operations. While
neither has solved the disposal problems, each has exercised control
systems which generally prevent discharge of hazardous materials
to the environment, and the reports included in the control systems
allow these agencies to maintain awareness of the magnitude of
their problems.
The tables which follow present data extracted from those
reporting systems. Table III-9 presents quantities of various DoD
hazardous waste in inventory. It should be noted that, with respect
to pesticides, herbicides, and related items, the materials awaiting
disposal are at bases scattered across the nation and throughout the
world. However, it is expected that all overseas quantities would
be returned to the U.S. for disposal. Additional listings of
hazardous chemicals (but without quantity data) associated with DoD
activities are provided in Chapter IV (see Tables IV>20, IV-21,
IV-22 and IV-23 on pages IV-44 through IV-48). Further information
regarding the total DoD waste picture is presented in Appendix A-13.
Table III-10(a) summarizes waste quantity data for radioactive
materials under the control of the AEC. Tables IH-lO(b), (c), and
(d) provide details of the data summarized in Table III-10(a), and
include names of the specific radioactive waste constituent materials,
along with energy levels in Curies. These data are supported by
descriptive information contained in Appendix A-12.
7. MINING INDUSTRY WASTES
Extensive data has been developed on the solid wastes generated
by the mining industries. A summary is included to provide an
overview of the total solid wastes which are generated in the mining
industry, and to provide a brief appraisal of the contributions of
these wastes to environmental effects. Additional data are contained
in Appendix A-l.
IH-39
-------
Table III-9
Hazardous Waste Material Quantities Reported by
the Department of Defense as Awaiting Disposal
Material
1. Pesticides, Herbicides and
Related Items (e. g., insect repellant)
2. Explosive Munitions (projectiles,
small arms ammunition, bombs,
rockets, etc.)
3. Chemical Munitions:
Mustard
GB
Phosgene
4. Chemical Munitions Manufacturing
Wastes: ^
Liquid Waste Stored in Lagoons
Contaminated Soil
Suspended solids of
phosphorus and phosphorous
oxides
Quantity
2,887,200 Ibs. (in
powder form)
1,736,800 gal. (Liquid)
80, 000 - 12j^)00 Tons
3,071 tons
2,085 tons
2, 700 tons
129,000,000 gal. (7.5-
8.0% salts)
12,000,000,000 cu.ft.
200,000,000 gal.
POD-Supplied Waste Generation and
Disposal Data (Examples)
5. Waste Petroleum Products:
Accumulated and disposed of
through Defense Supply Agency
Accumulated and disposed of by
the Air Force (90 bases)
Estimated totals for other services
(Army, Navy, Marine Corps)
77,500 gal. /yr.
9, 600, 000 gal. /yr.
10,000,000 gal. /yr.
Also reported unknown, but substantial, quantities of sludges
containing dyes, sulfur, magnesium, aluminum, etc.
IH-40
-------
Table III-10(a)
Radioactive Waste Quantities Reported by
Atomic Energy Commission, With Projections
1. Power Reactor Wastes (in Cubic Feet) I
. !
1970 1975 1980
Solid 120 2,300 13,500
Liquid 30,000 170,000 330,000
2. Fuel Reprocessing Wastes (Accumulation)
1970 1980 1990
If Solid (cu. ft. ) 170 44, 000 240, 000
If Liquid (gal.) 17,000 4,400,000 24,000,000
3. Fuel Reprocessing Wastes (Generation Rates)
1970 1980 1990
If Solid (cu. ft. ) 170 9, 700 27, 000
If Liquid (gal.) 17,000 970,000 2,700,000
4, Miscellaneous Solid Wastes (Generation Rates in Cubic Feet)
1970 1975 1980
51,000 256,000 675,000
5. Cladding, Hulls, and Hardware (Generation Rates in Cubic Feet)*
1970 1975 1980
6,100 11,500
Accumulation expected to be 40,000 cu.ft. by 1980.
Ill-41
-------
Table III-10(b)
Solid Waste from Power Reactors to Land Burial (Curies)
Radio-
nuclide
H-3
Mn-54
Fe-55
Fe-59
Co-58
Co-60
Ni-59
Ni-63
Sr-89
Sr-90
Zr-95
Nb-95
Ru-103
Ru-106
• Ag*tG8
o
Ag-110
Cd-109
Cd-115
In-114
Cs-134
Cs-137
Ce-141
Ce-144
Total Ci
19"70
Resin and
Sol. Liquids
1.4xl02
2. 7x10
9.7x10
_
i
6.6x10*
4.6x10
_
2
1.2x10
5.8
2.4
1. 7
3.6
6.8x10*
3
1.6x10
_
-
-
_
—
2.3xl02
8.3xl02
_
7.5
4.4xl03
Tot. cu.ft. S.OxlO4
Control
Rods
l.SxlO3
1.8x10,
4
5.6x10
_
o
2.0x10
7.0
7.0 ,
3
1.0x10
-
-
-
-
_
3
1.1x10,
4
3.9x10?.
1.8x10
7.0
2.0
-
_
-
l.OxlO5,
1.2xl02
1GT75
Resin and
Sol. Liquids
2.3xl03
4.2x10,
4
1.5x10
4-6
3
1.0x10^
3
6.4x10
_
3
1.8x10^
l.lxiof
4.4x107
2.8x101
6.0x10^
1.2x10,
4
2.8x10
_
-
-
_
_
3.8xl03
1.4xl04
2.0
1.4xl02
7.4xl04
1.7xl05
Control
Rods
7.0xl04
1.0x10^
fi
3.0x10
-
4
1.2x10*
2
3.5x10^
3. 5x10^
4
5.4x10
'
-
-
-
-
4
6.0x10*
g
2. 1x10°
l.OxlO4
4.0x10
1. 2xl02
_
-
-
-
5.4x10^
2. 3xl06
19T80
Resin and
Sol. Liquids
6.8x103
1.3x10^
4
4.5x10^
1.4x10^
3
3.0x10^
4
1.7x10
4.6x10 ,
3.0x10^
1.3x10^
8.1x10
1.7x10
3.5x10,
4
7.9x10
-
-
.
_
-
1. IxlO4
4. IxlO4
6.0
4.0xl02
2.1x10;?
3.3xlO&
Control
Rods
3.4x10^
2.5x10°
g
8.0x10
-
4
2.9x10*
2
8.4x102
8.4x10,
5
1.3x10
-
-
-
-
-
> "- . -5- .
- *' C'Oxro,
7
1. 3x10,
fL
6.0x10*
1.8xlOJ
8. Oxl O2
_
-
_
-
2.2xl07
1.35xl04
to
-------
Table III-10(c) -
Forecast of the Generation Rates and the Total Accumulations of
Long-Life Fission Products and Actinides in
High-Level Wastes from Fuel Reprocessing
(e)
Isotopes
H-3
Kr-85
1-129
Sr 90
C 137
Pu 238
Pu 239
• Pli 2W
Am 241
Am 243
Cm 244
Gals/yr if liq. (a)
(b)
Cu ft/yr if sol.
Generation Rate(°' d)
(curies/year)
1970
4. OxIO4
6. 0x10
2.0
1980
2 IxlO6
3.3x10?,
1.1x10
1990
6.2x10^
9. Oxio'
4.4x10
As High Level Liquid or Solid Wa
4.0x10?
6
5. 6xlO_
7. OxlOj
9. 0x10
1. 2x10;:
g.oxio;:
2. 1x10^
1. 3x10
1. 7x1 O4
2
1. 7x10
2.3x10®
3.2x10;:
4. 1x10*
5.0x10^
7.0x10]:
5.0x10^
1.0x10*
7.4x10
9.7xl05
3
9. 7x10
5. 6x10®
8.8x10^
2. 0x10
5.0x10*
6.0x10*
4.4x10;?
l.Oxloij
1. 8x10
2. 7x1 06
4
2. 7x10
Accumulation
(curies)
1970
4. OxIO4
6.0x10
2.0
stes
4.0x10*!
5. 6x10^
7.0x10^
9.0x10*
i.2xio::
S.OxlO*
2.1x10;:
1.3x10
1.7xl04
2
1. 7x10
1980
7. 3x1 Op
1.2x10^
4.8x10
_
8
1.3x10^
1. 2x10^
2.0x10*
4.0x10**
2.3x10^
2.3x10^
3. 0x10
4.4xl06
4
4.4x10
1990
3.6x10^
5.7x10^
2.7x10
4.6xlOJ?
6.5x10^
8.3x10^
2.4x10^
2.3x10^
1.5x10^
1.4x10
2.4xlO?
5
2.4x10
(a) Assumes 100 gallons per 10,000 Mwd. (d) Assumes 0. 5% of Pu to waste.
(b) Assumes 1 cu ft per 10,000 Mwd. (e) Assumes introduction of LMFBR
(c) Assumes LWR @ 33,000 Mwd/MTU, 30 Mw/MTU, in 1980-
90d.clg;LMFBR @ 80,000 Mwd/Mtu, 148 Mw/MTU SOd.clg.
CO
-------
Table III-lQ(d)
Generation of Miscellaneous Soli& Waste and
Hulls and Hardware at Fuel Reprodessing Plants
1970 '
1975
1980
Purex
Miscellaneous
Waste - ft
- Ci
3
Cladding - ft
- Ci
5.1x10 ^
5.2x10
2. 2x10;
2. 3x10^
r
2.4x10'
6. 5x10
6.3x10;
7.8x10*
6.7x10;
1.8x10
Aquafluor
Miscellaneous
Waste - ft3
- Ci
Cladding - ft3
- Ci
3. 6x10^
3. 7x10
3. 7x10'
1.0x10
4.5x10
5.
4.8xlO
1.3x10
The total accumulation of cladding hulls and hardware
by 1980 is estimated to be 40,000 cubic feet.
111-44
-------
The amount of solid wastes generated by the mining and smelting
industries is great in comparison to the wastes generated by other
industrial sectors. These wastes add toxifc compounds to the streams
and rivers which may be hazardous to aquatic life. Once introduced
into water, acids and salts contribute to the general lowering of
water quality which results from major waste flows.
i
The residual solid wastes range from slightly radioactive
granular wastes from uranium extraction, to the thick slimes which
remain when phosphates are extracted.
The following paragraphs discuss, in general, the pollutant
causes and effects, and the magnitude of accumulated wastes attri-
buted to the activities of the Mineral Mining Industry. The pollutants
are discussed as to their effects on land, water, and air. (More
details are given in Appendix A-l).
(1) Land Pollution
Solid wastes are generally produced as the rejected
material from mining, processing, and smelting operations.
It is estimated that accumulated solid wastes from this industry
now amount to 23 billion tons, covering an estimated 1. 8
billion acres of land surface. Approximately 95 percent of this
waste covered acreage is due to the production of coal, sand
and gravel, stone, gold, clay, phosphate and iron. Table III-11
gives a breakdown of the tonnage and surface area covered by
accumulated wastes. In addition, it provides a general indication
as to areas of concentration of these wastes and the portion
contributed by each mineral type.
The results of mining solid wastes accumulation is to
denude land, change surface and subsurface drainage patterns,
abet flooding, clog stream channels, pollute water and air,
provide potential waste ban fires, and cause land-use conflicts.
(2) Water Pollution
Today only about one percent of an estimated 99, 000
billion gallons of water used domestically is required by the
mineral industry. However, pollution resulting from decades
111-45
-------
Table III-11
Tonnage and Acreage of Accumulated Mineral Wastes (1968)
03
Mineral
Antimony
Asbestos
Barite
Bauxite
Beryllium
Boron
Clay
Coal
Copper
Diatomite
Feldspar
Fluorspar
Gold
Gypsum
h-oir^ Steel
Lead-Zinc-Silver
Magnesite
Manganese
Mercury
Mica
Molybdenum
Misc.
Nickel
Potash
Phosphate
Million
Tons
.5
35.4
111.4
23. 8
.8
76. 0
27. 2
1,493.7
11, 332. 3
75. 5
9.9
7.8
728. 1
20.3
2,156.8
1,476.3
22.0
15.9
24.3
5.4
317.5
2,434.4
11.5
233.8
616.5
Acres
20
222
1,001
134
200
600
600
Unknown
52,806
825
526
510
10,883
140
13,996
28,652
290
805
620
45
1,165.4
25, 147.0
15
1,143
9,858
Solid Waste Location
Idaho
Cal. , Vt.
Ga. , Mo. , Tenn. , Cal. , Nev. , Mont.
Ark.
S.D.
Cal.
Cal. , Ga.
26~ States - Va. , Pa., Ind. , Ala.-, Ky. (81%)
14 States - Ariz. , Mont. , Nev. , -Utah (88%)
Cal. , N.H.
N. C. , S. D. , Ca.
Col. . HI. , N. Mex.
11 States -Alaska, Cal., Nev., S.D. (Principal)
Cal., Nev.
23 States """ '"""""""'" '
14 States
Nev., Wash.
Ariz., Cal., Mont., Nev., N. Mex.
Ariz., Cal., Idaho
N.C. (Idaho Unknown)
Col., N. Mex.
28 States
Nev.
N. Mex.
16 States - Fla. (Principal)
-------
Table III-11
(Continued)
i
>£>
-J
Mineral
Stone
Tungsten
Talc
Titanium
Vermiculi
Total
Million
Tons
313.3
27.5
2.7
74.2
12.0
21,686.6
Acres
3,603
955
31
417
20
154,674*
Solid Waste Location
12 States - Pa., Cal. (Principal)
Ark. , Cal. , Col. , Idaho, Mont. , Nev.
Cal. , Nev. , Vt.
N.Y. , Va.
Mont.
* Coal area not included.
-------
of mining activity has produced damagihg environmental conditions
in almost every major freshwater course or lake in the country.
Industrial pollutants into water are of three types: (1) physical,
(2) chemical, and (3) a combination of hjoth. The following
breakdown is given to indicate the exterit to which our water
resources have been affected by pollution, and the acreage of
wildlife habitat that has been degraded as a result of this
pollution.
Stream—An estimated 12, 989 miles of streams
covering approximately 135, 970 acres of land area,
have been adversely affected by mineral wastes. The
problem affects 40 states, with Pennsylvania,
Louisiana, and Ohio, respectively, showing the
greatest amount of degradation.
Lakes—A total of 281 lakes, covering a land area
of approximately 103, 630 acres in seven states,
have the bulk of this contamination. These are
Louisiana, Minnesota, and Michigan, respectively.
Reservoirs and Impoundments—A total of 168 such
installations covering 41, 516 surface acres of water
throughout 18 states show this contamination. The
preponderance of this pollution is found in Alabama,
South Dakota, Missouri, West Virginia, and
Pennsylvania, in that order.
Wildlife Habitat—Approximately 1, 617, 288 acres of
wildlife habitat in 46 states have been adversely
affected. Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Texas,
Indiana, and Illinois, in that order, show the greatest
degree of degradation.
(3) Air Pollution
The common forms of air pollution are well known to most
people. Approximately 86 percent of the total of this type
pollution is contributed by the production, processing, use, and
disposal of minerals and fossil fuels. Dust and gaseous emissions
are the principal elements in its production. The origin and
effects of these elements on the environment are briefly discussed
below:
HI-48
-------
Dust—The causes of dust in the atmosphere include
the following:
Blasting, loading, Hauling, crushing, and
processing of ore
Drying of settling arid tailings ponds, and
poor waste bank site selection
Failure to properly dispose fine waste material
Burning of fossil fuels and combustible waste
Failure to use chemical soil stabilizers.
The degrading of effects of the emitted dust into the
atmosphere results in; hazardous living conditions,
respiratory diseases, short equipment life, smothering
and poisoning vegetation, pollution of water resources,
a general deterioration of the environment.
Gas—The causes of gas emission into the atmosphere
include: combustion of fossil fuels and other combus-
tible wastes, slaking of spoils and oxidation of
puritic and carbon wastes, and smelting of ores.
The resulting emissions include the oxides of carbon,
nitrogen, and sulfur, hydrogen sulfide, fluorides,
chlorine, and ammonia. Some of these gases react
photochemically to produce smog, sulfuric acid,
nitric acid mists which create haze, paint and metal
corrosion, hazardous living conditions, respiratory
diseases. Generally these gases degrade the
environment.
8. DATA RECORD DESCRIPTIONS
During the course of this study, as hazardous materials were
identified, various related data were collected and have been placed
on punched cards for automatic data processing. Three card types
were developed and these are described below.
111-49
-------
(1) Card Type 1
These are the basic cards, and provide the following
information:
Field 1 - Material name (alphabetical listing)
Field 2 - Identification number (chronologically,
according to alphabetical listing of material names)
Field 3 - Quantity of annual material production
(coded, see Table III-12 for code description)
Field 4 - Waste disposal procedure for small and
packaged lots (by MCA procedure number)
Field 5 - Threshold limit values (toxicity) as
recommended by the American Conference of
Government Hygienists. Values are given in parts
of vapor or gas per million parts of air by volume
Field 6 - Specific gravity (gm. /ml. or density
relative to water)
Field 7 - Vapor density
Field 8 - Flash point, °C
Field 9 - Ignition temperature, °C
Field 10 - Boiling point, °C
Field 11 - Melting point, °C
Field 12 - Solubility in water (Table III-13 indicates
solubility code used).
111-50
-------
Table III- 12
Hazardous Material Production Quantity Codes
Code
Production Quantity
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Less than 0. 5 million Ib. /yr.
0. 5 - 1.0 million Ib. /yr.
1.0- 10 million Ib. /yr.
10-50 million Ib. /yr.
50 - 100 miUion Ib. /yr.
100 - 500 million Ib. /yr.
500 - 1, 000 million Ib. /yr.
1, 000 - 2, 000 million Ib. /yr.
2, 000 - 5, 000 million Ib. /yr.
Greater than 5, 000 million Ib. /yr.
Ill-51
-------
Table III-13
Codes for Hazardous Material Solubility in Water .
Code Description
NS Not soluble
SL Slightly soluble (5 gm. /100 gm. water)
MS Medium solubility (5-50 gm. /100 gm. water)
VS Very soluble (50-100 gm. /100 gm. water)
IN Infinite solubility (soluble in all proportions)
(2) Card Type 2
These cards contain the hazardous effects rating values and
the principal industrial producers (SIC codes). Table III-14
describes these data records.
(3) Card Type 3
These cards include industry geographic locations, SIC
codes (of industries for which waste factors were developed),
value added in production data, the number of establishments,
and the numbers of employees. Table III-15 describes these
cards.
Figures III-2, III-3, and III-4 illustrate the field layouts on
each of the three data card types.
Ill-52
-------
Table III-14
Malarial Hazard Rating and Industrial Source
Location
Field 1
Field 2
Field 3
Field 4
X
Field 5
Field 6
Field 7
Field 8
Field 9
Field 10
Field 11
Field 12
Field 13
Field 14
Field 15
Field 16
Field 17
Field 18
Description '•
Substance Identification Number
Air Disposal
Human Effects
Explosion Reaction
Ecological Effects
Water Disposal
Human Effects
Explosion Reaction
Ecological Effects
Land Disposal
Human Effects
Explosion Reaction
Ecological Effects
Total Known Effect Rating
Number of Unknowns
Maximum Potential Effects Rating
Production Rating
Distribution Rating
Total Production Distribution Rating
Final Known Hazards Rating
Maximum Potential Hazards
: i
Rating
III-53
-------
Table III- 14
(Continued)
Location
Description
Field 19
Field 20
Field 21
Field 22
Field 23
Field 24
Field 25
Field 26
Field 27
Field 28
Field 29
Field 30
Field 31
Field 32
Field 33
Field 34
Field 35
Field 36
Metal Mining Industry
Ordnance and Accessories Industry
Food and Kindred Products Industry
Textile Mill Products Industry
Lumber and Wood Products Except Furniture
Paper and Allied Products Industry
Printing Publishing and Allied Industries
Chemical and Allied Product Industry
Petroleum Refining and Related Industries
Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products
Leather and Leather Products Industry
Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products
Primary Metal Industries
Fabricated Metal Products Except Ordnance,
Machinery and Transportation Equipment
Machinery Except Electrical
Electrical Machinery Equipment and Supplies
Professional Scientific and C6htrolling Instruments
Photographic and Optical Goods, Watches, and Clocks
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
III-54
-------
Table III-15.
Industry Datlt
Location
Description
Field 1
Field 2
Field 3
Field 4
Field 5
Fiel d 6
Field 7
Field 8
Field 9
Field 10
Field 11
Field 12
Field 13
Field 14
Field 15
Field 16
Field 17
Field 18
Field 19
Field 20
Geographic Location
SIC Code
Value Added (millions)
Number of Establishments
Number of Employees (100)
Geographic Location
SIC Code
Value Added (millions)
Number of Establishments
Number of Employees (100)
Geographic Location
SIC Code
Value Added (millions)
Number of Establishments
Number of Employees
Geographic Location
SIC Code
Value Added (millions)
Number of Establishments
Number of Employees
i _ _ i
III-55
-------
IBM
Application
INHINAIIONAl IUSINMS MACHINCS COIPOIAtlON
PROPORTIONAL RECORD LAYOUT FORM
Type of Records By .
Date
II M » «
Page of
II ti U K
RECORD NAME AND REMARKS
ti
l""l""l
jl _j _4_ i_.l_l_l i I I f-i.._i II [ 1 |L_J *
t I I I I I
[••••l""l
11 ii I 11• i I i ii i h 11 1111 11 li i 11
l""l"" I
l"-.l....l
0 i\S 1
« 30 3
US 49(50
ro o
•- 5-
03 l— I
H I— I
1 I— 1
a i
-------
IBM
Application
PROPORTIONAL RECORD LAYOUT FORM
Type of Records By ;
Dote
Poge of
RECORD NAME AND REMARKS
56 10
II 15 16 W 11 J5 76 K
il MX
« n n . u
o d
INS 5- 2
-------
IBM
Application
PROPORTIONAL RECORD LAYOUT FORM
.Type of Records._ By '.
Dote
Pog« of
RECORD NAME AND REMARKS
II 19 14 70
II 75 74 10
31 « M 40
41 49 44 50
SI 9! 54 M
71 75 74 K II IS 14 «0 f I »S «4
i i i i I i i I 1
I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1
I I
10
13-
H
n
i i
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
i i i I i i I i i i i i I i i i i
Ul
00
+1-
I"" ""I
0 43 * 10 N
IS IV 70 ?4 ?J 7? »
ft
-------
(4) Use of the Data Records
As in any punched card system, a variety of sorts can be
made depending upon the specific subject matter of interest.
From card to card, the common thread of reference is the
identification number assigned to the hazardous materials. Of
particular interest in making sorts is the ability to focus on the
rating of hazardous effects (i. e. , depending upon whether the
subject of interest is hazards to humans, fire and explosion
hazards, ecological hazards, or overall hazard ratings).
Additionally, as future research generates new or improved
data, it can be entered into these data records with minimum
difficulty.
Ill-59
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
A 1967 Survey of the Members of the Manufacturing Chemists Association,
Manufacturing Chemists Association, 1968.
"A Pollution Abatement Program for Distillery Wastes", R.G. Paulette,
C. S. Boruff, and J. O. Nack, Water Pollution Control Federation Journal,
Vol. 42, No. 7, July 1970, pp. 1368-1394.
A Report on Bottled and Canned Soft Drinks and Flavoring Extracts and
Syrups, Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc., for the
Environmental Protection Agency, August 1971.
A Simplification of Textile Waste Survey and Treatment, J.W. Masselli,
N.W. Masselli, M.G. Burford, Wesley an University, for the New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, July 1959.
California Solid Waste Planning Study, California Department of Public
Health, 1969.
1967 Census of Manufactures, Volumes I, II, and III, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, January 1971.
Effluent Requirements for the Leather Tanning and Finishing Industry,
Stanley Consultants, Inc., September 1971.
Industrial Waste Studies Program - Group G Study, Fertilizers, Wellman
Lord, Inc., July 1971.
Industrial Waste Study of Canned and Frozen Fruits and Vegetables, SCS
Engineeris, for the Environmental Protection Agency, July 17, 1971.
Industrial Waste Study of the Asbestos Industry, Associated Water and
Air Resources Engineers, Inc., for the Environmental Protection Agency,
1971.
Industrial Waste Study of the Meat Products Industry, J.P. Pilney, E.E.
Erickson, and N.O. Halvorson, North Star Research and Development
Institute, for the Environmental Protection Agency, July 8, 1971.
III-60
-------
Industrial Waste Study of the Paper ajnd Allied Products Industries,
WAPORA, Inc., for the Environmental Protection Agency, July 1971.
Industrial Waste Study of the Plastic Materials and Synthetics Industry,
N. Baron and J.W. Gilpin, for the Environmental Protection Agency,
1971.
Industrial Waste Survey of Inorganic Chemicals, Alkalines and Chlorine,
General Technologies Corp., for the Environmental Protection Agency,
May 28, 1971.
Industrial Waste Survey of the Aluminum Industry, Gurham & Associates,
Inc., for the Environmental Protection Agency, August 1971.
Industrial Waste Survey of the Distilled Spirits Industry, Associated
Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc., for the Environmental
Protection Agency, August 1971.
Industrial Waste Survey of the Malt Industry, Associated Water and
Air Resources Engineers, Inc., for the Environmental Protection
Agency, August 1971.
Industrial Waste Survey of the Malt Liquor Industry, Associated
Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc., for the Environmental
Protection Agency, August 1971.
Industrial Waste Surveys of Two New England Cotton Finishing Mills,
M. G. Burford et al., for the New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission, June 1953.
Industry Profile Study on Blast Furnace and Basic Steel Products,
NUS Corp., for the Environmental Protection Agency, June 1971.
Petrochemical Effluents Treatment Practices - Summary, Dr. E.F.
Gloyna and Dr. D. L. Ford, Engineering-Science, Inc., Project
12020, for the U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, Pub. PB-192-310, February 1970.
Petroleum Refining Effluent Guidelines for Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water Programs, R. F. Weston, Environmental
Scientists and Engineers, September 1, 1971.
Pollution Sources from Finishing of Synthetic Fibers, J.W. Masselli
andM.G. Burford, Wesleyan University, for the New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, June 1956.
Ill-61
-------
Solid Waste Management in the Food Processing Industry, A.M.
Katsuyama, N. A. Olson, R.L. Quirk, arid W. A. Mercer, National
Canners1 Association and Western Research Laboratory, for the
Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.
Technical-Economic Study of Solid Wastes Disposal Needs and Practices,
Volume II - Industrial Inventory, Combustion Engineering, Inc., for
the US. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health
Service, Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information,
Pub. 1886, Report SW-7c Pub. PB-187-712, 1969.
The Cost of Clean Water, Vol. Ill - Industrial Waste Profile No. 1 -
Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills, U.S. Department of Interior, Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, Pub. I.W.P.-l, September
1967.
The Cost of Clean Water, Vol. Ill - Industrial Waste Profile No. 4 -
Textile Mill Products, U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, Pub. I.W.P.-4, June 30, 1967.
The Cost of Clean Water, Vo. Ill - Industrial Waste Profile No. 5-
Petroleum Refining, U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, November 1967.
The Cost of Clean Water, Vo. Ill - Industrial Waste Profile No. 7-
Leather Tanning and Finishing, U.S. Department of Interior, Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, Pub. I.W.P.-7, September
1967.
The Cost of Clean Water, Vol. Ill - Industrial Waste Profile No. 8-
Meat Products, Wichita State University, Department of Economics,
for the U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, September 1967.
The Cost of Clean Water, Vol. Ill - Industrial Waste Profile No. 10-
Plastics Materials and Resins, Illinois Institute of Technology Research
Institute, for the U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, October 12, 1967.
Unpublished data from the Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of Interior.
"Waste Disposal in the Meat Industry, Pari I, " A. J. Steffen, Water and
Wastes Engineering/Industrial, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 1970, pp. B-20
to B-22.
111-62
-------
"Waste Disposal in the Meat Industry, Part II, " A. J. Steffen,
Water and Wastes Engineering/Industrial, Vol. 7, No. 5, May
1970, pp. C-l to C-4.
Ill-63
-------
IV. SURVEY OF HAZARDOUS EFFECTS AND RATING
OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. INTRODUCTION
Hazardous substances can produce measurable adverse effects
in a number of environmental areas. Available literature reveals the
wide scope of effects that have resulted from accidents, as well as
from planned experiments involving laboratory animal and plant
exposures to wide ranges of concentration levels and exposure time
periods (see the list of references at the end of this chapter). Industrial
health records and studies show a wide range of observed health effects
due to both acute and chronic exposures of workers to various industrial
materials (e.g.. References 1, 2, 3). While the human health effects
from industrial workplace exposures may be quite well documented, in
many instances from medical records, often the contributing levels of
exposure are not documented to provide good cause and effect relation-
ships.
A material or substance is termed toxic if it can produce damage
to a living organism. Its toxicity is a measure of the amount of damage
that is caused by a specified amount of the substance.
Hazards, on the other hand, are usually thought of in terms of the
probabilities of being involved in a situation which can cause damage.
Frequently, the terms "toxic" and "hazardous" have been synonymous.
This is true to some extent in this study and report, where a list of
"hazardous materials" has been developed. Perhaps some justification
can be offered in that one criterion used in developing the list was a
measure of the production amounts of each substance, and the potential
damages included those due to flame and explosion as well as toxic
effects. Thus, the list includes substances which are hazardous because
relatively large production amounts increase the probability of their
causing widespread damage, and they are potentially damaging in more
than one way.
IV-1
-------
The above connotation is continued in this section with the develop-
ment of a rating system and rating of the list of hazardous materials.
The indicated approach for the rating of hazardous materials can be
concisely outlined as follows:
Identify a representative list of hazardous substances
i
Establish criteria for evaluating quantitatively all adverse
effects that may result from exposures to the hazardous
substances
Establish criteria for evaluating the extent of the hazards
involved, i. e. , the extent in terms of geography and
frequency of occurrence
Develop algorithm for combining the individual ratings
determined on the basis of criteria to arrive at a total
rating for each substance
Rank substances on basis of ratings.
2. ANALYTICAL PROBLEMS IN HAZARDOUS EFFECTS
Although the above logic for rating of the list of hazardous
substances appears relatively simple, there are a great many compli-
cations which exist and which operate to limit severely the depth of an
analysis that can be applied to development of the ratings. Most of
these complications relate to the availability and quality of data needed
for each substance to arrive at a defensible rating. Some of these
complications are discussed below.
(1) Human Effects Data Limitations
Data on human effects resulting from severe exposures to
hazardous or toxic substances are obtained principally from
reconstruction of accident situations. A second major source of
human effects information is extrapolation from experimental
animal data. Both methods are fraught with uncertainties.
IV-2
-------
Accident data is sparse in terms' of the detail and amounts
needed for a list of nearly 500 substances (see Chapter II). Where
accidents have occurred, the recording of information into the
facts surrounding the accident has frequently been so unsystematic
that the possibility of missing at least one key contributing factor
is always present (Reference 4). This makes quantification of
causes and effects uncertain, and accidents involving exactly the
same set of circumstances do not usually occur with enough
frequency to calibrate the measurement or reconstruction errors
involved. Furthermore, some facts surrounding accidents are
considered proprietary and, even though originally recorded, may
not be generally available.
f
Extrapolations from animal data do not generally suffer
from lack of data. More often, the problem evolves from several
sets of data, one or more of which is anomalous and thereby casts
uncertainty on human extrapolations. In addition, animals respond
differently to doses of toxic substances administered by different
dose injection routes. Thus, the results are dependent upon
whether a dose was administered orally, intraperitoneally, intra-
muscularly, cutaneously, or via the respiratory route. This
represents no unusual difficulty for an experiment designed
specifically for use in extrapolating a result to humans. However,
if attempt is made to infer human effects from odd bits of animal
data which have been reported in many places, the question of
dose route frequently arises and cannot be answered.
(2) Ecological Impact
Much of the ecological data for plants or animals suffers,
to some extent, from the same limitations as described previously
for human effects data. That is, very little plant or animal data
have been taken in plant or animal natural habitat as a result of
accidents, and when attempted, all causes and effects are not
recorded. Likewise, extrapolations from one species of plant or
animal to another are uncertain because of frequent anomalies
observed in the available recorded data.
Furthermore, the full impact of hazardous substances on
ecological systems may not be observable in isolated data on
toxic effects to specific species. Important indirect or secondary
imps.ot may occur to co-inhabitants of a habitat as a result of
IV-3
-------
exposures to hazardous materials in a natUral environment, as
opposed to an experimental laboratory. These impacts may
involve predator and prey relationships, and the entire process of
natural selection. The long-term result could be new and
undesirable environmental balances.
(3) Time Factors
Adverse effects may occur to all ecological populations
(which include humans) as a result of repeated exposures to
sublethal acute dosage of toxic materials, or of continuous
exposures to low-level concentrations of hazardous substances.
Such exposures have produced carcinogenesis and mutagenesis in
animals after extended periods of time (Reference 5). Similar
results have not been observed in humans in equivalent times.
Thus, another uncertain measure is added to the problem of
animal extrapolations to humans, and the difficulty of obtaining
definitive long-term cause-and-effect relationships for humans
in industrial or urban environments is obvious.
Measures of persistence of hazardous substances become an
important adjunct to time factors. The combination of low-level ,
exposures and persistent agents can lead to major hazards in the
form of lethal or damaging accumulations of a substance. Asbestos
and mercury are perhaps the two most commonly known persistent
hazards. Asbestos accumulates in humans and can lead to lung
cancer after many years of low-level exposure (References 5, 6).
Mercury is known to accumulate in aquatic species and may lead
to serious effects in humans through a build-up of concentrations
in the food chain (Reference 7). There are many other compounds
which persist in nature and/or accumulate in food chains. Some
of these are known or suspected; others have been observed
occasionally but have not been quantified (References 1, 3).
3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE RATING SYSTEM
The rating of hazardous substances must reflect both the intensity
or level of hazard and the extent of the hazard. Intensity or level of
hazard can be provided in terms of potential effects. Extent of hazard
involves production quantity and geographical distribution of a substance,
and perhaps the number of ways that a substance can cause adverse effects
on the populations that may be placed in jeopardy by its presence.
IV-4
-------
The rating of various hazardous substances can be accomplished
in a number of ways and by the use of any number of criteria. From a
practical point of view and in consideration of the state of knowledge
concerning hazardous substances and related effects, it is better to
limit the evaluation criteria to those for which appropriate evaluation
data are available.
The approach taken during this study was to select criteria for
evaluation of hazardous substances in such a way that the most impor-
tant environmental effects were included for consideration. In this way,
enough criteria were defined to provide for an adequate range of values
for the rating of substances; at the same time, the criteria did not
extend into areas in which little or no firm data could be found.
(1) Development of Effects Criteria
Waste materials can be disposed of or otherwise released
(intentionally or unintentionally) through the following media:
Air—by incineration, evaporation, or direct release
of effluent as particulate matter, gases, or mists to
the atmosphere
Water—by chemical and biological treatment (in
waste streams or holding ponds) or direct release of
effluent to surface streams, ponds, lakes, estuaries;
or by transport and deposit in ocean depths
Soil-—by direct deposit of sludge, ash, or other solid
or semisolid waste forms in open pits, cover landfills
or deep well injection.
Toxic substances may occur in solid, liquid, or gaseous
state in any of the above media. However, a principal route of
entry to receptors is commonly associated with each of the above
media. In air, the main route of entry is via the respiratory sys-
tem of humans, animals and plants. In water, the principal route
of entry is by ingestion for humans and most animals, but for
fish and aquatic plants the route is through the respiratory systems.
In soil, the route is by direct contact f6r humans, animals and
plants. There are, of course, other routes of entry. For example,
toxic substances may enter humans by direct contact of air or
IV-5
-------
water concentrations on skin areas, and sbil organisms or land
plants may ingest toxic materials by uptake of soil water or by
inhalation of air contained in soil openings.
Human health and welfare, as well as animals and vegetation,
may be exposed to hazardous situations involving flame and/or
explosion caused by some substances. Other adverse effects may
occur as a result of rapid or violent chemical reactions of sub-
stances. Flame, explosion, or reactions produce heat which may
cause many compounds to emit highly toxic fumes or to react more
vigorously with oxidizing materials. Some compounds can react
rapidly with water or steam to produce toxic or flammable vapors.
Acids may be produced by reactions, and heat generated by flame
or reaction may, itself, be a serious hazard to many ecopopulations.
Thus some substances may be more hazardous than others because
they have a potential to cause damage by both toxic effects and by
effects from flame, explosion, or reaction. But there are levels
of toxicity and degrees of flammability, explosion and reaction, and
this provides the basis for the development of useful criteria for
evaluation and rating of potentially hazardous substances.
For this study, the measurable effects caused by hazardous
substances were conveniently grouped into two principal categories:
Effects on human health and welfare
Effects on other ecological populations.
The human health and welfare category includes effects
resulting from flame, explosion, or reaction as well as exposure.
to toxic substances. The category involving other ecological
populations includes both plants and animals as appropriate in land,
water, or air habitats. Both categories include exposures to
toxic materials in the form of solids, liquids, or gases but in a
selective way, as described later, rather than ail-inclusively.
The matrix of effects considered for rating the list of
hazardous substances took the form shown in Table IV-1. Each
row and column combination of the matrix required a set of
criteria for use in determining ratings. In light of the human and
ecological effects data limitations described earlier, no attempt
was made to develop a sophisticated rating scale involving a large
number of possible values which would have required highly-precise
IV-6
-------
Table IV-1 i
Matrix of Factors for Rating the JLevel of Effects
for the List of Hazardous Substances
Medium
For
Disposal
Air (A)
Water (W)
Soil (S)
Hazard in Terms of Potential Effects
Human Populations
Toxic Effects
ATR
WTH
STH
Flame / Explosion /
Reaction (Ffj)
AFH
WFH
SFH
Eco Populations
Toxic Effects
-------
To improve the consistency of the ratings, sets of guidance values
were developed for each criterion. That is, specific numerical
values were developed for each criterion. That is, specific
numerical values in terms of concentrations or doses for both
acute and chronic exposure modes were included wherever the
available background data were adequate for such development.
It was concluded arbitrarily that where effects were unknown,
or at least were not available in the material gathered for this study,
a "U" would be inserted in lieu of an estimated or inferred value.
The use of the effects rating values in reaching a final hazard
rating and the implications of inserting "U" for unknowns are
discussed in a later section. All details and definitions concerning
the criteria for rating the elements of the matrix of effects are
included in Tables IV-3 through IV-13 at the end of this section
of the report.
(2) Development of Extent of Hazard Criteria
Direct quantitative measures of the extent of hazards are
difficult to obtain. Ideally, such measures should include the
specific amounts of each potentially hazardous material reaching
waste status and a measure of their geographical distribution.
Hazardous wastes occur in a number of ways as described in the
surveys of industrial sections which were included earlier in this
report. Because waste materials occur mostly as complex mix-
tures in industrial waste streams which are frequently changing in
composition, currently available waste inventories have not
included the detail necessary to provide the desired quantification
of specific compounds.
The extent of hazard should also include a measure of the
period of time over which substances may be hazardous. However,
accurate measures of the persistence of most hazardous substances
are not generally available, except for rough estimates for a few
pesticide compounds (see References 8, 9).
For this study, a search was undertaken to obtain available
production information which could serve as a reliable indicator of
the extent of hazardous substances. A survey of the list of com-
pounds was conducted to obtain production amounts, major manufac-
turers, usual shipping mode and major used for each substance.
IV-8
-------
Following a rationale that the exttent of a hazardous substance
is reflected in a combination of its production amounts and subse-
quent distribution, the ratings in Table; IV-2 were selected for use
in rating the list of substances.
Table IV-2
Matrix of Factors for Rating the Extent of Hazard for
the List of Hazardous Substances
Production
Criteria
(Ibs/year)
MO8
8
10?
7
<10
Rating
Value
1. 5
1. 25
1.0
Distribution
Criteria
Wide
Distribution
to Many
Consumers
Used in Bulk by
Limited Number
of Consumers
Largely
Consumed in
Same Plant
Rating
Value
. 5
. 25
.00
The amount produced and distribution pattern indicated the
extent of potential exposure to the toxic effects of materials.
This exposure risk was assumed to be roughly proportional to the
production amounts and scope of distribution and, therefore, it
was planned that the rating values be used as multiplicative
(weighting) factors to be applied to the total effects rating as
developed in the succeeding section. In arriving at the rating
values of Table IV-2, the following rationales were employed:
The actual toxicity should dominate the relative ratings,
but the exposure possibilities should distinguish between
compounds of equivalent toxicity.
IV-9
-------
Production amounts and distribution should not impact
negatively to reduce total effects ratings; therefore, the
smallest factor should be a one (i. e., 1. 0).
There should be a measure of equivalence between
small production levels with wide distribution and
large production levels with limited distribution.
The total multiplier should be no more than two (to
avoid undue bias) and be a measure of the amount
produced and its source of distribution.
The criteria used to establish the ratings shown in Table IV-2
are contained in Tables IV-14 and IV-15 (presented at the end of
this chapter).
4. METHOD OF RATING AND RESULTS
The methods described in the preceding two sections for rating
the level of effects and the extent of hazard were combined to provide
the complete methodology for rating each substance of the hazardous
substance list. Using the criteria of Tables IV-5 through IV-13
(presented at the end of this chapter) and effects information available
in a number of sources, coded effects ratings were developed for each
element of the effects rating matrix of Table IV-1 for each substance.
In reaching a coded rating value, no single reference provided the
rating, although heavy reliance was placed on Dangerous Properties of
Industrial Materials (Reference 1). The basic procedure used to obtain
final hazard ratings was to obtain initial estimates of effects ratings
from Reference 1 and then compare these estimates with other available
sources which included, but was not limited to, References 1, 2, 3, and
10 through 19. If the other sources confirmed the estimate taken from
Reference 1, the rating was accepted; but if other sources differed, an
average of all available information became the basis for the rating.
No attempt was made to.rate each substance for both acute and chronic
exposures because of paucity of data, particularly on chronic exposures.
Data corresponding to either acute or chronic exposure was used to
produce a rating. If both were available, the one producing the larger
hazard rating was used.
IV-10
-------
A final weighted total effects rating (TER) was computed using
the following expression:
TER = (ATfjWi + (AFH)W2 + (ATE)W3 + (WTH)W4 + (WFH)W5 +
(WTE)Wg + (STH)W7 + (SFH)W8'+ (STE)W9
where the parenthetical terms refer to the appropriate row and column
entries of the matrix in Table IV-1, and Wj refers to a specific weight
for each matrix entry. In developing the ratings for this study, no
really good justification could be found for adjusting the weights from
term to term (of the above equation) and a weight of one was, therefore,
assumed at all times. It is suggested that the use of weighting values,
in developing the TER, be applied to reflect priorities. Priorities can
be established that are indicative of the interest of the user, (e. g. ,
whether hazards to humans are given greater significance than hazards
to other species, and weighting values should then be assigned accordingly.
Thus, in future work (particularly as priorities are defined) it may be
desirable to introduce specific term weights and recalculate ratings.
This will, of course, be a routine adjustment once a punched card
deck or tape is prepared for the basic effects data.
The second step to a final hazard rating involved the use of
production/ distribution data, and the criteria of Tables IV- 14 and IV- 15
to obtain a hazard extent rating (HER) from Table IV- 2. The hazard
rating for each substance is then the product of the total effects rating
(TER) (previously discussed), and the hazard extent rating (HER):
Hazard rating (HR) = (TER) x (HER)
In computing the hazard ratings, there were many substances for
which data were not complete and rating values could not be provided for
all components of the system. At these points, a decision was made to
insert the letter "U" to signify unknown or unavailable information. The
number of unknown pieces of data was totaled and recorded, and based on
the assumption that it would be desirable to produce conservative hazard
ratings, the concept of "potential hazard ratings" was introduced,
through which specific values can be assigned to the "unknowns. " This
concept results in two additional rating scores for the materials listed.
The first of these is termed the maximum potential effects rating (MPER),
which is computed by assigning a value of three (maximum hazard value)
to each unknown, summing those and adding the result to the total effect '
rating:
IV-11
-------
MPER = 3U + TER
The second "potential" rating is termed the maximum potential
hazard rating (MPHR), which is computed by multiplying the maximum
potential effects rating by the hazard extent rating:
MPHR = MPER x HER, ,
to produce the highest overall hazard rating.
Thus, the rating system developed actually includes five ratings
(TER, HER, MPER, HR and MPHR), and is a flexible system that can
accommodate data that may be developed in the future. The system is
also readily amenable to altered weighting factors and the incorporation
of a wider spread in the scale of individual values that may be justified
by future research.
A simple worksheet was prepared for computing the hazard rating
of each substance. A sample copy is included in Table IV-16 and a
completed sample is given in Table IV-17. The hazard ratings for each
substance were computed and the results are included in Table IV-18.
While Table IV-18 gives ratings for the hazardous materials listed in
Chapter II (Table II-6, page 11-29), Table IV-19 provides examples of
additional potentially hazardous materials, with rating scores. (These
four tables are presented at the end of this chapter. ) This latter group
typifies materials for which a great number of unknowns exist with
respect to the hazards they might present. They have been included here
to illustrate that various cutoff points need to be established and observed
in order to differentiate among the meanings of ratings for potentially
hazardous compounds. Such compounds show known effects ratings that
are low, but high potential effects ratings. In the total hazard rating
columns of the latter two tables, two final rating columns are given. The
first provides a rating based on known data, while the second provides a
potential rating based on the known ratings plus maximum possible com-
ponent ratings for each unknown. Used together, the two columns provide
a range of values within which the actual rating will fall when all data
become known.
Table IV-20 lists certain hazardous materials used as warfare agents,
with hazard ratings where possible. Further, three additional lists of
hazardous wastes resulting from Department of befense activities are
presented in Tables IV-21, IV-22 and IV-23. These three lists include
IV-12
-------
explosive materials and compounds; typical air and water pollutants
involved in conventional munitions production, and a list of typical
hazardous waste compounds subcategorized by maintenance, supply
and weapons systems support operations. Some of these compounds
are included on the list of hazardous materials developed in this study
because they have other industrial or commercial uses. Where a
rating has been developed, it is included in parentheses following the
compound. Where two numbers are given, the second refers to the
partial rating appropriate to the main list, e. g., air exposure or
water exposure only.
IV-13
-------
Table IV-3
Rules Used During Ratirig
of Hazardous Substances
1. Chronic exposures are arbitrarily assumed to be
1/20 to 1/100 of acute exposures.
2. If effects measurements could not be found in the
available data and effects could not be clearly
established based on descriptive statements of
effects, the letter, U, signifying unknown or
unavailable was inserted in place of a rating value.
3. The simple sum of component effects provides a total
effects rating, and no justification could be provided
for implementing separate weightings on each com-
ponent rating.
4. If production amounts could not be determined from
available sources, it was assumed that the produc-
tion amount was low and an arbitrary value of 1. 0 was
assigned.
5. The simple sum of production rating and distribution
rating provides an extent of hazard rating, and no
justification could be provided for implementing
separate weightings on each component rating.
6. The product of the effects rating and the extent of
hazard rating gives the final hazard rating.
IV-14
-------
Table IV-4
Definitions of Terms Used in Criteria
LC
50
LD
50
TLV
Toxic
Substance
Lethal concentration fifty: concentration which adminis-
tered by the respiratory route would be lethal to fifty
percent of the exposed population.
Lethal dose fifty: dose in terms of milligrams per
kilogram of body weight which if ingested by the oral
route would cause death to fifty percent of the exposed
population.
3
Threshold limit value: the concentration (mg/m ) or
dose (mg/kg body weight) to which receptors (humans,
animals, or plants) may be exposed repeatedly or
continuously day after day without suffering adverse
effects.
An element, compound, or material which can produce
damage to a living organism.
Acute
Exposure Short time (less than one hour) exposures to relatively
large concentrations or doses of toxic substances. Acute
doses are generally ingested as a single dose.
Chronic
Exposure
Guidance
Values
Long-term (order of days to years) exposures to relatively
small concentration or doses of toxic substances. Chronic
doses are generally small doses repeated over periods of
days to years.
Values of concentrations, dose, etc., provided as guidelines
for use in rating hazardous substances. Any one of the
several provided can serve as the basis for a rating (i. e.,
not intended that all criteria be met for a rating).
IV-15
-------
Table IV-5
Human Effects Rating Criteria: Toxic Effects in Air
Severely hazardous. Very highly toxic causing death or residual
injuries to persons exposed to relatively low concentrations.
Has potential to be carcinogenic. Guidance values:
j
o, o
LCj-0 - X 5000 mg/m (acute * exposure)
o *J
3
LCj-n - >$ 250 mg/m (chronic * exposure)
D \J
?'' *3
TLV - ^ 500 mg/m (acute exposure)
3
TLV - >< 25 mg/m (chronic exposure)
Slight to moderate hazard. Short intense exposures or con-
tinued exposures at lower concentration levels may cause serious
temporary or minor residual injury. Guidance Values:
3
LC - 5000 to 50000 mg/m (acute)
D U
3
LC - 250 to 2500 mg/m (chronic)
3 U
3
TLV - 500 to 5000 mg/m (acute)
3
TLV - 25 to 250 mg/m (chronic)
Minimal Hazard. Lethal at concentrations which are not likely
to occur at all, or at most over very limited areas. Effects
generally confined to minor symptoms and injuries of temporary
nature. Guidance values:
3
LC - >50000 mg/m (acute)
O \J
3
LC - >2500 mg/m (chronic)
0 U
TLV- >5000mg/m3 (acute)
TLV - >250 mg/m (chronic)
U Unknown
* See Table IV-4for list of definitions.
IV-16
-------
Table IV-6
Human Effects Rating Criteria: Toxic Effects in Water*
Severely hazardous. Very highly toxic causing lethalities or
severe residual injuries to persons -acquiring relatively small
doses. Has potential to be carcinogenic. Guidance values:
LC,-n - ^ 3500 mg/liter of water (acute ingestion)
O w
n ~ ^35 mg/liter of water (chronic ingestion)
u
TLV - ^350 mg/liter of water (acute ingestion)
TLV - ^3. 5 mg/liter of water (chronic ingestion)
Slight to moderate hazard. Lethal only at moderate concentra-
tions. In general causes serious temporary injury or minor
residual damages. Guidance values:
LC - 3500 to 35000 mg/liter of water (acute)
uU
LC n - 35 to 350 mg/liter of water (chronic)
DU
TLV - 350 to 3500 mg/liter of water (acute)
TLV - 3. 5 to 35 mg/liter of water (chronic)
Minimal hazard. Effects generally confined to minor symptoms
and injury of a temporary nature. Guidance values:
LC,_n - > 35000 mg/liter of water (acute)
O vl
LCp.n - ^350 mg/liter of water (chronic)
t5U
TLV - >3500 mg/liter of water (acute) ,
TLV - } 35 mg/liter of water (chronic)
U Unknown
* Values based on milligrams of toxic substance per liter of water
(i. e. , water concentration). Lethal concentration assumes ingestion
of one liter of water containing one lethal dose (LD ) of substance by
70 kilograms man for an acute exposure.
IV-17
-------
Table IV-7
Human Effects Rating Criteria: Toxib Effects in Soil
Severely hazardous percutaneously on direct contact. May re-
lease lethal secondary compounds in thb form of vapors or mists
to the atmosphere, or in liquid or parti,culate form to surface
or ground waters. May be only moderately toxic (as described
under 2 below) but is highly persistent. In contact with skin,
causes second- and third-degree burns'and is very injurious
to the eyes on short direct contact. Extended periods of con-
tact could cause death. Has potential to be carcinogenic.
Moderately severe skin irritant. Causes severe smarting of
skin and first-degree burns on short direct contact exposure.
Causes severe pain and second degree burns after prolonged
contact.
Minimal hazard. No hazard for short time contact exposure.
Mild irritation and smarting of skin in contact for prolonged
period.
U Unknown.
Table IV-8
Human Hazards Rating Criteria: Flame, Explosion,
and Reaction in Air
3 Severe hazard. Vaporizes quickly at atmospheric pressures and
normal ambient temperatures. Readily dispersible and burnable
in air. High liklihood of spontaneous combustion and/or explosive
reaction. Exposure to flame or violent reaction may produce
lethal gases, vapor, fumes, or mist. Liquid and vapor flash points
below 100°F.
2 Moderate hazard. Generally must be heated or exposed to unusually
high ambient temperatures to ignite. Under certain limited conditions
can ignite spontaneously and burn rapidly but no explosion or violent
reactions. Exposure to flame or violent reaction vapors, gases,
fumes, etc. which may be toxic, but not lethal. Includes liquids
and vapors with flash point over 100 F, and solids emitting highly
flammable vapors.
1 Minimal hazard. Must be preheated to ignite. Includes liquids,
solids, semi-solids with very high flash points. No generation of
toxic mists, fumes, etc. occurs.
U Unknown. .
IV-18
-------
Table IV-9
Human Hazards Rating Criteria: Flame, Explosion,
and Reaction in Water
Severe hazard. Will react explosively with water without re-
quiring heat or confinement. Violent reactions may produce
lethal or highly toxic vapors and/or acids that may cause
serious and permanent injury.
Moderate hazard. May react violently with water, but only
under certain very limited circumstances. May form potentially
explosive mixtures with water, but requires catalyst to ignite.
Reactions may release harmful, but not lethal or residual
injuries. In general, effects are temporary with no residual
damages.
Minimal hazard. Limited or no reaction in water. Any release
of energy is non-violent. No generation of toxic vapors occurs.
U Unknown
Table IV-10
Human Hazards Rating Criteria: Flame, Explosion, and
Reaction in Soil
Severe Hazard. Readily capable of detonation and explosive de-
composition or reaction at normal ambient temperatures and
pressures. Will detonate as result of mechanical shock or local
thermal shock. Reacts readily with own oxides or with other
oxidizing materials. Can ignite spontaneously and/or react
violently if exposed to moisture in soil. Ignition or reaction can
produce lethal vapors, fumes, etc.
Moderate hazard. Can readily undergo violent chemical change
with rapid release of energy, but will not detonate explosively .
or react violently except under very special circumstances such
as heating under confinement. Can ignite and burn rapidly or
react to produce harmful, though not lethal, vapors and fumes
if exposed to modest increase of temperature or if moisture is
encountered.
Minimal hazard. General stable substances. Very limited potential
for reaction or combustion. No toxic fumes or vapors associated
with any reactions or combustion that may occur.
U Unknown.
-------
Table IV- 11
Ecological Effects Rating Criteria: Tdxic Effects in Air
I _ _
Severe hazard. Highly toxic, causing death or residual damage
to animals and/or plants exposed to atmospheres contaminated
at relatively low concentration levels, or to animals accumulat-
ing small doses of the toxic substance. Guidance values:
/ 3* • **
<^2000 mg/m or ^100 mg/kg (acute exposure)
o
LC - ^20 mg/m or ^1. 0 mg/kg (chronic exposure)
3
TLV - ^200 mg/m or ^10 mg/kg (acute exposure)
o
TLV - ^2 mg/m or ^0. 1 mg/kg (chronic exposure)
Slight to moderate hazard. Causes temporary damage to most
species and is lethal to only a few extra sensitive species at
moderate concentrations. Guidance values:
3
LC . - 2000 to 20000 mg/m or 100 to 1000 mg/kg (acute)
50
;50
3
LC,-n - 20 to 200 mg/m or 0. 1 to 10 mg/kg (chronic)
3
TLV - 200 to 2000 mg/m or 10 to 100 mg/kg (acute)
3
TLV - 2 to 20 mg/m or 0. 1 to 1. 0 mg/kg (chronic)
Minimal hazard. Lethal only at concentrations which are not
likely to occur at all, or at most over very limited areas. Causes
only minor injury of temporary nature. Guidance values:
3
LC,.n ~ > 20000 mg/m or > 1000 mg/kg (acute)
o u
3
LC - > 200 mg/m or > 10 mg/kg (chronic)
OVJ
3
TLV - > 2000 mg/m or > 100 mg/kg (acute)
3
TLV - > 20 mg/m or >1.0mg/keg (chronic)
U Unknown.
^Concentration of toxic substance per cubic meter of air
**Loss of toxic substance (mg) per kilogram of animal body weight
IV-20
-------
Table IV-12
Ecological Effects Rating Criteria: T6xic Effects in Water
U
Severe hazard. Lethal to fish and/of other aquatic life in general
in low concentrations. Guidance values:
LC
50
LC50
TLV
100 mg/liter water
1 mg/liter water
mg/liter water
TLV - ^0. 1 mg/liter water
(acute exposure)
(chronic exposure)
(acute exposure)
(chronic exposure)
Slight to moderate hazard. Lethal to only a few sensitive species
of fish on other aquatic life at moderate concentrations. Guidance
values:
LC
50
LC50 -
TLV -
TLV -
100 to 1000 mg/liter water
1 to 10 mg/liter water
10 to 100 mg/liter water
0. 1 to 1.0 mg/liter water
(acute)
(chronic)
(acute)
(chronic)
Minimal hazard. Requires very high concentrations for exposures
that would cause lethalities. Not likely to occur over large volumes
of water. Guidance Values: '
LC
50
LC50 -
TLV -
TLV -
Unknown.
1000 mg/liter water
10 mg/liter water
100 mg/liter water
1.0 mg/liter water
(acute)
(chronic)
(acute)
(chronic)
IV-21
-------
Table IV-13
Ecological Effects Rating Criteria: Toxic Effects in Soil
3 Severe Hazard. Highly lethal on contact to most vegetation
and/or earth organisms. May be soluble in water and can flow
with surface or ground waters to affect vegetation and/or
aquatic life in remote streams, ponds, lakes, etc. Potential
hazard to public or private fresh water, supplies because of
persistence.
2 Moderate hazard. Lethal on contact to only sensitive species
of plants and/or earth organisms. General damage to vegetation
and earth organisms may be substantial but is reversible. May
affect remote vegetation or aquatic life only under unusual
circumstances of surface drainage or ground water penetration.
1 Minimal hazard. Minimal damage to plants and or organisms,
all reversible. No potential for damage to remote aquatic life
or vegetation. No threat to public or private fresh water
supplies.
U Unknown.
Table IV-14
Hazardous Substances Production (or Consumation)*
Rating Criteria
1. 5 Large production (or consumption); amounts exceeding
10 pounds (50, 000 short tons) annually.
1. 25 Moderate production (or consumption); amounts at least
10 pounds (5000 short tons) but less than 10 pounds
annually.
1.0 Low production (or consumption); amounts less than
107 pounds annually.
U Unknown
^Production or consumption amount, whichever was larger, was used
to determine code rating.
IV-22
-------
Table IV-15
Hazardous Substances Distribution Rating Criteria
0. 5 Wide distribution-based on more than 10 major producers;
shipments in less than tank car containers for distribution
to many consumers; and used as both intermediate industrial
and consumer product.
0. 25 Moderate distribution-based on 5 to 10 major producers;
shipments mostly in bulk or tank cars to limited number of
consumers; and used as either intermediate industrial
product or consumer product, but not both.
0. 0 Limited distribution - based on less than 5 major producers;
used mostly or entirely by manufacturer.
IV-23
-------
Table IV-16
Sample Worksheet for Computing Substance
Hazard Rating
Compound
Initial
Rating
Weight
Final
Rating
Air
.Disposal
Water
Disposal
Soil
Disposal
Human toxic effects
Flame / Explos ion
Ecoeffects
Human toxic effects
Flame / Explos ion
Ecoeffects
Human toxic effects
Flame/Explosion
Ecoeffects
Total Effects Rating (Sum of above)
Number of Unknowns above
Maximum Potential Effects Rating
(unknowns x 3 + total
effects rating)
Production Rating
Distribution Rating
Hazard Extent Rating (Sum of Production & Distribution)
Hazard Rating (Total Effects Rating x Hazard Extent Rating)
_. . „ . , T , r, • (Maximum Potential Effects
Maximum Potential Hazard Rating n.oc,..rTT ,
6 Rate & Extent of Hazard
Rating)
IV-24
-------
Table IV-17
Sample Worksheet for Computing Substance
Hazard Rating
Compound Cadmium Oxide
Initial
Rating Weight
Human toxic effects 3
Disposal Flame/Explosion 2
Ecoeffects 2
Human toxic effects 3
Water
n< . Flame /Explosion 1
Ecoeffects U
Human toxic effects 1
_.. , Flame /Explosion 2
Disposal ^
Ecoeffects U
Total Effects Rating (Sum of above)
Number of Unknowns above
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
,. . „ . .. , „.. , „ .. (unknowns x 3 + total
Maximum Potential Effects Rating ., . .- x
B effects rating)
Production Rating
Distribution Rating
Hazard Extent Rating (Sum of Production & Distribution)
Hazard Rating (Total Effects Rating x Hazard Extent
Rating)
(Maximum Potential Effects
Maximum Potential Hazard Rating Rate & Extent of Hazard
Rating)
Final
Rating
_3
_2
U
_2
U
14
_2
2Q
1.0
0. 5
1. 5
21
_30
IV-2 5
-------
Table IV-18
Compounds Found Hazardous by Rating System
i
CO
O5
mil
Aretaldehyde
Acetic Acid
Acetic \nh\ilfiili-
Acetone
Acetone Cyanhydrin
Aretonitrile (Methyl Cyanide)
\ci-tvl Chloride
Acetylene
Acridine
Acrulem
Acrvlic Acid
Acrylonitnle
•\ldrin
Mlvl Alcohol
Allyl Chloride
Aluminum Fluoride
Aluminum Oxide (Alumina)
Aluminum Sulfate
Ammonia (Aqua- Ammonuim Hydroxide)
• \£QEn.onium Chloride
Ammonium Chromate
Ammonium Dirhromatr
Ammonium Fluoride
Ammonium Nitrate
Ammonium Perchlorate
Ammonium Persulfate
Ammonium Pirratr (!)r\)
AIR DISPOSAL
HMMI
ENKU
2
2
2
2
3
o
3
i
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
1
3
3
3
1
2
1
3
Rvclion
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
•i
3
2
3
Ed**!*
CNKtt
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
3
2
3
L
2
1
3
U
2
U
2
2
U
u
i
i
WATER DISPOSAL
ENKN
2
2
3
2
3
9
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
•j
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
2
3
1
2
1
3
EII>IO»UII
RMCtlon
1
1
3
1
3
2
2
1
1
U
1
1
L'
1
1
U
!
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1ST*
3
3
2
1
3
2
i:
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
L1
V
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
U
3
L;
LAND DISPOSAL
Hw«*>
2
2
3
1
2
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
3
3
1
2
1
3
R^T
2
L'
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
t.oMVt*
Ettacti
2
2
U
U
u
t'
i;
L'
u
u
L'
t
i;
u
u
3
3
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
L1
U
lot*
H«t.«*
1!)
15
19
13
20
If)
18
11
14
17
19
17
17
17
14
17
12
20
io
11
16
17
18
11
13
12
17
ul
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
•->
1
•>
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
PM*nll*
tttalH
ftM.nfl
in
18
22
16
23
IB
24
14
17
23
22
20
23
20
20
23
15
23
21
14
22
20
21
17
22
15
23
Plan* IK*
RM«*
1 5
1. 5
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 5
1. 0
1 5
1 0
1 0
1 25
1. 5
1 0
1. 0
1 0
1 5
1 0
1 5
1.5
1 25
1 25
1. 25
1 25
1. 5
1. 5
1. 25
1 25
DMtrtxIKW
*•>«*
0
25
25
. 25
25
25
. 50
. 25
. 25
. 25
50
25
25
. 25
25
. 50
25
.50
25
. 50^.
50
. 25
. 50
. 25
. 50
. 50
. 50
ffoduclon
OOTAulon
«— I
1.50
1 75
1 75
1 75
1. 75
1 75
1 50
1. 75
1. 25
1. 25
1.75
1. 75
1.25
1 25
1.25
2 0
1 25
2. 0
1.75
1, .7.5. .
1.75
1.50
1.75
2.0
2.0
1 75
1. 75
'«*•.
Knavm
MMWtt
flMinf
28
26
33
23
35
26
27
in
17
21
33
30
21
21
17
34
15
40
26
. ia^
28
25
31
22
26
21
30
POWMW
R*K*
28
31
38
28
40
31
36
24
21
20
38
35
20
25
25
4'i
in
46
37
.2.4...
38
30
37
34
44
26
40
-------
Table IV-18
(Continued)
i
CO
-J
Ammonium Pirrate (Wet)
Ammonium Sulfide
Amyl Acetate (Banana Oil)
Amyl Alcohol (Fusel Oil)
Aniline
Anthracenes
Antimony
Antimony Pentachloride
Antimony Pentafluoride
Antimony Pentasulfide
Antimony Potassium Tarlrati-
Antimony Sulfate
Antimony Sulfide
Antimony Triethyl (Triethylstibine)
Antimony Trichloride
Antimony Trifluoride
Antimony Trimethyl (Trimethylstibine)
Antimony Trioxide
Arsenic
Arsenic Chloride
Arsenic Dirthy]
Arsenic Dimethyl
Arsenic Pentaselenide
Arsenic Trichloride
Arsenic Trioxide
Asbestos Particles
Barium Carbonate
AIM DISPOSAL
titacu
3
2
2
2
3
V
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
MwclMO
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2'
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
1
1
EceMwc*
EflKt>
U
3
2
3
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
1 -
1
U
U
V
U
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
U
. 1
WATIHOI9POBAL
HtMlMrt
tftacii
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
E«*MM»
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
E»o»c«
U
3
3
2
2
U
U
U
U
1
3
U
U
U
3
2
U
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
U
1
LAND OISKMAI
Humwi
Eftam
3
2
1
2
3
U
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
HMCI^I
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
El«l»pl<
Eltactt
U
•u
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
U
U
T«M
Knoan
Effect*
"••"«
IS
21
IS
17
17
10
IS
IS
15
14
17
14
15
14
18
15
14
17
22
23
25
23
22
23
23
8
11
NurnM*
of
3
1
1
1
1
4
2
2
2
1
1
2
?
3
2
2
3
1
3
1
•MOM*
Mi*
24
24
18
20
20
24
21
21
21
17
20
20
21
23
24
21
23
20
22
23
25
23
22
23
23
17
14
f«d«
-------
Table IV-18
(Continued)
i
CO
oo
Barium Chloride
Barium Cyanide
Barium Fluoride
Barium Nitrate
Barium Sulfide
Benzene
Benzene liexachloride
Benzene Sulfonic Acid
Benzoic Acid
Benzyl Chloride
Beryllium Carbonate
Beryllium Chloride
Beryllium Hydroxide
lliTvIhum Oxide
Beryllium Powder
Beryllium Selenate
Boron Trichloride
Boron Trifluoride
Bromic Acid
Bromine
Bromine Pentafluoride
Butadiene
Butane
Butanol (Butyl Alcohol)
Butene - 1 (Kthvl Kthylfne)
Butylacetate (Butyl Ethanoate)
Butylacrylate
»
EMKIt
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
m OISTOSAL
HMCIWn
1
2
2
2
:i
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
fitacu
2
li
2
U
U
1
3
1
1
u
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
U
U
U
3
1
1
U
1
1
Mr
ei«*cii
3
3
3
2
2
^
3
3
1
3
1
2
2
1 '
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
2
1
1
2
TER DISCOS'
2
2
1
1
2
I
,
1
1
2
I
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
U
1
1
1
1
1
i
Elfecll
3
U
1
2
U
3
3
2
2
3
U
L'
U
U
3
I!
U
U
U
3
U
3
1
3
U
3
2
Mum VI
EHKII
1
2
3
I
1
2
2
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
(.NDOIS'OSA
Eiplouon
R«KIM>«
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
ttoio«-c«f
L;
u
U
U
U
U
1
U
u
V
u
u
V
u
2
U
V
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
li
I)
u
Tom
««t.n«
15
14
17
12
13
15
19
17
9
18
14
16
15
14
19
16
14
14
14 •
17
15
14
11
13
9
12
12
N.M.
"-"•—
1
3
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
I
1
3
1
1
UuMTun
f>c*«flt«l
l)«.nfl
18
23
20
18
22
18
19
20
12
24
20
22
21
20
19
22
20
20
23
23
24
20
14
16
18
15
15
PlDOu.non
•i.o
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 5
1 25
1.0
1.25
1.25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1. 25
OWeuKofl
5
25
25
25
. 25
5
5
. 25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
. 25
. 25
.25
.25
25
25
25
5
.5
25
5
. 25
Tout
PfokcIMn
*•*«•
1 5
1 25
1 25
1. 25
1 25
2
1 75
1. 25
1. 5
1. 5
1 25
1 25
1 25
1 25
1 25
1. 25
1. 25
1 25
1 25
1.75
1. 25
1.75
2.0
2.0
1.75
2. 0
1. 5
rinri
*•««•
' 22
17
21
15
16
:io
:tn
21
13
27
17
20
19
17
24
20
17
17
17
30
19
24
22
26
16
24
18
'OI*HMI
««!««
27
29
25
22
27
36
.13
25
18
36
25
27
26
25
24
27
25
25
29
40
30
35
28
32
31
30
22
-------
Table IV-18
(Continued)
i
to
CD
n- Butylamine
Butyl Mercaptan
Butyl Phenol
Butyraldehyde (Butyl Aldehyde - n)
Cacodylic Acid (Dimethylarsinic Acid)
Cadmium
Cadmium Chloride
Cadmium Cyanide
Cadmium Fluoride
Cadmium Nitrate
Cadmium Oxide
Cadmium Phosphate
Cadmium Potassium Cyanide
Cadmium Sulfate
Calcium Arsenate
Calcium Arsenide
Calcium Carbide
Calcium Cyanide
Calcium Fluoride
Calcium Hydride
Calcium Hypochlorite
Calcium Oxide
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbonyl Chloride (Phosgene)
Chloral Hydrate
Am OUPOCAL
ettacn
2
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
MMCIwn
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
i mi ii
ftm
1
1
u
1
1
3
3
2
3
U
2
1
U
3
2
U
U
3
1
U
U
U
2
3
1
3
1
MATIft DtVOtAL
Humn
CHKU
2
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
3
2
I ulmii
motion
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
j ' i »
Effect*
3
U
U
3
U
U
3
2
U
3
U
U
U
1
3
U
U
u
u
u
3
2
3
3
2
U
U
LAMDOISKMAL
Human
ENKti
2
2
2
1
2
1
3
1
3
3
1
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
1
!££T
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
i i i.ii
(KM
U
u
U
U
2
U
3
2
U
3
U
U
U
3
U
U
U
V
V
V
U
U
u
u
u
u
u-
r.««»»i
IMca
ft***
IS
12
9
13
16
15
23
19
16
20
14
15
15
20 -
19
14
9
16
14
10
15
13
18
15
16
18
9
MMIMto>
*
1
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
3
1
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
2 .
ffttcti
"•"•
18
18
18
16
19
21
23
19
22
23
20
21
24
20
22
23
18
22
20
19
21
19
21
18
19
24
IS
«•«•
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2S
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.25
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
««,
.25
.25
.25
. 25
.25
.5
.25
.25
. 25
.25
.5
.25
.25
.25
. 25
. 25
.25
. 5
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
. 25
.25
.25
T«M
fiHtmum
MrtotiMn
•«•• ''
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1. 25
1.75
1.25
1. 25
1.25
1.25
1. 5
1.25
1.25
1.25
1 25
1.25
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.25
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.25
1.25
tmm
HOT*
NMf
19
15
11
16
20
26
29
24
20
25
21
19
19
25
24
17
16
28
24
12
26
23
31
26
28
22
11
fMM*
MMP«
««"•
22
22
22
20
24
37
29
24
27
29
30
26
30
25
27
29
31
38
35
24
37
33
37
31
33
30
19
-------
Table IV-18
(Continued)
oo
o
TIUE
Chlorine
Chlorine Trifluoride
Chloroacetophenone
Chlorobenzene (Chlorobenzol)
Chlorodene
Chloroform (Trichloromrthane)
Chlorosulfonic Acid
Chromic Acid
Chromic Fluoride
Chromic Sulfate
Chromium Cyanide
Coal (Particle)
Colbalt Chloride
Cobaltous Nitrate
Copper Acetoarsenite
Copper Cyanide (Cuprous Cyanide)
Copper Nitrate
Copper Sulfate
Creosote
Cresol (Cresylic Acid)
C rotonaldehyde
Cumene (Isopropylbenzol)
Cyanides
Cyanoacetic Acid
Cyclohexane (Hexanhydrobenzene)
Cyclohexanol (Hexalin)
Cyclohexanone
AIK DISPOSAL
EtfcJCU
3
3
2
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1ST1
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
'I
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Ecotopcll
Effect*
2
3
u
1
2
2
U
2
U
2
U
I!
3
2
3
V
3
2
1
2
2
1
U
U
1
1
1
MATER DISPOSAL
Munw
Eftacn
2
3
1
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
2
1
RMCM*
2
2
*
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
E^oT"
3
U
U
3
3
3
3
3
U
3
U
V
3
3
U
U
3
3
2
3
3
3
U
U
3
3
3
LAND DISPOSAL
Ettojctt
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
Action
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
o
CCC40BC4
EIIKII
U
U
u
u
3
U
U
U
U
3
U
3
3
2
I)
U
u
2
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u.
u
Tot*
Eltocti
RM**
17
20
10
14
14
16
IB
19
13
21
13
12
17
16
16
11
17
18
14
16
19
17
14
14
12
13
12
NlXKCV
at
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
3
3
2
2
3
1
1 .
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
Pcunim
Ettacn
««.««
20
26
16
17
14
19
24
22
22
21
22
18
17
16
22
20
20
18
17
19
22
20
23
23
15
16
15
Production
•«««
1.25
1.0
1.0
1. 5
1.0
1.5
1. 5
1.25
1.0
10
1. 0
1.5
1.0
1 0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1 5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
1 0
1.5
1.5
1 5
O«>*wtlCM
«.-,
.25
. 25
. 5
25
. 25
25
25
. 25
25
.25
25
5
25
5
.25
. 25
. 25
5
. 25
.25
.25
25
.25
. 25
. 5
25
. 25
TOM
•nMuction
Detention
•••to
1. 5
1. 25
1.5
1.75
1. 25
1.75
1 75
1.6
1 25
1. 25
1.25
2. 0
1 25
1 5
1 25
1 25
1 25
2.0
1.75
1.75.
1. 25
1.75
1.25
1. 25
2.0
1.75
1 75
F«ri
Kftow
HMMI
««-l
30
25
15
24
17
28
31
2B
16
2G
10
24
21
24
20
14
21
36
24
.. ZB...
24
30
17
17
24
23
21
MMMMfft
POMntlri
M«Mi
Norm,
35
32
24
30
17
33
42
33
27
2C
27
36
21
24
27
25
25
36
30
,. 13,.
27
35
29
29
30
28
26
-------
Table IV-18
(Continued)
i
CO
HUE
CyclohexyUmine
Demeton
Decyl Alcohol
Dibutyl PMhalate - n
o - Dichlorobenzene
p • Dichlorobenzene
2. 4 - Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2, 4- L
ODD (Dichloro Diphenyl Dichloro Ethem
DDT (Dichloro DiPhonyl-THchloroethan
Diborane (Boron Hydride)
Dichloroethyl Ether
Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride)
1,2- Dichloropropane
1,3- Dichloropropene
Dieldrin
Diethanolamine
Diethylamine
Diethyl Ether (Ethyl Ether)
Dfethylene Dioxide (1,4 - Dioxane)
Diethylene Triamine
Diethylotilbestrol
Diisobutylene
Diisobutyl Ketone
Dimethylamine
Dimethyl SuUate (Methyl Sulfate)
2, 4 - Dinitroaniline
Dlnitro - o - Cresols
Alfl DISMCAL
ENWtt
3
3
1
1
2
1
) 2
) 1
s) 3
3
3
1
3
2
3
1
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
2
3
2
3
MMCMn
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
turn
2
3
u
u
1
U
2
2
2
3
U
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
U
2
1
3
U
3
WATf ft DtCKXAl
NMW
Effect!
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
1
3
2
3
2
2
1
1
2
3
3
3
JTZ"
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ec«M»cM
tttactt
V
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
U
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
U
U
2
U
1
2
3
U
U
3
LAND tMSKMAl
EftacB
2
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
2
3
ftMUHII
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
Ir.l.p .
Eltecn
U
3
U
u
U
U
2
U
3
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
•<
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
PMMWri
EMKM
*•!«•
20
21
15
14
18
18
18
16
19
26
22
16
21
20
23
13
18 '
17
20
16
16
15
14
18
23
20
25
FMHCtwn
«•«•
1.25
1.0
1.5
1.25
1.25
1. 25
1.25
1.0
1.25
1.0
1. 0
1.5
1.25
1.0
1.0
1.25
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.25
1.0
1.25
1.0
1.5
1.0
••**
. 25
.25
. 25
.25
.25
.25
.25
. 25
.25
.25
. 25
. 25
.25
.25
. 25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
. 25
0
0
.25
. 25
.5
.25
r«*
fii«
ONvtuM.
*•»
1.5
1.25
1.75
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1. 25
1.5
1.25
1. 25
1.75
1. 5
1. 25
1.25
1.5
1.25
1.75
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.0
1.5
1.25
2.0
1.25
r«*
KIM*
HmMi
«•«•
21
26
16
14
22
18
27
16
28
25
20
23
27
21
25
15
19
19
17
16
12
11
11
22
21
22
27
M»liniini
MM***
turn*
30
26
26
24
27
27
27
20
28
32
27
28
31
25
29
19
22
30
25
20
20
19
14
27
29
40
31
-------
Table IV-18
(Continued)
oo
(S3
o - Dinitrobengol (1.2 - Dinitrobenzene)
2. 4 - Dinitrophenol
2,4 - Piriitrotuluene (Dinitrotoluol)
Diphenylamine ( Phenylaniline)
Dipropylene <;lyool
Doderyl Henzenu (Crude)
Endriri
Epichlorohyarin
Ethane
Ethanol ( Ethyl Alcohol)
Ethanulamine (Monoethanolamme)
Ethers
Ethyl Acetate (.AI-.-M, fthi-r)
Ethyl Acrylate
Kthvlammt- (Monoethylamine)
Ethyl Benzene iPhenyl Ethane)
Ethyl Chloride (Chloroethane)
Ethylene (Ethene)
" Ethylene Bromide (Ethylene Dibromide]
Ethylene Cyanohydrin
Ethylene Diamine
Ethylene Dibromide (Dibromethane)
Ethylene Dichloride (1,2- Dichloroethane
Ethylene Glycol (Glycol)
Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether
Ethylene Glvcol Monoethyl Ether Acetat
Ethylem- Oxide
Hlilfl^
3
3
3
3
I
U
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
•i
3
2
2
2
) 3
1
1
; 2
2
IK DIIK8AL
!££T
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Eltactt
U
3
U
2
1
11
.,
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
U
2
2
U
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
•Ht
Hvnun
Ettatti
3
3
3
3
2
U
3
3
1
2
2
:
i!
2
3
2
2
1
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
TEA OttfOU
NMcMfl
2
1
i
i
1
1
!
1
1
1
1
!
1
1
1
2
i
i
;
l
1
1
1
1
i
Efrtn»i M
EHacti
3
3
3
U
1
2
3
3
U
1
2
U
1
2
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
L
Entctt
3
2
2
1
1
I)
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
kND DIVOSA
tacaofl
2
.3
2
1
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
^
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
L
Eltocn
U
U
U
U
U
c
3
U
U
U
D
U
U
D
U
U
U
V
U
U
U
I!
U
U
U
U
V
Tout
Eltan
«««•
19
21
17
13
10
B
21
19
9
12
13
9
11
17
19
13
12
14
19
12
14
18
16
10
12
12
13
«M».
—" —
2
1
2
•i
1
5
1
2
1
1
2
I
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PMWNNt
Enera
•««*
25
24
23
20
13
23
21
22
15
15
16
15
14
20
22
16
18
17
22
18
17
21
19
13
15
15
16
f**HCM»
«— »
1.0
1.0
1. 5
1.25
1.25
1 5
I 0
1. 5
1 5
1 5
1 5
1. 5
1. 5
1 3
1 25
1 6
1.5
1 25
1.0
1.0
1 25
1.0
1 5
l.S
1 0
1 0
1 5
DMTftvtMn
""•»
. 25
. 5
.25
. 25
25
. 25
25
. 25
25
25
25
. 25
25
2J
25
r) p
25
25
.5
25
25
.25
. 25
. 25
. 5
25
25
TM
»«*CMI>
OMVtMIW
«•"•
1. 25 '
1.5
1.75
1.5
1.5
1. 75
1.25
1 75
1.75
1.75
1 75
1. 75
1 75
1 75
1.5
1 75
1.75
1.5
1 5
1.25
1.5
1 25
1.75
1.75
1.5
1.25
1.75
KMMt
«»«««•
24
31
30
19
15
14
26
33
16
21
23
16
19
30
28
23
21
21
28
. IS-
21
22
28
17
18
15
23
•••HI
«•«•
31
36
40
30
19
40
26
38
26
26
28
26
24
35
33
28
31
25
33
2Z. .
25
26
33
23
22
19
28
-------
Table IV-18
(Continued)
CO
CO
T1TLI
Ethylenimine
2-Ethylhexanol (Octyl Alcohol)
Ethyl Mercaptan
Ethyl Methyl Ketone (Butanone)
Ethyl Phthalate (Diethyl o-Phthalate
2 -Ethyl - 3 Propyl Acrolein
Ferrous Sulfate
Fluorides (e. g. . Hydrogen Fluoride, etc.
Fluorine (Hydrofluoric Acid)
Formaldehyde - 37% Solution
Formic Acid
Furfural (Furfuraldehyde)
Furfural Alcohol
Guthion
Heptalchor
Heptane (Heptyl Hydride)
Hexachlorophene (Methylene)
Hexaethyltetraphosphate
Hexamethylene Diamine
Hexane (Hexyl Hydride)
Hydrazine (Anhydrous Diamine)
Hydrobromic Acid
Hydrochloric Acid (Muriatic Acid)
Hydrocyanic Acid (Hydrogen Cyanide)
Hydrofluoric Acid (Hydrogen Fluoride)
Hydrogen Chloride Anhydrous
Hydrogen Peroxide (over 52%)
AinOltfOCAL
IMnpi
fltactl
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
E in
taKMWI
2
1
2
2
I
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
3
2
1
3
ii»ln».»
Cite*
3
1
U
1
1
U
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
U
1
2
U
1
3
2
U
2
MMTtN MPOML
(MM
3
1
2
I
2
2
1
3
3
3
3
2
U
3
2
1
1
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
B|IL>1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
riiimini
INK*
3
U
U
1
3
2
3
U
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
2
U
3
U
1
3
U
3
3
3
3
3
lANODtVOVAL
Mwnun
tltara
3
1
2
1
2
2
1
3
3
3
2
2
U
3
1
I
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
tlMniin
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
2
3
3
1
3
tUII»l«
EMM*
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1
U
U
3
3
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
3
U
TaM
KHHNt
cim
««"t
20
9
12
11
13
12
11
17
20
19
16
IS
11
22
18
12
12
20
9
9
21
15
18
22
21
18
21
MMI
-------
Table IV-18
(Continued)
CO
TITLE
p - Hydroquinone
Hydrogen Sulfide
Iodine
Isobutyl Acetate
Isobutyl Alcohol
Isophorone
Isoprene
Isopropanol (Isopropyl Alcohol)
Isopropyl Acetate
leopropylamine
Isopropyl Ether
Lead
Lead Acetate
Lead Arsenate
Lead Ar&enite
Lead Carbonate
Lead Chlorite
Lead Cyanides
Lead Nitrate
Lead Nitrite
Lead Oxide
Lithium Aluminum Hydride
Magnesiumo-Arsenite
Magnesium Chlorate
Magnesium Sulfate
Maleir Anhydride
Manganese
AIIKMKMM.
HUM*
tHKtt
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
M?
1
2
2
I
2
U
1
2
2
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
(owe*
Cftan
2
3
U
1
1
1
2
1
I
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
U
2
2
U
2
U
U
1
1
3
U
WATf M DWOCAL
ItIM*
Eftara
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
1
3
1
E**W
•MM*
1
1
1
1
2
U
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
ElllG.r«
EHKti
3
3
3
3
U
3
3
2
1
3
2
U
3
3
li
U
U
U
3
U
U
U
U
U
1
3
U
LAMDOOFOBAl.
Hvflwl
Eltac*
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
1
1
3
3
1
3
3 .
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
Ew>_
RMCtion.
1
2
2
2
2
U
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
I
2
1
enm
U
2
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2
3
U
U
U
3
3
U
U
V
U
V
U
U '
U
ElMev
MMM*
14
22
IS
14
14
13
IS
13
12
18
16
14
21
21
16
IS
14
20
24
14
16
12
14
12
10
21
9
•t
1
2
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
3
2
3
3
2
1
1
3
Pawn**
• «*!
17
22
21
17
20
25
18
16
IS
21
19
20
21
21
22
21
23
23
24
23
22
21
23
18
13
24
18
•••«
1.2S
1. 5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 5
1. 5
1.2S
1.2S
I.2S
1. S
1.2S
1. S
1.25
1.25
1. 25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 5
1. 5
1.0
tn»»»a»i
"•"«•
. 5
.25
. 5
.25
.5
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
. 5
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
. 25
.25
.25-
. 5
.25
.25
.25
. 5
. 5
.25
TM
f it mi
OMttMIM-
••"«
1. 75
1.75
1. 5
1.25
1. 5
1.25
1.75
1.75
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
2.0
1. 5
1.75
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1.5
1.5
L. 5~
1.75
1.25
1.25
1.25
2.0
2.0
1.25
FM*
24
38
22
17
21
16
26
23
21
31
24
28
31
37
24
22
21
30
36
... 21-.
28
15
17
IS
20
42
11
MM in
*MW
n«ta«
30
38
31
21
30
31
31
28
26
37
28
40
31
37
33
31
34
34
36
. J4-
38
26
29
22
26
48
22
-------
Table IV-18
(Continued)
00
en
TITLI
Manganese Arsenate
Manganese Chloride
Manganese Cyclopentadienyllricarbonyl
Mercuric Chloride
Mercuric Cyanide
Mercuric Oiammonium Chloride
Mercuric Nitrate
Mercuric Sulfate
Mercury
Mercury Compounds (Organic)
Mesitvl Oxide
Methanol (Methyl Alcohol)
Methvl .Acetate
Methvl Acrvlate (Acrvlic Esters)
Methvlamine (30^ Solution)
Methyl Amyl Alcohol
Methvl Bromide (Bromomethane)
Methyl Chloride (Chloromethane)
jrethyrCfilbroformate
Methyl Formate (Methyl Methanoate)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (Hexone)
Methyl Mrrraplans (Methanethiol)
Methyl Methacrylate Monomer
Methyl Parathion
Monomethvlaniline (n-Methylanilins)
Morpholine
Naphtha (Crude)
AIH DISPOSAL
HuMH
llfccti
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
MMCMMI
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
Elfacn
3
3
3
3
U
I!
V
I'
V
3
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
U
U
1
1
2
f
3
2
2
U
WArCM DISPOSAL
Human
EHKH
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
1
3
3
2
3
eu>Kx»
ANCHOR
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
fouru
EHKn
U
2
U
3
3
I!
3
L'
3
3
3
2
1
2
3
2
1
1
U
2
1
3
2
3
U
2
2
LAND DISPOSAL
HlHTMX
Ettacti
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
I
3
3
3
3
1
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
.CUM**
function
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
ELiliii.«
Elfecti
L'
U
L'
U
U
V
U
U
U
U
U
U
11
U
U
U
3
U
U
1
U
-------
Table IV-18
(Continued)
i
CO
05
\aphthalonr (Naphthaline)
\uph1h\ laminr - IM-M
NII krl
\u-krl Ammonium S'.illan-
Nirkrl Antimonnlr
N'irki'l Ai-srnulf
\n krl Curhoml
N'irkrl Chloride
Xii-hol rvanidc
Nl< ki-I Nitrate
N'irkrl Srlrmilr
%'irki'l Sr.lfat.
\iti-ir \<-l 1
Nitroanileni- (N itrant-lmi- -mrta-parat
Nitroln-n/. i-ni (Niti'Oh(-it7.ol)
N 11 rorhlorolit-n/inr (incta or para)
Nitrorthaiif
Nilro^lvci-i in
Nitronirthani
N irropai u|f ins
n - Nit rnphrnol
Nit roprupaiu (1 and 2)
p - Nitfotoluol (Nitrotnluertf)
Nitr^t'is Oxid*
Oxalir Am!
I'ai'afiirinaldfhvjc
I'arathiop
EltMK
2
3
2
2
3
•i
3
•)
3
2
t
2
•1
3
3
2
:<
.<
2
:i
2
2
-
3
o
:l
ID DISPOSAL
RMCIHMI
2
•)
\
'i
2
2
•>
2
2
3
•>
9
1
3
:i
•j
:t
:t
2
2
:i
3
2
2
1
2
2
tcotarl*
tltacli
2
2
2
1
1
1
<
\
\
2
1
<
:i
i
o
i
i
:<
:t
i
:)
2
i
i
3
2
If
«.
tttatll
•>
:<
•j
i
:i
n
i
1
:t
2
9
1
(
1
.(
:i
•>
:<
3
2
j
9
2
1
3
;<
:i
rtn oisras*
^^"
1
1
1
1
5
•)
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f llvrtt
:t
I
2
:i
i
i
:<
:>,
i
:i
i
:i
•i
•i
3
I
I
1
I
1
3
3
3
1
3
r
3
tltoilt
2
n
]
2
:-,
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
I
2
1
3
2
3
M»D UISFOSA
tMllouo*
ftmlMMi
1
2
1
1
9
•)
2
1 .
2
3
2
1
1
3
:i
1
;<
::
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
tllvll
[
1
2
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
•>
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I'
r
r
H..W.
.,.,
l.'l
II.
14
1 -,
l.'l
14
!!•
IK
1 1
21
13
17
21
IP
21
13
14
IB
15
p
IP
11;
14
10
19
13
20
.,«..
"-"—•
1
2
1
3
>
3
•>
1
3
•>
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
MM on*™
'U01I.H
Ni..^
n:
22
14
in
24
23
1'.
1H
23
21
22
17
21
25
24
22
20
24
21
18
22
IP
IT
16
22
32
23
*OA.. I on
1. ."l
1.0
1 . 2 "i
1.0
1.0
i. n
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1 0
1.0
1. 25
1. .=>
1.21
1. 5
1. n
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.25
1.0
1. 25
1. 25
1 25
1.0
1. 25
UwfAUIIO"
2*1
. 25
. 2.1
.2.1
. 25
n -^
. 1
2 .1
. 25
. 25
. 5
25
.1
. 2.1
2 5
2 1
. 25
.2.1
. 2.T
. 25
. 25
25
.25
25
. 5
. 25
^'OAltlv.
N»»*
1 . 7 .1
1. 2.1
1. .1
1. 2.1
1. 25
1. 2.1
1. 1
1 . .1
1 . 2 .1
1. 25
1. 2.1
1. 75
1.75
1. 7.1
1.71
1. 75
1. 2.1
1. 25
1. 2.1
1-: 2*
1. 5
1. 25
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. .1
-, M
NM«1
21.
20
24
1"
1"
1 7
21!
27
21
21.
1C
30
37
33
37
23
17
22
I'l
- rr"
2i:
20
21
15
2H
IP
10
'MO.I.M
«•»«
'.1
27
24
22
30
2'1
2i!
27
2"
2f.
27
30
•'.-
44
42
3.".
2 'i
30
21.
'" ZT
3 3
24
25
24
33
2H
31
-------
Table IV-18
(Continued)
CO
-g
TITLf
Pentaborane
Pentachlorophenol
PETN (Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate)
n - Pentane (Amyl Hydride)
Perchloric Acid (5 72%)
Perchloroethylene (Tetrachloroethylene)
Perchloryl Fluoride
Phenol (Carbolic Acid)
Phenylhydrogini- Hydrochloride
Phosphoric Acid
Phosphorus (Red)
Phosphorus (White or Yellow)
Phosphorus Oxychloride
Phosphorus Pentachloride
Phosphorus Pentasulfide
Phosphorus Trichloride
Phthalic Acid (Terephthalic Acid)
Picric Acid (Trinetrophenol)
Polychlorinated Biphenvls (Askarels)
Potassium Arsenite
Potassium Hinoxalate
Potassium Chromate
Potassium Cyanide (Solid)
Potassium Dichromate
Potassium Fluoride
Potassium Hydroxide (Caustic Potash)
Potassium Oxalate
AIM oaraAL
MMMI
fMKM
3
3
2
1
3
1
2
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
IMIIHIB"
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
I<~r»
CflKB
3
3
u
1
U
U
3
2
2
U
U •
U
(j
3
U
U
2
2
L'
3
L'
3
3
U
2
2
U
DVATIA DISPOSAL
EffecB
3
3
2
1
3
3
2
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
NMCMfl
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
ii«i«tif«
Etfccti
U
3
U
2
3
3
U
3
L'
3
U
3
U
V
V
3
3
3
L1
3
U
3
3
3
1
3
U
LAND DISPOSAL
Eltorn
3
3
2
1
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
3
3
3
2
3
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
EwUX
ACBUOA
. 3
1
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
CouvU
EHKM
3
3
u
U
U
i;
u
u
u
u
u
LT
u
I!
u
u
u
L'
u
u
u
3
u
3
u
u
u
TOM
KflMMI
EMcn
Mm
22
22
13
11
17
14
14
19
IS
13
8
21
15
18
12
IS
11
20
11
19
11
21
20
18
15
20
9
Mi»Mii
•I
1
3
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
PMBMMI
CltacM
MKIt
25
22
22
14
23
20
20
22
21
22
14
27
IS
24
21
21
14
23
20
22
20
21
23
21
18
23
18
hvtfMlaii
ft«Mt
1.0
1.25
1.0
1.0
1. 5
1. 5
1.0
1. 5
1.0
1 . 5
1. 5
1. 5
1.25
1.0
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1.0
1.0
1. 5
1.0
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1.5
1. 5
1.0
DMrftMMA
Km,
.25
. 5
.25
. 5
.25
. 5
.25
. 5 .
.25
. 5
. 25
. 25
0
.25
. 25
.25
.25
.25
. 25
.25
.25
. 25
.5
. 5
. 5
.25
. 5
T*M
*Mgcti*n
OMrihwinn
•*•* '•
1.25
1. 75
1.25
1. 5
1. 75
2.0
1.25
2.0
1.25
2.0
1. 75
1.75
1. 25
1.25
1.75
1. 75
1. 75
1.25
1. 25
1. 75
1. 25
1.75
2.0
2.0
2.0
1. 75
1. 5
*M«
KMMI
Hew*
««,
27
38
16
16
30
28
17
38
19
26
14
37
19
22
21
26
19
25
14
33
14
37
40
36
30
35
13
NmMi
Nab*
31
38
27
21
40
40
25
44
26
44
24
47
19
30
37
37
24
29
25
38
25
37
46
42
36
40
27
-------
Table IV-18
(Continued)
i
CO
oo
TITU
Potassium Permanganate
Potassium Peroxide
Potassium Sulfati-
Potassium Sulfielc
Propane (I.. P. Gas)
Propionaldehydl (Propyl Aldehyde)
Propionic Acid
n - Propvl Acetate
n - Propyl Alcohol
Propylamim-
Propylene
Propvlene ("il\col
Propylene Oxide
Propylene Dichlonde (Dichloropropane)
Pyridine
Quinone
Salicylic Acid
Selenium Powder
Silicon Tetrochloride
- Silver Cyanides
Sodium
Sodium Amide (Sodamide)
Sodium Arsenate
Sodium Arsenite
Sodium Azide
Sodium Bichromate (Sodium Dicromate)
Sodium Bisulfite
AIMOISP06AI
IIMIM*
ElMett
3
2
1
3
1
2
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
!£nr
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
EoMopcd
CUM
3
I!
2
U
I
2
2
r
i
2
U
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
3
I
U
U
3
3
3
t
3
MATER OWGBAL
Hvman
titan
3
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
E«on.
AMCOMI
I
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
Ecotaee*
Eftactt
3
3
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
I
1
3
2
3
1
3
U
C
U
U
2
3
3
3
2
LAND DISPOSAL
Hum*i
Elfcc*
3
2
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
1
En****
RMCMMI
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
EnKvm
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
V
U
U
U
U
U
U'
L
I'
t
U
U
V
3
I1
I'
t
T«ul
EHactl
H«l««
20
15
14
18
8
U
12
11
10
18
9
9
14
17
13
18
9
19
18
14
14
14
17
21
20
15
16
Ntfntot
of
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
1
1
2
1
•J.J.H....I
tH«M
•««•
23
21
17
24
14
17
15
17
13
21
15
12
17
20
16
21
12
22
24
23
23
23
20
21
23
21
19
rimwtMn
flMMf
1. 5
I. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 0
I. 25
1. 25
1. 25
1.25
I. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1.25
1. 25
1.0
1.25
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
Owrfttiuon
>•»*
. 5
.25
.25
.25
. 5
. 25
. 25
. 25
. 25
. 25
. 5
. 25
. 25
. 25
. 5
. 5
. 5
. 5
. 5
. 5
. 25
. 25
. 5
. 25
. 25
. 5
. 5
TM«
rmtalioii
OMfttMIIWI
*•»«
2.0
1.75
1.75
1. 75
2.0
1. 25
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
2.0
1. 75
1. 75
1. 5
1. 75
1. 5
1. 75
1. 5
1. 5
i. 5
1. 75
1. 75
2. 0
1. 75
1. 75
2. 0
2.0
H**tt
, •••»
40
26
24
31
16
17
IS
IB
15
27
18
18
24
25
23
27
Hi
28
27
' "21
24
24
34
37
35
30
32
PoMMMI
NAivdi
•«,
46
37
30
42
28
21
22
25
19
31
30
21
30
30
28
31
21
33
3(i
34
40
40
40
.17
40
42
3!'.
-------
Table IV-18
(Continued)
00
CO
TITLI
Sodium Borate
Sodium Cacodylate
Sodium Carbonate
Sodium Carbonate Peroxide
Sodium Chlorate
Sodium Chromate
Sodium Cyanide
Sodium Fluoride
Sodium Formate
Sodium Hydride (Crystals)
Sodium Hydrosulfite
Sodium Hydroxide (Caustic Soda)
Sodium Iodide
Sodium Nitrate (Solid)
Sodium Nitrite (Solid)
Sodium Oxalate
Sodium Oxide
Sodium Perrhlorate
Sodium Peroxide
Sodium Phosphate
Sodium-Potassium Alloy
Sodium Sulfide
Sodium Sulfite
Sodium Thiocyanate (Sodium Sulflcyanide
Stannic Chloride
SUnnous Chloride
Strontium
AIM Dl^mUL
CHOC*
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
U
2
1
2
1
3
2
2
MNCMM
1
\
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
U
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
fiomoji.-
flftje*
U
2
1
U
1
3
3
3
U
U
U
I
2
3
2
3
2
2
U
2
U
3
2
2
U
3
U
MATIN DIVOCAL
Hunw
Cffora
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
fwtaon
MM**
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
I
2
2
2
1
1
U
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
Imlioio
cnora
2
U
3
U
1
2
3
3
2
I'
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
U
U
3
2
U
TJ
U
V
LAND DISPOSAL
N«mo»
tifcca
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
1
3
1
1
• 1
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
2
2
•OOLIIUII
J
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
U
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
1
2
1
2
CcoMvctf
fnora
U
U
1
U
3
U
U
2
U
I'
U
U
U
U
U
U
I)
I!
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u'
Toul
Known
EIMCU
ftXMO
12
14
14
11
14
17
20
21
14
14
14
17
14
14
12
15
18
16
17
11
11
19
IS
11
14
13
12
04
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
3
3
1
1
2
3
2
3
FMOM*
INMt
••MO
18
20
14
20
14
20
23
21
20
23
20
20
17
17
24
18
21
19
23
20
20
22
18
17
23
19
21
flllOllltlil
"•-«
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
l.S
1. 5
1. S
1.25
1.5
1. 5
1.25
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1.0
1.0
1.25
OM'tottton
••MO
.25
.25
.25
.25
. 5
.25
.25
. 5
. 5
. 25
.25
. 5
0
.i5
. 5
.5
.25
.25
.25
. 5
.25
. 5
. 5
.25
.25
.25
.25
TOM
hoteMfi
O«riouwi
•on*
1. 75
1. 75
1. 75
1. 75
2.0
1.75
1. 75
1. 75
2.0
1. 75
1. 5
2.0
1. 5
1. 75
2.0
2.0
1. 75
h 75
1. 75
2.0
1. 75
2.0
2.0
1. 75
1. 25
1. 25
1. 5
r«*
KAOW
. **•>•*
«OMO
21
24
24
19
28
30
35
37
28
24
21
34
21
24
24
.10
31
- 28-
30
22
19
38
30
in
17
id
18
How*
•«*•
31
35
24
35
28
35
40
37
40
40
30
40
25
30
4ft
36
37
— 3-3" '
40
40
:is
44
36
30
29
24
31
-------
Table IV-18
(Continued)
i
^
o
tint
Stvrrnr (Phenvl Kthylenr)
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur Trioxide
Sulfuric- Acid
Sulfurous Arid
Sulfurvl Kluoride
Tantalum
Tar (Liquid)
Tear Cas (r\)
Tetrachloroelhane (Acetylene Tetrachlori
'IVtracthvl I.rad
Tetrahydrofuran
Tetrameth\l Lead
Tet ran it ro methane
Thallium
Thallium Sulfate
Titanium Tetrarhloride
Toluene (Tolvol)
Toluene Disocyanate
Toluidine - o (2, 4-methylanilene)
Trichlorobenzene
Trichloroethanc ( o or ft )
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Triethanolamine
Triethvlamme
Triethvlene Glvrol
AIRCMS»OSAL
T
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
ie>3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
1
1
3
!
EIOIOMMI
MMCtion
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
EcOtOtKM
Ettacn
1
2
i;
2
I'
3
I'
U
r
3
3
V
2
3
3
3
I'
1
1
2
I
2
1
U
1
2
2
WATCH OIVOSAL
tttKI!
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
3
2
«i^r
i
2
2
2
1
2
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ecoloec*
Eltacn
3
3
U
3
U
i:
u
l'
i:
i1
3
I
I1
r
i'
u
3
3
u
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
1
LAND DISPOSAL
Huflwl
Eltact.
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
2
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
ii^^r
i
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
EcoMvc*
U
3
L
U
L
f
t
L
r
u
3
r
:t
r
L
2
3
I'
U
V
1
U
t
L'
L'
I'
r
Tout
EftKM
HUH*
14
23
15
20
13
15
9
13
12
1G
23
14
IP
19
14
18
19
15
14
16
12
15
15
10
11
19
1 1
tatfnttw
1
3
1
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MMxnxm
PoUMMI
t«*I1*
HM.nfl
17
23
24
23
22
21
18
22
21
22
23
23
22
24
20
19
22
18
20
19
15
18
18
13
14
22
14
'Mucl«»
• ».•*
1. 5
1. 5
1.0
1. 5
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1. 5
1.0
1.0
1. 5
1.0
1.25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 5
1.0
1. 0
1. 25
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1.25
1. 0
1. 25
Dtf'ttulwn
MMH*
. 5
.25
. 25
. 5
. 25
. 25
. 5
. 5
. 25
.25
.25
. 5
. 25
. 25
. 5
. 5
. 25
. 5
.25
. 25'
. 25
. 25
. 25
. 25
. 25
. 5
. 5
rredyciKv>
OMrfcuton
MMI*«
2.0
1. 75
1.25
2.0
1.25
1. 25
1. 5
2 0
1. 25
1.25
1. 75
1. 5
1. 5
1. 25
1. 5
1. 5
1. 25
2.0
1. 25
r. zir
1. 5
1. 75
1. 75
1. 75
1. 5
1. 5
1. 75
r«M
KIWWI
H*ftak
NM«*
2R
40
19
40
in
in
13
2li
15
20
40
21
28
24
21
24
24
30
17
- 20
18
2I>
2S
17
16
28
in
*«MIttMI
MM.**
34
40
30
4fi
27
2r.
22
44
V.
27
40
2!'
33
30
30
2 a
27
3r;
25
" 24
22
31
31
23
21
33
24
-------
Table IV-18
(Continued)
Tnxc
Triethylene Tetramine
Trimethylamine
Tri-o-Cresyl Phosphate
Turpentine
Var.adium Pentoxide
Vanadium Sulfide
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
m - Xylene (Xylox)
Xylr.-r.ol (3, 5-D:methylphenol)
Zinc A rson.'itc
Zinc Arseni'.e
Zir.c ChJcj ide
Zinc Cyanide
Zinc N'iirate
Zinc Oxide
Zinc Perrr.ar.p..-.ate
Zinc Peroxide
Zinc Sulfide
AIR DISPOSAL
HWMOII
iim
3
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
E«*~°-
RQKIino
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
EoMrc*
Elfccn
U
U
U
U
3
3
3
U
1
2
U
U
3
U
U
•3
U
U
U
MATER DISPOSAL
HMHWM
EltacV
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
3
3
3
1
3
2
1
3
1
1
E-eUuon
RfKbon
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2'
2
Co****
Elkra
3
2
U
3
U
U
3
1
3
3
U
U
3
U
3
3
U
3
U
LAND DISPOSAL
Hum«i
Ettoeu
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
EIIXOXX
RMCIIO*
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
EcatarpcM
Etttctt
U
U
U
U
3
U
U
U
1
U
U
U
U
• u
U
u
u
u
u
Tout
Ell-cu
R«m<
IS
10
11
11
15
11
13
12
12
17
12
12
16
14
15
13
11
13
10
Numtot
2
2
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
3
1
3
2
1
3
2
3
Mmrmim
PM*Mul
tlkrn
•«««
21
16
20
17
18
17
16
18
12
20
« 1
21
19
23
21
16
20
19
19
Production
»..«!
1.0
1.25
1.25
1. 5
1.0
1.0
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1.25
1.0
1.0
1.25
1.0
1.0
1. 5
1. 0
1.0
1.0
Diftrtfawtion
RMinf
.25
.25
.25
. 5
.25
. 25
.25
.25
. 25
. 25
. 2f>
.25
. 5
.25
. 5
. 5
.25
. 25
.25
lattf
Production
Diltrrijwtio'l
RM.««
1.25
1. 5
1. 5
2.0
1.25
1.25
1. 75
1.75
1. 75
1. 5
1. ^5
1. 25
1. 75
1.25
1. 5
2:0
1.25
1.25
1. 25
Fin*1
KPOwn
Hwvdi
R*,~
y> •
25
24
24
-------
Table IV-19
Compounds Found Marginally Hazardous by Rating System
<
I
TITLl
Adipic Acid
AmmoPthylrthanolamine
KlMlulth
Doric Acid
C'alcium Chloride
Calcium Phusphatp
Campho;
Curie A ••:•!
Coppi't (Dust)
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Kreon 12)
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (Freon 114)
[Jicvr lopentadiene
Uiethylene (llvrol
Disopropanolamim:
Etliylphenol
Glycerine (Clyri-r.il)
1 - H*>pt«>ne ( o - Heptylent-)
Isobutylene
Isopentan-
Viangancsr Sulfate (Manganous Sulfate)
Nonvlohenol
Oleic Avid
Phthali'- Anhydride
Polypropylene Glyol Me'hyl Ether
Polvvinvlchloride
Potassp rr. Phosphate
Pyrenes
AIR DISPOSAL
Hum*
ENKU
L
1
1
2
1
i;
1
i
2
1
1
C
1
I.
I.
1
2
I
1
1
U
U
1
u
u
u
u
i±r
1
1
2
I'
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
t
2
2
U
I
1
1
U
2
U
o
E«*vc»
Ettaca
1
U
u
1
1
u
1
1
L
I
V
1
1
V
t:
i
L
V
u
^
u
u
u
u
U
V
u
WATCH DISPOSAL
EHKI*
u
U
r
2
1
I'
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
C
I
1
1
r
f
i
u
i
i
u
u
u
3
EwtaMn
ni^lmi
1
1
I
I.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u
1
1
r
1
1
1
u
i
V
i
EcoM«m
EH«ctt
2
1
i:
i
2
r
i
2
i:
i
L
I
1
I'
f
1
1
I'
U
2
3
U
U
U
U
2
C
LAND DISPOSAL
Human
EiMcn
U
2
1
1
1
i;
1
i
1
1
I
i
i
i.
f
1
i
I
I'
1
U
1
1
U
U
V
u
tMMOMff
RMCtIO*
1
. 1
2
u
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
i
1
1
2
1
(•
2
2
L
1
1
1
U
1
V
1
to****
Eftacu
U
U
u
u
u
V
u
\:
r
L'
r
V
r
'•
i
L:
u
U
u
c
i'
u
u
u
u
I1
u
Eftacn
*•«•
6
7
8
7
11
5
1 1
9
y
a
8
Nunttv
01
4
3
3
4
1
6
1
1
3
-)
3
1
8
3
4
8
ii
5
6
7
6
5
6
0
4
2
7
-
r*
6
i
5
(i
5
4
5
4
3
9
6
8
5
PoMM*
CHKI*
••>«•
18
16
17
19
14
23
14
12
18
15
17
21
11
21
22
1 1
20
23
21
19
21
17
15
27
22
26
22
PlMwtltox
R««*
1. 5
1.0
1.0
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1.0
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1.25
1.25
1. 5
1.0
1.0
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 25
1.25
1.0
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
I. 5
1. 5
DWfAwMB
•M«
.25
. 25
.25
. 5
. 25
. 5
. 25
. 25
. 25
. 25
. 25
.25
. 25
. 25
. 25
. 25
. 25
.25
• 2J-
. o
.25
.25
. 25
. 5
. 5
. 5
. 25
TOM
'njductan
OMrOiilion
*.«•
1. 75-
1.25
1. 25
2.0
1. 75
2.0
1. 25
1. 75
1. 75
1. 75
1. 5
1. 5
1. 70
1. 25
1.25
1. 75
1. 75
1. 75
1. 75
1. 75
1. 5
1 25
1. 75
1.25
2.0
2.0
1. 75
«...
10
9
10
14
1!)
10
14
1C
ir>
16
12
9
14
4
5
14
9
p
10.
12
9
6
10
8
4
12
'OMM.M
MM**
31
20
21
38
24
46
17
21
31
2fi
25
31
in
2fi
27
1!)
35
40
, 31
33
31
21
26
44
52
38
-------
Table IV-19
(Continued)
CO
TITLI
Oxygen
Silica
Sodium Silicate
Sorbitol
Sulfur
Tetrapropylene
Thiocyanates
Tripropylene (Nonene)
L'rea
Zinc Chlorate
Zinc Ethyl (Zinc Diethyl)
AIM DIVOCAl
MMMfl
fNKI*
1
3
1
I'
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
E«*WOI>
•action
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
lout*.
EMKN
1
L1
V
U
1
u
u
1
I'
u
u
WATER DUPOCAl
MwnMi
EM* II
1
1
1
U
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
EwxmaA
RMCUon
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
Einl.|ir»
EtlKtt
1
u
1
u
1
1
u
1
1
V
u
LAND DISPOSAL
MufMl
Eltaca
2
1
1
U
I
I
2
1
I
1
1
E»PM»«r>
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
EOKVC<
EHictt
1
I'
I.1
U
u
L
U
U
U
u
u
T«ul
EffKll
•MM*
12
8
7
3
8
7
8
8
7
8
10
NMncw
•I
3
2
6
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
PQMMIV
CHBLIB
«•«•
12
17
13
21
11
13
17
11
13
17
19
Pnrtufiiwi
•««•
1. 5
1.0
1. "i
1. ft
1. 5
1. 5
1.0
1. 5
1. !<
1.0
1.0
OwrAwuon
• •.1
. S
.25
. 25
.25
. 5
. 25
.25
. 25
. 5
.25
.25
TM
*0*MIM*I
DOT6fti*>
AMH«
2.0
1.25
1. 75
1. 75
2.0
1. 75
1. 25
1. 75
2.0
1. 25
1.25
1 Mt
KMMI
N«r««i
«•«•
24
10
12
5
Hi
12
10
14
14
10
12
MVHHMfl*
FOMM*
Hwvtfi
"••1
24
21
23
:(7
22
23
21
19
2«
21
24
-------
Table IV-20 :
Specific Compounds Used as Warfare Agents
by the Department of Defense
Below is a list of hazardous chemical compounds generally
associated with DoD activities in development of warfare agents. Some
of these compounds are also included among the list of hazardous com-
pounds (Table IV-18, page IV-26), because they are also used in
industrial processes which lead directly or indirectly to consumer
products. Where appropriate (for the above reason), the ratings as
developed have been included following the compounds named on the
list below.
HD - Mustard
L - Lewisite
CG - Phosgene (30)
AC - Hydrocyanic Acid (50)*
NH - Nitrogen Mustard
CN - Tear Gas (26)
CS - Irritant Tear Gas
BM - Irritant Agent
WD - White Phosphorus (47)*
GB - Nonpersistent Nerve Gas
VX - Persistent Nerve Gas
Chloropicnic
IV-44
-------
Table IV-21
Hazardous Wastes Generated by
Department of Defense Activities
(Explosive Materials)
Acetylene (24)
Acetyl Peroxide
Amatol
Ammonium Nitrate (34)
Ammonium Perchlorate (44)
Ammonium Pirate (wet 36, dry 40)
Anfo
Aromatic Nitro Compounds, n. o. i.
Azides, n. o. i.
Benzol Peroxide
Black Power
Blasting Caps
Blasting Gelatin
Butyl Hydroperoxide
tert-Butyl Perbenzoate
Butyl Peroxypivalate
Cellulose Nitrate
Chloric Acid
1 Chloro-2, 4-Dinitrobenzene
1 Chloro-1-Nitropropane
Cutnene Hydroperoxide
Cyclonite (RDX)
Cyclotol
Dibutyl Peroxide
1, 1-Dichloro-l-Nitroethane
Diisopropylperoxydicarbonate
2, 4-Dinitroaniline (40)
M-Dinitrobenzene
O-Dinitrobenzene (31)
P-Dinitrobenzene
2, 4-Dinitrophenol (36)
2, 4-Dinitrotoluene (40)
Double-base Propellants
Dynamite
Ethylene (25)
Ethylene Oxide (28)
Ethyl Nitrite
IV-45
-------
Table IV-21
(Continued)
Fulminates, n. o. i.
Guanidine Nitrate
Guanidine Perchlorate
Guncotton
HMX
Hydrazine (30)
Hydrogen Peroxide (42)
Lauroyl Peroxide
Mannitol Hexanitrate
Mercury Fulminate
Methyl Parathion (34)
Nitroethane (25)
Nit r oguanidine
Nitromethane (26)
Nitroparaffin, n. o. i. (22)
1-Nitropropane (24)
2-Nitropropane (24)
Nitrostarch
p-Nitrotoluene (25)
Octol
Organic Nitrates, n. o. i.
Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate (PETN) (27)
Pentolite
Peracetic Acid
Perchloryl Fluoride (25)
Picric Acid (29)
Primacord
Propargyl Alcohol
Propargyl Bromide
Propyl Nitrate
Pyrotechnics (Flares, Fireworks)
Pyrooxilin (Nitrocellulose)
RDX (Cyclonite)
Safety Fuse
Smokeless Powder
Sporting Powder
Styphnates, n. o. i.
Tetryl
1, 3, 5-Trinitrobenzene
2, 4, 6-Trinitrotoluene
IV-46
-------
Table IV-22 .
Toxic Pollutants Involved in Conventional
Munitions Productidn
1. Air Exposure
Acetic Acid (31) (5)
Acetic Anhydride (38) (6)
Ammonia (37) (4 + 1 unknown)
Butyl Alcohol
Cyclohexanone (26) (4)
Formic Acid (24) (7)
Iso-Butyl Acetate (21) (4)
Methylacetate (21) (4)
Methyl Ethylacetone
Nitric Acid (37) (7)
Oxides of Nitrogen
Toluene (36) (5)
Other Organics
SO4
2. Water Exposure
Acetic Acid (31) (6)
Hexamine
Ammonia (37) (7)
Sodium Nitrate (30) (4)
Sodium Sulfate
Phenols (44) (7)
Iso-Butyl Acetate (21) (6)
Ammonium Nitrate (34) (4)
Nitric Acid (37) (8)
Oils
Explosives
Red Water (Stellite)
Sulfuric Acid (46) (8)
IV-47
-------
Table IV-23
Typical Department of Defense
Waste Compounds and Materials
1. Maintenance Operations
Cleaning Solvents
Paints and Lacquers
Plating Wastes
Oily Wastes
Surfactants
2. Supply Operations
Toxic Munitions
Explosive Munitions
Propellants
Oxidizing Agents
Flammable Liquids
Explosives
Pyrotechnics
Pesticides and Herbicides
Drugs and Medicinals
Corrosive Liquids
Nuclear Weapon Components
Laboratory Chemicals
3. Weapon Systems Support Operations
Hydrazine (30)
Monomethylhydrazine
Borane
Analines (35)
Hydrocarbon Fuels
Liquid Oxygen
Solid Propellants
Warheads—Nuclear, Non-Nuclear
Fluorine (40)
IV-48
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, I. N. Sax et al.,
Reinhold Book Corp., Third Edition, 1968.
2. Toxicity of Industrial Metals. Dr. E. Browning, Butterworth and
Co., Ltd., Second Edition, 1969.
3. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, M. N. Gleason et al.,
The Williams and Wilkins Co., Third Edition, 1969.
4. An Appraisal of the Problem of the Handling, Transportation, and
Disposal of Toxic and Other Hazardous Materials, H. D. Messer
et al., Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc., January 30, 1970.
5. Air Pollution Aspects of Organic Carcinogens. Dr. D. A. Olsen and
J. L. Haynes, Litton Systems, Inc., for the U. S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, National Technical Information Service, Pub.
PB-188-090, September 1969.
6. Air Pollution Aspects of Asbestos, R. J. Sullivan and Y. C.
Athanassiadis, Litton Systems, Inc., for the U. S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, National Technical Information Service,
Pub. PB-188-080, September 1969.
7. Design of an Overview System for Evaluating the Public Health
Hazards of Chemicals in the Environment, Volumes I and II,
G.A. Lutz et al., Battelle Memorial Institute, for the U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Services,
National Technical Information Service, PB-194-398, July 1967.
8. Ground Disposal of Pesticides: The Problem and Criteria for
Guidelines, Working Group on Pesticides, National Technical
Information Service, Pub. PB-197-144^ Report WGP-DR-1,
March 1970.
IV-49
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
(Continued)
9. Air Pollution Aspects of Pesticides. Litton Systems, Inc., for
the U. S. Department of Health Education, and Welfare, National
Air Pollution Control Administration, National Technical
Information Service, Pub. PB-188-091, September 1969.
10. The Merck Index of Chemicals and Drugs, P. G. Stecher et al.,
Merck and Co., Inc., Seventh Edition, 1960.
11. "List of Toxic Substances, " The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. ,
Occupational Safety and Health Reporter, Reference File, 1971.
12. Criteria for Selection of Elements and Compounds to be
Designated as Hazardous Polluting Substances, C. H. Thompson,
Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Oil and Hazardous
Materials, October 22, 1971.
13. Control of Spillage of Hazardous Polluting Substances, G. W. Dawson
et al., Pacific Northwest Laboratories, for the U. S. Department of
Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration, November 1, 1970.
14. Evaluation of the Hazard of Bulk Water Transportation of Industrial
.Chemicals - A Tentative Guide, the Committee on Hazardous
Materials Advisory to the U. S. Coast Guard, National Research
Council, 1970.
15. Laboratory Waste Disposal Manual, Manufacturing Chemists
Association, May 1970.
16. Chemical Safety References. National Safety Council, Chemical
Section, 1968.
17. Dangerous Chemicals Code, Los Angeles Fire Department,
Parker & Sons, Inc., 1951.
18. Veterinary Toxicology, R. D. Radeleff, D. V. M., Lea & Febiger, 1964.
19. Hazard Survey of the Chemical and Allied Industries, American
Insurance Association, Division of Technical Services Engineering
and Safety Department, Technical Survey No. 3, 1968.
IV-50
-------
V. SURVEY AND INVENTORY OF TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL METHODS
1. INTRODUCTION
The analysis of treatment and disposal methods can be divided
into four general categories of waste materials:
Waterborne wastes
Solid wastes
Airborne wastes
Thermal wastes.
Water is by far the largest disposal media. Municipal treatment
systems and industrial treatment systems are based on the use of water
to dilute, move, and process wastes. The treatment of wastes in
water is the basis for much of the waste treatment methodology
currently in use.
The collection, reduction, and disposition of solid wastes (and
many liquid wastes) in landfills is a close second in the volume of
waste handled. The garbage and trash collection processes typify
this system of waste disposal.
The disposition of airborne wastes has received increasing
attention recently. In past years, the disposition of airborne wastes
was largely a process of releasing gases, fumes or particulates
above the level of those immediately adjacent to the release site.
Once airborne, such wastes were considered as adequately disposed.
Only in recent years has attention been given to the problems
created by thermal wastes. The accelerating demands for power
have focused attention on the hazards which result from massive
releases of thermal energy.
V-l
-------
When the tolerance level of man, other creatures, or vegetation
is exceeded by one or more pollutants, a hazardous condition is
created. If the tolerance level is not exceeded, the level of pollution
is considered nonhazardous. The dependence of the definition of
hazardous wastes on the tolerance threshold bf the threatened specie
makes it difficult to specify the pollutants and conditions which add
up to a hazardous condition, i. e. , a threat to health.
The insidiousness of health effects makes it difficult to establish
the levels at which pollutants become acute threats to the various
specie of the environment, and make it even more difficult to define
the levels at which the chronic effects may be created.
The methods now used to dispose of unwanted materials (wastes)
can be described, but the effectiveness with which they safely dispose
of potentially hazardous materials is much more difficult to describe.
The paragraphs that follow describe the current practices which
are used to dispose of unwanted materials, review the extent to which
they are used, and make appraisals as to their probable effectiveness
in reducing hazardous waste conditions.
2. CURRENT TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PRACTICES
The discussion of these practices will cover the methods now in
use to handle water wastes, solid wastes, air wastes, and thermal
wastes.
The hazards that may result from improper disposal of waste
materials vary widely. The effect of the release of highly toxic
materials may range from an innocuous effect on the receiving air
or water to an effect that endangers a substantial number of people.
The toxicity, corrosiveness, explosiveness, etc. , of the compound
released are only some of the factors involved in establishing its
effect. The others are the concentration developed and the presence
of a susceptible population. If steps are taken to ensure that the
amounts released do not exceed the threshold of any part of the
susceptible population, however, no harm cart result. The presence
of a dangerous material is a warning that disposal methods must be
capable of safely releasing such materials if ho harm is to result.
V-2
-------
While technical means exist to safely handle all dangerous
materials, no controls exist to ensure that! essential technical
treatment steps are taken. At present, disposal controls do not
provide a means to identify all potentially hazardous materials or
the means to control their safe disposition) The technology currently
in use may, in most cases, reduce the hazardous effects to the level
of water and air pollutants. However, if the effects are chronic in
nature, even those pollutants may in time produce broad-scale
harmful effects on the susceptible population. The absence of an
immediate acute effect on the exposed population is no assurance that
chronic effects are absent.
(1) Wastewater Treatment Methods
The wastewater treatment methods used in industry are
comparable to municipal sewage treatment methods. The
wastewater streams are processed to screen out, neutralize,
or reduce contaminants contained in the stream. The treatment
that can be provided is summarized in the chart (Figure V-l)
on the following page.
In practice, the treatments shown are not widely applied,
especially on a system basis that includes secondary and tertiary
processes. Rather, they are treatments which are used in
experimental or occasional applications, and should not be
considered as typical system practices. If the full operation
of potential treatments is applied, all contaminants can be
removed and water can be restored to a drinkable state. The
practical limiting factor is the costs which must be incurred to
achieve full decontamination. Such costs are proportional to the
volume of wastes to be treated, the level of contamination that
must be removed, and the difficulties encountered in removing
the particular contaminants.
The processes shown are based on the biological reduction
of contaminants aided by chemical and physical treatments.
Since many organic compounds are resistant to biodegradation,
such waste streams should be isolated from other wastewater
streams, when feasible, and separately treated or disposed of
(i. e. , thermal oxidation or deep-well disposal).
V-3
-------
FI0URE V-l
Candidate Wastewatdr Treatment Processes-
Substitution arid Sequence Diagram
g 3 tmuimwuiwuiiMiiatmiiimimityiimMiniiunniiNiHi
ik<£ E £ ^"Tx. = It]
s ^ZLZ/ *vjv>^-*-' }^/ - =
»4BiBiatBiaiqj>i'WiBT>>«iMTpi* ^3imiiinntii=
5 =iuuiinuiiinuiHiniiuiniuiiiii^^ jv =
i i
I f
-^ | \-^*S § $ i!'
I f 8 iHi!iiiiuiiiuiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiuilTiiiiiiiiiiiiiii=
VI4/ I
IIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIII1UIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIC
HiimuiiitiiiiuiiiliiiEiiiiiiiiii
Hlaj = i-«j=v^-y i _ i L r
tall ftml """"I = 5
mHtinuitnitiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiitiiiiiiiuiiiiii
niuiiiiinituniitiiiili
inpoo^iminiiiHiuiiittiuiiiijiiiiniiiitiiiiiiiiiiiititiiiimiiiiiHinMiitiiif
f
V-4
-------
Conceptually, waste treatment can be divided into three
phases: primary, secondary, and tertiary.
t
In the primary phase, the waterborne constituents are
separated from the water stream by simple actions such as:
Screening
Equalization, neutralization of pH adjustment
Oil separation
Flotation, flocculation or clarification.
These actions substantially increase the sedimentation of
dissolved or particulate waterborne wastes.
Secondary treatments such as:
Activated sludge
Extended aeration
Trickling filters
Aerated lagoons
Waste stabilization ponds
Chemical oxidation
are used to biologically or chemically convert organic wastes
to inactive sediments and water streams which are innocuous.
Tertiary treatment is applied to remove residual contami-
nants that are not affected by biological treatment. Such
processes include:
Ammonia stripping
Coagulation and precipitation
Filtration and microscreening
V-5
-------
Carbon adsorption
Disinfection
E le ctrodialysis
i
Ion exchange
Reverse osmosis
Evaporation.
The latter four processes may be used to extract materials for
later use or disposal. The final effluent from tertiary treatment
is generally acceptable for return to the waters initially used to
assist in the disposal process.
t
The sludges that are created as the water treatment
proceeds can be handled in a variety of ways. As part of the
water stream, they are subject to the same pretreatments
applied to the water streams, i.e., pretreatments, thickening,
and separations. Such treatments may include:
Aerobic stabilization
Anerobic digestion
Lagooning
Heat treatment
as well as dewatering by means of filter processes, or vacuum
filters, centrifuges, or sand-drying beds.
Sludges may be transported by pipe, truck, rail or barge
to land reclamation, landfill or ocean disposal sites or may be
incinerated and the residual solids disposed of on landfills. Lime
used in chemical treatment may be recalcified and reused, while
carbon used in adsorption towers may be regenerated for reuse.
Carefully designed water treatment methods can remove
most hazardous compounds from effluent streams. If treatment
systems are not designed and operated properly, hazardous
V-6
-------
waste streams survive water treatment and pollute the receiving
waters. In many cases, however, little or no treatment is
given to industrial wastes.
(2) Air Pollution Controls ,
___^^M^^__^_ ^
Thousands of different types of combustible organic
compounds are released to the atmosphere from many different
manufacturing operations. Examples include industrial dryers,
ovens and furnaces used for the baking of paints and enamels;
processes used in the manufacture of organic chemicals,
inorganic chemicals, and paints and varnishes. Organic and
inorganic materials released by refining processes, steel
mill operations, nonferrous metal production, power production
plants and automotive traffic also add to the pollution levels.
There is no simple way to overcome the pollution problems.
Each manufacturing area has unique problems which may require
differing treatment methods. Unlike water treatment methods,
there is no basic set of treatments whose sound application can
ensure clean air.
Because of the wide variety of toxic compounds which may
be emitted, each control system must consider the explosive
and fire hazard effects which are related to the gases and
particulates in each set of emissions, and adapt available
technology to adequately deal with the total effects that are to
be controlled.
The status of current technology in the control of emissions
to the atmosphere was presented in hearings before the Subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public
Works, March 15-18, 1967, and is contained in Table V-l,
which is presented on the following pages.
As Table V-l indicates, adequate control technology
generally existed even in 1967, but the need for its application
has not been fully accepted by industry and the means to enforce
its use have not been available to all enforcement authorities.
The particular technology applications best suited to pollution
control are heavily dependent on the technology and economics
of the process to be controlled. Recently built plants and new
V-7
-------
• Table V-l
Status of Current Technology in the Control of Emissions to the Atmosphere*
Source
Domestic and commercial heating
plants:
. Coal fires (not hand fired)
Oil fired
Gas filed
Industrial Itcating plants:
Coal fired
Oil fired
Cas fired
Electric generating plains:
Coal fired
Oil fired
(^In fired
HarxKfired coal burning furnaces
Incinerators:
Domestic: commercial; industrial:
Single chamber
Multiple chamber
Municipal
Auto body and scrap wire
Miner.il industry:
Cement
Insulation
Glass manufacturing
Krit
Phosphate fertilizer
Asphalt concrete hatching
Concrete batching
Carbon Mack:
FuniiKC bltck
Channel black
Coal cleaning
Charcoal manufacturing
Ceramics
Refractories
Rock and gravel processing
Metallurgical industry:
Iron and steel:
Cnkc plants:
Slot type
Beehive
Blast furnace
Sintering plants
Open hearths
Oxygen lance open hearths
Basic oxygen
Electric furnaces
Scarfing
Grey iron cupola:
Production
Jobbing
Ferroalloys
Aluminum:
Reduction
Secondary operations
Smelting:
Lead ores
Zinc ores
Copper ores
Sulfur
Particulaies oxides
C NC C NC
<*) X
<*> x
X X
« x
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
n
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
o
X
<•>
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
Carbon
monoxide Othcrr
C NC C • NC
X Smoke NO,
X Smoke NO,
X '< NO,
X Smoke NO,
X Smoke NO,
X NO,
X Smoke NO,
X Smoke NO,
X NO,
X Smoke • NO,
X Smoke; orpanics
X Smoke; organic!
X Smoke; organics
X Smoke; organics
NO.
NO,; odors uncon-
trolled in some
glass wool plants
Fluorides NO,
N
Control difficult on older plants.
Being phased out.
Replacing basic open hearth.
Emissions not controlled during tilting and rhun/mg.
Fluoride control poor in Soderberg furnaces.
NOTE: See footnotes at end of table, p 354.
nv: C—Control technology generally available; NC—Control technology not generally available; CO—CartJon monoxide: HC—Hydrocarbons; SO,—Sulfur oxides; NO,—Nitrogen
oxides.
V-8
-------
Table V-l
(Continued)
Sulfur Carbon :
Particuliiles oxkles monoxide others
Source
Refining:
Xinc
Br:us
Taconite plants
Petroleum industry:
Petroleum refining:
Separation (crude distilla-
tion, etc.)
Conversion:
Catalytic cracking
Reforming
Treating
Blending
Petroleum production
Petroleum marketing:
Bulk plants
Service stations
Solvent evaporation:
Drycteaning
Paint spraying
Industrial storage
Degreasing
Bake oven
Kraft pulpmills:
Digesters
Smell lank
Ume kiln
Recovery furnace
Evaporators
Oxidation towers
Chemical industry:
Sulfuric add
Nitric acid
Hydrochloric acid
Phosphoric acid
Hydrofluoric add
Chlorine
Ammonia (synthetic)
1 jmc
Soda ash:
Ammonia soda
Trona
Caustic soda:
Ijme-soda
Elect rolytk
Polyethylene
Polyvinyl chloride
Alum
Paint and varnish
Synthetic rubber
Rubber tire manufacturing
Oil bodying operation
Formaldehyde
Melhanol (lynlheiic)
Phenol (synthetic)
Rayon
C NC C NC C NC C
.
X
x
X
HC H.S
'
X X H,S
H.S
Odors
HC
HC
HC
Solvents
X
Solvents
Solvents
Sulfur compounds
X Sulfur compounds
X Sulfur compounds
.X XX
Sulfides, odors
X Sulfuric add mist
NO,
HC1. solvents
Fluorides: phosphoric
acid misL
HF
Clt
NH» organic bases
X
X NH,
X
X 0.
HC
lid, vinyl chloride,
vinylidcne chloride,
vinyl acetate.
X Mists
X Odors, solvents
HC. solvents, odors
X
X Odors
X Methanol. formalde-
hyde. HC.
X
Benzene, toluene.
odors
.Sulndes. carbon
disulfide odors.
5
NC
NO,
Nt),
NO,
NO,
HC
SolvenuO
Solvents(*)
NO,
Water vapor
NO,
Sulfur compounds:
NO,
Sulfur compounds
and odors.
NO, (chamber
proccsn)
NO,
NO,
Odors
Kenurki •
'
(Particula'e control at small scrap reclaiming
] operations is economically burdensome.
Odors often noticeable.
Partial control possible.
Recovered.
Generally uncontrolled.
Breathing losses usually uncontrolled.
Water vapor controlled in Europe. Some odors
detectable at < 1 ppb.
Control of odorous sulfur compounds usually not
salwfuctory.
Better control of SOi desirable. '
Flouride control often difficult. Paniculate control
difficult for submerged combustion acid evaporation.
Clt leaks arc hard to control at old plants.
Well-developed technology
and mammoth pkinls.
i( .
Practically obsolete (see chlorine plants). ';
Odor from Cl( distillation tower bottoms>'if exposed.
Tight process system.
Tight process system.
Old plant controls may be poor.
Old plant controls difficult. Often have odors.
Odor control only fair.
Tight system.
Tight system.
i
Odor control only fair.
NOTIC; Scv rormtotes at end of table, p. 3M.
U.Y: C—Control technology generally available; NC—Control technology not generally available; CO—Carbon monoxide; HC—Hydrocarbons; SO,—Sulfur oxides; NO,
oxides.
V-9
-------
Table V-l
(Continued)
Source
Insecticide*:
Chlorinated
Plicisphtmis type
Carbanialcs
Soap and detergent
Phosgene
Phlhalk anhyilride
Kitod processing and agriculture:
(Uuton ginning
Alfalfa dehydrating
Feejo ami grain mills
Flntir mills
, Mc.V smoking
Starch manufacturing
Fish processing
Coffee roasting
Rendering
Agricultural burning:
Fields
Forests
Crop spraying
.Sulfur Carbon
Paniculate* oxides nMMMixide
C NC C NC C NC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Others
C NC
Cl,: HCI Odors
Odors
Odors
(4, and phosgene
Odors
Peslkides
Odors: NO,
Odors: smoke
Odors
Odors NO,
Odors
Organks, odors
• Organic*, odors
Drift Many insecticides and
herbicidrs.
Remarks
Some are superto tic.
Some are highly toxic. NonpersistenL
Partial control of odor puss'.blc.
Highly toxic. Tiji'il system, mainly captive use.
Some gins liave cost problems. Incineration of cotton
trash of concern in regard to arsenic.
Often unsatisfactory.
Clt scrubbers. Partial control of odon possible.
Fume burners.
Complete odor control difficult.
llauirdouB to life unless carefully done.
* Reference («). pp. 2274-2277 0- H. Ludwig)
' Emission control is possible but COM a unaccepiably freat compared to capital investment of plant or as a factor in coil of finished products or in relationship to the ability of persons
rnpnnsiblc for control to hear the costs.
Hurt.—Nitrogen onuU-i (NO,) are always formed in high-temperature combusuoli. Aniounls vary with conditions. Feasible means for adequate control of emissions are not available.
«tv: C— OHlirol lechnukigy generally available: NC—Control technology mK generally available: CO— Carbon niunoiiide: HC— Hydrocarbons: SO,—Sulfur oxides: NO,—Nilro«cn
oxide*.
V-10
-------
processes generally incorporate effective pollution reduction
measures. However, the costs of retro-fitting existing processes
may make it uneconomic to continue the; current production
methods. The degrees of control that are acceptable to local
authorities will influence heavily the techniques that are adopted.
In some cases, the control technology which has been developed
is inadequate to the control needs. '
(3) Solid Waste Disposition
As the methods used to control wastewater and air pollution
"find increased application and improvement, the disposal of
solid wastes from industrial operations will become a greater
problem. Wastes extracted from the water and air will become
part of the solid waste disposal process. Figure V-2 illustrates
how solid industrial wastes arise and the typical treatments
involved in their processing as industrial plant wastes.
The processing of industrial solid wastes will become a
larger task as the water and air standards are tightened. Should
pollution standards be established to control leaching from
existing sludge piles and lagoons, for example, an enormous
effort will be required to process such accumulations and remove
or contain those compounds polluting ground and runoff waters.
If concern extends to the mineral industry solid wastes, such
as mine and mineral processing wastes, solid waste processing
and disposal will become the largest of all waste management
efforts.
To illustrate the potential magnitude of this problem,
Tables V-2 and V-3 present sources and magnitudes of solid
wastes generated by the minerals and fossil fuel industries, and
the pollutants that result from mining operations are summarized
in the following paragraphs.
Physical Pollutants—Solid particulate material,
either mineral or organic, which enters a stream
or pond may react chemically with water or other
substances to form even more harmful compounds.
An estimated total of 2, 000 abandoned mine and mill
waste dumps are contributing to water pollution.
Stabilization of these dumps by planting vegetation
V-ll
-------
=» a
• FIGURE V-2
Solids Handlihg, Treatment and Disposal
: o
• a-
: co
g
0.
CO
o
z
Ss
lis
II
i
OUJ
V-12
-------
Table V-2
oo
Solid
Wastes by
Industry Mine Waste*
Copper-
Iron and Steel
Phosphate Rock
Lead-Zinc
Alumina
Coal:
Bituminous
Anthracite
Coal Ash
Other
TOTAL 1
492,634
157,518
282,184
3,504
2,340
144 , 003
,082,133
Type Generated by
Fuel Industries
(1, 000 Short
the Minerals
in 1968
Tons)
Mill Tailings Washing Plant
Rejects
172,751
135,798
18,577
682
90,535
418,343
110,078
97,107
NA
207,185
and Fossil
Slag Processing
Plant Wastes
4,298
16,133
4,543
165
NA
25,139
1,315
14,895
4,954
29,735
NA
50,899
Total
669,683
310,764
411,700
22,246
7,976
97,107
29,735
234,538-
1,783,749
^Includes overburden moved during surface mining activities and waste
removed from underground mines, excludes overburden displaced by
surface coal mining operations.
NA = Not Available.
-------
Table V-3
Solid Wastes Generated by the Mineral and Fossil Fuel Mining
and Processing Industries in 1968 and Accumulated Up to 1968
(1, 000 Short Tons)'
Indus try
Copper
Iron and Steel
Phosphate Rock
Lead -Zinc
Alumina
Bituminous Coal
Coal Ash
Other
Total
1968
669,683
310,764
411,700
22,246
7,976
97,107
29,735
234,538
1,783,749
Accumulated up to 1968
9,078,544
4,687,858
1,945,144
492,525
61,521
1,849,145
QlO 000
455,773
4,576,281
24,055,791
is hindered by the high acidity of alkalinity of the
material. Studies indicate that sediment yield
from strip mines in 1,000 times that derived from
forested areas, and that half of the 4. 2 million
gallons of waste processing water is released
untreated to adjacent streams. This sediment may
also include valuable mineral resources.
Chemical Pollutants—Acids, alkaline solutions,
mineral salts drained from mines, and waste
heaps accrued from the minimg and processing of
mineral sulfide ores are examples of a type of
pollutant that is more difficult to treat than other
solids.
V-14
-------
The mineral sulfides treat chemically with air
and water to form sulfuric acid, which reacts with
other minerals to cause other ions, such as
aluminum, manganese, lead, zinc and arsenic. These
enter water by draining from spoil material or by
ground water percolation through spoil material on its
way to nearby streams. When the concentration of
these pollutants is sufficiently great, "dead water"
which is toxic to living organisms results.
Another effect of acid drainage from these wastes is
the formation called "yellow boy, " a rust-colored
precipitate of ferric hydroxide that accumulates in
stream beds. Due to its coating action it smothers
aquatic life (coast gil structures), and may seal
stream bottoms to the extent that water can no longer
percolate through the bed to oxygenate the breeding
areas for aquatic species.
Physical and Chemical Pollutants—Compounds used
in cleaning, milling and beneficiation processes for
the recovery of mineral values may be inadvertently
lost, and reach streams by spills, direct flushing,
or from overflows of natural leaching of tailing
ponds. Normally they are impounded in the settling
areas, but seepage through or breaks in the dam
permit these compounds to contaminate ground
waters and streams. Most of these effluents are
foul smelling and discolor the water. In some
instances they are toxic. Phosphates in water may
stimulate abnormal growth of algae and other aquatic
flora which consume oxygen and thereby sufficate
other forms of stream life.
V-15
-------
Physical and chemical pollutants from mining have
adversely affected 18, 000 iftiles of streams in the
United States. Mine sources contribute large
volumes of sediment, and more than 4 million tons
of sulfuric acid, to the streams. Surface mining
alone has adversely affected 8, 700 miles of streams.
Underground mining is responsible for degrading
approximately 9, 300 miles of stream and 22, 000
acres of lakes and other water bodies in 31 states
(Appendix A-l, Table A-l-5).
(4) Thermal Pollution
As demand grows for energy, greater recognition must
be given to the effects of increased use of energy. Thermal
pollution is an unwanted by-product of power generation. The
debate as to the virtues of fossil fuels in comparison to nuclear
fuels centers around the issue of thermal pollution. Disposal
of the heat contained in discharges from powerplants without
adverse effect in the environment is one of the problems of all
steam-electric plants, nuclear as well as fossil fueled. Because
of its relatively low steam temperature (500°F versus 1,000°F), a
water-cooled nuclear plant achieves a thermal efficiency of
only 32. 5 percent compared with over 40 percent for a fossil-
fuel plant. Until the more advanced fast-breeder reactors are
in use, the use of nuclear powerplants will tend to increase
thermal pollution. Unless the rate of increase of power demand
can be slowed, new power sources will rapidly increase the
thermal load on the water streams of our nation.
3. WASTE STREAMS. HAZARDOUS WASTES. AND DISPOSAL
METHODS
There are a variety of substances that can create hazardous
conditions. The hazardous condition is the result of a dangerous
property of a compound or a group of compounds. The extent of the
V-16
-------
danger is dependent upon the amounts of the flangerous compound
present, its dilution by inert substances, ana the proximity of persons
or things that may be harmed by the conditioh created by the compound.
Hazardous conditions may be created by compounds that are
Radioactive
Explosive
Corrosive
Toxic
Flammable
Pathogenic
Carcinogenic
Mutagenic
or have other more exotic long-range effects when their tolerance
levels are exceeded.
The safe handling of such compounds is dependent on the degree
of control that can be exercised to (1) isolate the susceptible population,
(2) remove the condition that triggers the danger (fire-explosion), or
(3) attenuate the effect below the threshold of susceptibility.
Waste treatment and disposal techniques use all of these
approaches. Historically, the approach has been to attenuate the
effects (through simple dilution) below the level that makes the effects
unacceptable. Tolerance on the part of the public for polluted air and
water made this technique effective. As air and water standards
become more stringent, simple attenuation of effects will be less
acceptable as a disposal method.
The identification of hazardous waste streams is not simple:
the existence of a dangerous substance must be shown; the concen-
tration of this substance above the level of normal susceptibility
must be provable; and actual damage to a susceptible population must
have occurred. In the absence of these proofs, the violation of a
specific standard must be shown.
V-17
-------
The variety of waste streams with potential hazardous effects
is nearly infinite. The producers of a single product may use materials
or processes that may create hazardous conditions when their product
and/or process wastes are added to those of others. If the variety of
products and processes increases, the probability of creating hazardous
waste effects is likely to increase. If the production process is close
to population centers, the acceptance of hazardous effects is likely
to decrease.
In the presentation that follows, the typical waste streams of
various industries are reviewed. The typical treatment given these
waste streams are noted, and an evaluation made of the sufficiency
of such treatments to render such waste streams nonhazardous.
Since there is a wide variation in the treatment that can be given
within an industry, it is not possible to do more than rate the general
level of treatment that typifies the industry. Only a plant-by-plant
evaluation that has the full cooperation and technical participation
of the operators can establish the actual hazards that exist in all
waste streams.
The following industries have been analyzed and their practices
in treating wastes evaluated.
SIC INDUSTRY
20 Food
22 Textiles
26 Paper and Allied Products
28 Chemicals
2812 Alkali and Chlorine
2815 Cyclic Intermediates
2818 Organic Chemicals
2819 Inorganic Chemicals
282 Plastic Materials and Synthetics
283 Drugs
284 Soaps and Cleaners
285 Paints
V-18
-------
SIC INDUSTRY
287 Agricultural Chemicals
289 Explosives
291 Petroleum Refining
311 Leather
329 Asbestos
331 Blast Furnaces and Basic Steel
333 Primary Nonferrous
347 Plating and Polishing
The following tables illustrate typical waste streams that occur in each
industry and the treatment procedures that are used. Some industries
are relatively homogeneous in processes and products (e.g. , the
textile industry), while others such as the chemical industry are
quite diverse as to products made and processes used. In the latter
type industries, the wastes shown are examples only. The particular
wastes and treatment accorded these wastes are unique to each
production facility, and specific identifications will demand a research
effort far beyond the scope of this study.
V-19
-------
Table V-4
Food Industry - SIC 20
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
CO
o
Waste Media
WATER
. Meat
. Dairy
. Canning
. Grain Mill
Sugar
Fermentation
Type Waste
Slaughtering
Rendering
Process
Waste
Process
Waste
Modified
Starch
Wastes
Process
Wastes
Still
Wastes
Typical
Pre-Treatment
Screening
Grinding
Grit Removal
Screening
By-product
Recovery
Screening
By-product
Recovery
General
Treatment
Sedimentation
Aeration
Cooking
Separation
Aeration
Trickling
Filters
Sedimentation
Aeration
Municipal
Sewage
Activated
Sludge
Sedimentation
Aeration
Sedimentation
Aeration
Disposal Media
Lagoons
By-products
Lagoons
Irrigation
Lagoons
Lagoons
Lagoons
Lagoojis
Toxic
Residue
None
None
None
None
Acid
Residues
Alkaline
Residues
From
Beets
None
Collectable
Residue
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
General Quantification
Factors
600-3500 gal/lOOOIprod
BOD 2-281/10001 prod
TS 3-561/10001 prod
10-16 pop. equiv./ 10001
milk
50 gal/case of food
5 pop. equiv./bushel
(corn)
ISO pop equiv./ton
(potatoes)
71 BOD/ton
3 pop. equiv./bushel
. SOIBOD/bushel
Potential
Hazard
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
High or
Low pH
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
Fully
Treated
On-Site
10%
4
6
5
8
3
Discharged
to
Sewer
65%
10
35
30
2
52
-------
Table V-4
(Continued)
-------
Table V-5
Textile Mill Products - SIC-22
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
to
CO
Waste
Media
WATER
AIR
-
Type Waste
Wool Scouring
Cotton
Desicing,
Scouring.
and Dyeing
Synthetic
Textile
Wastes
Carbonized
Wool
SOX
' Organic
Solvents
Lint and Dust
Typical
Treatment
Solvent Recovery
Decreasing
Screening
—
—
-
--
General Treatment
Primary Treatment
Sedimentation
Lagooning
Equalization and
Holding
Activated Sludge
Sedimentation
Lagooning
Cyclone Collectors
Wet Scrubbing
Redistilling
Filters
Disposal
Media
Water
Lagoons
Sand Bed
Water
Lagoons
Water
Lagoons
Air
Air
Air
Air
Toxic Residue
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
Collectable
Residue
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
General Quantification
Factors
50-601 chemicals
10001 grease, suint
and dirt/ 10001
clean wool •
7201 starch, surfac-
tants chemicals/
100041 cotton
300«/ 10001 syn(Avg. :
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
5-81/1001 cotton
Potential
Hazard
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
Air
Pollutant
Fully
Treated
On-Site
2-24%
13-14%
30-40%
No
Discharged
to
Sewer
26%
22%
40% -
No
(1) Toxic Residue may include: Acids and Alkalis, Oxidizers. Flammable Solvents. Toxic Metal Salts, Dyes, and Phenols.
(2) Toxic Residue may include: NOX, H2S, and Mercaptans.
-------
Table V-6
Paper and Allied Products - SIC-26
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
CO
00
Waste Media
WATER
AIR
SOLIDS
Type Waste
Preparation
Wastes
Chemical
Pulping
Wastes
Sulfite Waste
Liquor
Black Liquor
Blow & Flue
Gases
Red Liquor
Sludges
Typical
Pre-Treatment
Screening
Neutralization
—
Degasing
De-Entrainer
General
Treatment
Kilt ration
Settling
Irrigation
Flocculation
Sedimentation
Holding Ponds
None
Evaporation
Scrubbing
Combustion
Recycle of
Chemicals
Dilution
Burning
Scrubbers
Prccipitators
Evaporators
Burning
Recovery MgO
and S02
Dewalering
I .and Fill
Disposal Media
Water
Water
Water
Air
Air
Air
I .and
Toxic
Residue
None
Sulfates
Organics
Soaps
Sulfites
Lime
Organics
so2
Mercaptans
H2S
Organic
Compounds
(i.e. Tall
Oil)
S()2
Mercaptans
Methyl/
Sulfide
1I2S
Kly Ash
S02
None
Collectable
Residue
No
No
No
Recycled
Chemicals
None
None
None
General Quantification
Factors
20-1800/ton pulp
200-300 1 sulfur
150-200 1 lime
500* lime/ton
250* NaOH/ton
-
Potential
Hazard
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
Air
Pollutant
Air
Pollutant
Air
Pollutant
--
Fully
Treated
On-Site
9-38%
9-38%
9-38%
Discharged '
to
Sewer
'1%
<1%
<1%
-------
Table V-7
Petroleum Refining and Related Industries - SIC-29
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
to
Waste
Media
WATER
AIR
*
SOLIDS
Type Waste
Sour Water
Spent Acids
Spent Caustics
Slop Oil
Fly Ash
Hydrocarbons
NOX
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Boiler Blow-
down
Spent Catalysts
Catalysts
Trash
Typical 1
Pre-Treatment
Steam S' ripping
Solvent Extraction
Neutralization
Hi'cycling
Neutralization
Oil Separators
Scrubbers
Filters
Incineration
None
Recycled
2
General Treatment
Chemical:
-Coagulation
-Precipitation
-Oxidation
Biological
-Activated Sludge
-Aerated Lagoons
-Trickling Filters
Collect and Landfill
Filtercakes and Other
Solids
None
Disposal
Media
Water
Effluent
and
Sludge
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Toxic Residue
Water Pollutants
Sludge Pollutants
Filtercakes or
Collection Solids
Inorganic
Metallic
Salts
Collectable
Residue
No
Yes
Yes
No
General Quantification
Factors 3
6-7 gallons/gallon of
product
l-2#/barrel of crude
. 8»/bal. of fuel oil4
. 1-. 6% crude through-
pit
5-65* / 1000 bal feed
12-190/1000 BBL feed
5-54»/1000 BBL feed
No Data
Potential
Hazard
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
--
Toxic
Metallic
Salts
Fully
Treated
O;i-Site
100.000
Discharged
to
Sewer
^1
Tables A-6-3. A-6-4. A-6-55
2Appendix A-6-19 to A-6-78
3
Tables VI-l,3.and 4
4Air Pollution Steam pg. 117-118
-------
Table V-7
(Continued)
i
to
Waste
Media
PROCESS
PRODUCT
Type Waste
Off Spec
Products
Toxic Wastes
Oily Wastes
Gasoline
Lube Oili: "5
Cyclic Inter-
mediates
Commercial
Chemicals
Household
Chemicals
Typical
Pre-Trealment*
None
None
General Treatment^
Recycle
Segregate
Incinerate
Industrial Disposal
Processes for
Cyclic Chemicals
Municipal Sewage and
Landfill for House-
hold and Commercial
Chemicals
Disposal
Media
Deepwell
Sludge
Water or
Landfill
Water or
Landfill
Toxic Residue
Concentrated
Toxic Wastes
Residual Toxic
Compounds
Containers with
Toxic Residues
Collectable
Residue
Yes
Yes
Yes
General Quantification
Factors 3
Typical Deepwell
35-650 gallons/
min.
Note 1
Note 1
Potential
Hazard
Acutely
Toxic
Chemicals
Water
Pollutants
Acutely
Toxic
Flammable
Explosive
Fully
Treated
On-Site
Discharged
to
Sewer
Tables A-6-3. A-6-4. A-6-5S
2Appendix A-6-19 to A-6-78
3Tables Vl-1, 3, and 4
4Air Pollution Steam pg. 117-118
Note 1: The amounts of such product wastes are estimated as 1-2% of the total production of organic chemicals resulting from conversion of 302, 000. 000 barrels of oil to
chemical products.
-------
Table V-8
Leather Industry - SIC-31
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
to
05
• Waste
Media
WATER
SOLID
AIR
Type Waste
Beam House
-Alkalis
-Sulfides
- Limes
-Brine
Tan House
-Chrome Salts
-Tanning
-Acids
-Organics
Retan & Finish
-Chromes
-Dyes
-Oils
Hair. Flesh-
ings, Trim-
mings, Dirt,
Manure
Hydrogen S
SulCide
Acids
Particulates
! Solvents
Typical
Pre-Treatment1
Screening
None
None
Screening
Sale as Rital
Materials
Solvent Recovery
9
General Treatment
Sedimentation
Holding Lagoons
Note:
Neutralization
Coagulation
Activated Sludge
Aeration
are used by less
than 10% of
industry
+30% Not Treated
Sedimentation
None
Disposal
Media
Water
Effluent
and
Sludge
Landfill
(+30%)
Municipal
Sewage
(+70%)
Landfill
Air
Toxic Residue
Chrome Salts
Dyes
Oils
None
Air Pollutants
Collectable
Residue
None
None
None
General Quantification^
Factors
IS. 6 billion gallons
effluent/yr
3-4% sludge (600
million gallons)
Estimated as 5% of
the 1. 7xl07 Ibs hide
processed annually
No Data
Potential
Hazard
Water
Pollutant
None
Air
Pollutant
Fully
Treated
On-Site
Primary
20%
Secondary
|nq«
1U^
Unknown
Discharged
to
Sewer
67%
NA
Tables A-7-1. 2. and 3
2Tables A-3-4 and 5
3Pages A-7-2 and 3. A-7-23 and 24
-------
Table V-8
(Continued)
Waste
Media
PROCESS
PRODUCT
Type Waste
Off Spec
Product
Raw Materials
Less:
-Acids
-Alkalis
-Dyes
-Chromic
Salts
TrimmingtP
Typical
Pre-Treatment
Recycled When
Feasible
None
General Treatment
Treated With Other
Wastes
Sale
Disposal
Media
Water
Effluent
None
Toxic Residue
Water Pollutants
None
Collectable
Residues
None
None
General Quantification
Factors3
No Data
--
Potential
Hazard
None
None
Fully
Treated
On-Site
Unknown
-
Discharged
to
Sewer
NA
--
Tables A-7-1. 2. and 3
2Tables A-7-4 and 5
3Pages A-7-2 and 3. A-7-23 and 24
-------
Table V-9
Stone, Clay, Glass and Concrete (Asbestos Products) - SIC-32
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
t
tO
CD
Waste
Media
WATER
AIR
SOLID
PRODUCT
Type Waste
Asbestos
Insulation
Asbestos
Paper
Asbestos
Cement
Mining and
Milling
Fibers
Textile Wastes
Landfill
Milling and
Mining Slag
Asbestos Tex-
tiles
Insulation
Brake Lining
Typical
Pre-Treatment
--
--
--
..
__
--
__
General Treatment
Sedimentation
Neutralization
Sedimentation
Neutralization
Sedimentation
Neutralization
Filters
Cyclone Separators
Filters
Cyclone Separators
None
None
..
Disposal
Media
Water or
Landfill
Water or
Landfill
Water or
Landfill
Landfill
or Air
Air
Land
Landfill
Air
Toxic Residue
*
No
No
No
Asbestos Dust
Asbestos Dust
Asbestos Dust
Asbestos Dust
Asbestos Dust
Asbestos Dust
Collectable
Residue
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
General Quantification
Factors
. 2-2.01 per ton of
product
93f per ton of
asbestos
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Potential
Hazard
Landfill
Dusts
Landfill
Dusts
Landfill
Dusts
Asbestos
Dust
Asbestos
Dust
Asbestos
Dust
Asbestos
Dust
Asbestos
Dust
Fully
Treated
On-Site
Primary
7QCL
Jo*fc
Secondary
28%
Unknown
Unknown
None
Unknown
NA
Discharged
to
Sewer
1 S4L
low
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table A-8-3
-------
Table V-10
Medical and Other Health Services - SIC-80
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
CO
CD
Waste
Media
WATER
AIR
SOUDS
Type Waste
Radioactive
Wastes
Body Wastes
Body Wastes
(Contamination)
Tissue and
Pathogenic
Wastes
Radioisotopes
Pathological
Drugs
Disposable
Medical
Supplies
General
Rubbish
Typical
Pre-Treatment
Storage
--
Sterilization
-.
Storage
Autoclaving
Storage
Storage
Storage
General Treatment
Decay
Sewage
Sewage
-
I^ocal Incineration
None
Incineration
Incineration
Burial
Incineration
Compaction and Burial
Trash Collection
Disposal
Media
Sewage
Contract
Water
Water
Air
Contractor
Ijand-Air
Air
Land
Air
Land
Air- Land
Toxic Residue
None
None
None
Unburned
Residuals
Long Half- Life
Radiation
None
None
Unknown
Acid Fumes
None
None
Collectable
Residue
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
General Quantification
Factors
•: 1000(r/vt-ar/rjos|,.
Unknown
c50j y?ar/nosp
'
l-2*/'iedc*"-.-K
< If? /Ded.'wtvK
l-2« 'bed-'.vefk
>5ff 'bed/day
Potf-ntial
Hazard
Short I. ifu
Ix>w Activity
Water Wastes
None
Air Pollutant
Radioactive
Inflexion. .
Misuse
Air Pollutant
--
-------
Table V-ll
Plastic Materials, Synthetic Fibers, Rubber, Resins - SIC-282
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
CO
o
Waste Media
WATER
AIR
SOLID
Type Waste
Cellulosics
Polyethylene
Plutic
Material
& Resins
Organic
Fibers
Incinerator
Wastes
Process
Wastes
Typical
Settling
Lagoons
Separation
Settling
Lagoons
Carbon Adsorp-
tion
Ion Exchange
Settling
Lagoons
—
--
General
Activated
Sludge
None
Activated
Sludge
Activated
Sludge
Aeration
Incineration
Landfill
Disposal Media
Water
Water
Water
Water
Air
Land
Toxic
Residue
Zn Salts
Trace Mg-
Cu
Trace
Catalysts
Brine
Trace
Metals
Phenols
Acid
Wastes
SOx
NOX
HC1
None
Collectable
Residue
No
No
No
Yes'
No
Yes
General Quantification
factors
overall
201/10001 prod.
—
18-301/1000* prod.
16-351/10001 prod.
—
. 5% of prod.
Potential
Hazard
Toxic
Metals
Toxic
Metals
Toxic
Metals
Toxic
Metals
None
Fully
Treated
On-Site
Primary
68%
Secondary
40%
--
Primary
60%
Secondary
27%
14: 100
Discharged
to
Sewer
<1%
--
6
<1
"•'*
1
Deep-Well Disposal is used for acid wastes and non-biodegradable wastes.
-------
Table V-12
Drug Industry - SIC-283
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
Waste Media
WATER
AIR
Type Waste
Fermenter
Wastes
"Spent Beer"
Chemical
Solvents
Chemical
Wastes
Radiological
Wastes
Dust Particu-
lates
Fermenter
Vent Gases
Typical
Pre-Treatment
Screening
Neutralization
Solvent
Extraction
Neutralization
Collection
Hoods
Controlled Air
Flow
..
General
Treatment
Trickling
Filters
Activated
Sludge
Spray Irrigation
Municipal
Sewage
Incineration
Collected by
Disposal
Contractor
Municipal
Sewer
Deep Well
Activated
Sludge
Lagoons
Decay in
Storage
Filters
Dust Collectors
Incineration
Disposal Media
Water
Land
Land
Water
Air
--
Water
Land
Land
Water
Water
Water or Land
Air
Toxic
Residue
None
None
None
None
None
Toxic
Solvents
None
Yes
No
No
Collectable
Residue
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
General Quantification
Factors '
--
Unknown
Unknown
--
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Potential
Hazard
None
None
Toxic
Solvents
None
Radiation
Product
Contamin-
ation
None
Fully
Treated
On-Site
Primary
37%
Secondarj
12%
None
Primary
37%
Secondary
12%
Yes-., ...
Yes
Yes
Discharged
to
Sewer
14%
None
14
Yaa..
NA
NA
See General Data, Tables A-5-19 and A-5-20, Appendix A-5 pp. A-5-151 and A-5-151A
-------
Table V-12
(Continued)
CO
CO
Waste Media
SOLID
PRODUCT
Type Waste
Radioactive
Materials
Animal
Tissue
Off Spec
Materials
Typical
Pre-Treattnent
Control
Autoc laving
Recycling
General
Treatment
Collection by
AEC
Licensed
Contractors
Incineration
--
Disposal Media
Land
Land
Recovery
Toxic
Residue
Radioactive
Material
None
None
Collectable
Residue
Yes
Yes
NO
General Quantification
Factors
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Potential
Hazard
Radioac-
tive
Material
Pathogen-
ic
Material
None
Fully
Treated
On-Site
None
Yes
Yes
Discharged
to
Sewer
None
None
Minor
Amounts
-------
Table V-13
Soap, Detergents and Cleaning - SIC-284
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
CO
CO
Waste
Media
WATER
AIR
PRODUCT
Type Waste
Detergent
Mfg. Wastes
Fatty Acid
Wastes
Spray Dry
Cleaning
Mists and
Gases
Surfactants
Detergents
Typical
Pre-Treatment
Neutralization
Strippers
Catalyst Recycle
--
General Treatment
Municipal Sewer
Activated Sludge
I^agooning
Cyclone Collectors
Municipal Sewers
Disposal
Media
Water
Water
Recycle
Dusts
Water
Toxic Residue
Surfactants
Polyphosphates
Al. Cu. Cr
Oxides
None
Phosphates
Alkane
Sulfonates
Collectable
Residue
No
No
No
No
General Quantification
Factors
40-100»/1000*
Unknown
Unknown
8-10 billion »
annually
Potential
Hazard
None
Water
Pollutant
Air
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
Fully
Treated
On-Site
Unknown
Unknown
Discharge
to
Sewer
Unknown
Unknown
-------
Table V-14
Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels - SIC-285
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
i
CO
Waste
Media
WATER
AIR
PRODUCT
Type Waste
Pigment
Wastes
Solvent Wastes
Lead Paints
Solvent
Residues or
Emissions
Typical
Pre-Treatment
Sedimentation
Recycling
--
General Treatment
Municipal Sewer
Settling Ponds
Recovery
Venting
Incineration
None
None
Disposal
Media
Water
Land
Process
Air
Air
Land
Air
Toxic Residue
Metal Salts
None
Toxic Chemicals
None
Lead
Toxic Solvents
Collectable
Residue
No
No
No
No
No
No
General Quantification
Factors
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Potential
Hazard
None
None
Toxic
Fumes
None
Lead
Ingest ion
Air
Pollutant
Fully
Treated
On-Site
Discharged
to
Sewer
-------
Table V-15
Agricultural Chemicals, Fertilizers - SIC-287
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
(30 x 10^ tons produced annually)
oo
m
Waste
Media
WATER
AIR
Type Waste
Phosphorus
Wastes
Ammonium
Nitrate Dusts
SOX
Phosphate Oust
SiF4
NOX
Typical
Pre -treatment
--
--
--
__
--
..
General Treatment
Sedimentation
Lime Precipitation
Sedimentation
Scrubbers
Bag Collection
Scrubbers
Scrubbers
Disposal
Media
Landfill
Landfill
Lagoons
Recycled
Lagoons
Water
Toxic Residue
Sulfuric and
Phosphoric Acids
Explosive Dust
Weak Acid
None
Fluorides
Nitric Acid
Collectable
Residue
None
None
None
None
No
None
General Quantification
Factors
5 tons gypsum waste/
ton super phosphate
produced
If/10001 product
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Potential
Hazard
None
None
Air
Pollutant
Air
Pollutant
Air
Pollutant
Air
Pollutant
Fully
Treated
On -Site
60%
Unknown
Discharged
to
Sewer
.8%
Unknown
-------
Table V-16
Agricultural Chemicals, Pesticides - SIC-287
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
CO
CD
Waste
Media
WATER
PRODUCT
Type Waste
Organic
Phosphorus
Wastes
Fungicides
Copper
Sulphate
Mercury
Compounds
Insecticides
Arsenates
Spend Acids
Herbicides
Acid Wastes
Packaged
Insecticides
Herbicides
Fungicides
Typical
Pre-Treatment
Recycle
Recovery
Recovery
Recycling
None
General Treatment
Sedimentation
Lagoon ing
Sedimentation
Sedimentation
Lagoon ing
Discarded to Trash
Disposal
Media
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Water
Landfill
Incineration
Toxic Residue
Residual Toxic
Chemicals
Residual
Chemicals
Residual
Chemicals
Acid
Trace Organics
Toxic
Chemicals
Collectable
Residue
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
General Quantification
Factors
< 1-2% production
10xl09l produced
Potential
Hazard
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
Toxic
Chemicals
Leach from
Landfill
Fully
Treated
On-Site
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Discharged
to
Sewer
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
--
-------
Table V-17
Primary Metal Industries - SIC-331
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
-------
Table V-17
(Continued)
CO
00
Waste Media
SOLIDS
. Slag
. Sludge
. Scale
PRODUCT
Type Waste
Oxides
Sulfur
Iron
Salts
Oxides
Sulfates
Metals
Oils
Scale
Cyclic
Intermediate*
Commercial
Chemicals
Household
Chemicals
Typical
Pre-Treatment
Crushing
Sedimentation
-.
General
Treatment
Sale
Landfill
Recharged
Drying
Recover in
Sinter Plant
Disposal Media
Land
Landfill
Sinter
See Petro-
chemicals
Toxic
Residue
Cyanides
Florides
Cyanides
Florides
None
Collectable
Residue
No
No
—
General Quantification
Factors
16001 /ton (total slag)
Unknown
'
Potential
Hazard
Leaching
Leaching
--
Fully
Treated
On-Site
Yes
Yes
Yes
Discharged
to
Sewer
No
No
No
-------
Table V-18
Non-Ferrous Metals - SIC-333
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
CO
CO
Waste Media
WATER
Copper
Zinc- Lead
Aluminum
Foundaries
Fabricators
AIR
Copper
Zinc- Lead
Aluminum
Foundaries
Type Waste
Mining
Refining
Mining
Red Mud
Brown Mud
Oil Emulsions
Pickle Rinses
S02
Dusts
Trace
Elements
S02
Dusts
Trace
Elements
Dusts
C02
Fluorides
Aluminum
Chloride
Chlorine
Zinc & Other
Metal Fumes
Dusts
Typical
Pre-Treatment
Neutralization
Neutralization
--
-
--
--
__
Collectors
--
Hoods
"
General Treatment
Tailing Ponds
Tailing Ponds
Tailing Ponds
Tailing Ponds
Sewage
Sewage
Scrubbers
Collections
Precipitations
Scrubbers
Collections
Precipitations
Precipitation
Scrubbers
Vents
Collectors
Disposal
Media
Landfill
Landfill
Water
Water
Water
Water
Air and
Landfill
Air and
Landfill
Recycle
Water and
Air
Air
Landfill
Toxic Residue
No
No
No
No
Yes
Metallic Salts
Acids
SO2(80%0
SO2 (607.)
Fluorides
None
Chlorides
Toxic Metals
None
Collectable
Residue
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
General Quantification
Factors
See Solids
See Solids
3. 5 tons/ton Al
--
—
40* /ton
1500/1 /ton copper
1000#/ton zinc-lead
15-30#/ton aluminum
--
Potential
Hazard
None
None
Water Pollutant
Water Pollutant
Water Pollutant
Water Pollutant
SO2 Fumes
SO2 Fumes
Vegetation
Toxic Fumes
-------
Table V-18
(Continued)
Waste Media
SOLIDS
Copper
Zinc -Lead
Aluminum
PRODUCTS
Aluminum
Fluoride
Aluminum Oxide
Arsenic & Cmpds
Barium Salts
Beryllium &
Compounds
Cadmium &
Compounds
Chromium &
Compounds
Copper & Cmpds
Lead & Cmpds
Mercury, Magne-
sium & Mangan-
ese Compounds
Nickel & Cmpds
Zinc Compounds
Type Waste
Mine Tailings
Mill Tailing
Refining Stage
and Slimes
Mine Tailings
Mill Tailings
Refinery Slags
Red Mud
Brown Mud
Typical
Pre-Treatment
--
--
~~
--
General Treatment
Tailing Ponds
Tailing Ponds
Sludge Piles
Tailing Ponds
Tailing Ponds
Sludge Piles
Tailing Ponds
Disposal
Media
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Toxic Residue
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Collectable
Residue
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
General Quantification
Factors
300 ton/ton copper prod
120 tons/ton copper prod
3 ton /ton copper prod
3. 5 tons/ton zinc-lead
prod
20 tons /ton prod
4001 /ton prod
3. 5 tons /ton prod
Potential
Hazard
Leaching
Leachlne
Water Pollutant
-------
Table V-19
Coating, Engraving (Plating) - SIC-347
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
Waste
Media
WATER
Type Waste
Annodizing
-Chromic Acid
-Sulfuric Acid
-Oxalic Acid
Phosphating
-Metallic
Phosphates
Chromating
-Acids
-Alkalies
-Sulfates
-Nitrates
Acetates
-Chrome
Electroplating
-Alkali-
cyanides
-Acids
-Chrome
-Zinc
-Cadmium
Metal
Finishing
-Oils
-Acids
-Metals
Galvanizing
-Zinc Cyanides
-Zinc Sulfates
Typical
Pre-Treatment
Reduction of
Hexavalent
Chromium
Neutralization
Reduction of
Hexavalent
Chromium
Cyanide Removal
Skimming
Sedimentation
General Treatment
1
Mingled with Sewage
(Most Plants)
2
Integrated Treatment
(Some Plants)
3
Untreated (Some
Plants)
1
Sewage
2
Plant Sludges
Disposal
Media
Water
Water
Water
Water
Landfill
Toxic Residue
Metallic Salts
Cyanides
None
Metallic Salts
Cyanides
Acids
Alkalis
Oils
Cyanides
Cyanides
Metallic Salts
Collectable
Residue
No
.-
No
No
Yes
General Quantification
Factors
15-20.000 metal
finishing establish-
ments distributed
in all population
centers
Potential
Hazard
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
Water
Pollutant
Fully
Treated
On-Site
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Discharged
to
Sewer
>75
-------
Table V-19
(Continued)
to
. Waste
Media
AIR
SOLIDS
PRODUCT
•-
Type Waste
Solvents
Acid Mists
Metallic Dusts
Sludges
Metallic Chips
and Dust
Plated
Products
Typical
Pre-Treatment
--
--
--
—
General Treatment
Controlled Venting
Scrubbers
Dust Collectors
Sludge Piles
Recycled
Disposal
Media
Air
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Toxic Residue
Toxic Fumes
None
None
Metallic Salts
Acids and
Alkalis
Collectable
Residue
No
--
--
Yes
General Quantification
Factors
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
,
Potential
Hazard
Toxic
Fumes
and Dusts
Leaching
Fully
Treated
On-Site
Unknown
Unknown
Discharged
to
Sewer
NA
NA
-------
Table V-20
Cyclic Intermediates - SIC-2815
Industrial Organic Chemicals - SIC-2818
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
i
^
CO
Waste Media
WATER
(The wastes
listed are
examples of
typical waste
streams)
Type Waste
Organic Waste
Acids
Analine Wastes
-Acid
-Sludges
-Aniline
Alkylation
Wastes
-Caustics
-A1C13
Isocyanate
Wastes
-Ureas
-Carbamyl
-Chloride
Nitrobenzene
Acidic
Wastes
Phenol Waste
Acids
Styrene
Wastes
Acidic Dye
Wastes
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon
Wastes
Typical
Pre-Treatment
Solvent Extraction
Distillation
--
--
Recovery
Steam Stripping
Distillation
Distillation
_-
Distillation
General Treatment
Neutralization
Activated Sludge
Neutralization
Activated Sludge
Neutralization
L*igooning
Incineration
Neutralization
Neutralization
Activated Sludge
Incineration
Neutralization
Biodegradation
Neutralization
Sedimentation
Neutralization
Disposal
Media
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Air
Water
Landfill
Water
Water
Water
Collectable
Residue
Sludges
Sludges
Sludges
None
No
Sludges
None
None
Spent
Analysts
Solids
General Quantification
Factors
Unknown
> 2% analine loss
>20xl06#/yr
>10xl09»/yr
Unknown
Unknown
>10xl08*/yr
>lx!08»/yr
71xl07l/yr
>lxl080/yr
Potential
Hazard
Toxic Tar
Acids
Toxic
Chemicals
Caustics
Air
Pollutant
Organic
Residues
Phenolic
Residues
Organic
Chemicals
Organic
Chemicals
Chlorinated
Hydro-
carbons
Fully
Treated
On-Site
2815
Primary
48%
2818
Secondary
16%
Discharged
to
Sewer
2815
4%
2818
.2%
-------
Table V-20
(Continued)
Waste Media
WATER
(Continued)
AIR
PRODUCT
Type Waste
Polymerization
Wastes
Ethylene Oxide
Wastes
Hydrocarbons
NOX
Ammonia
SOX
Residuals of
AH Organic
Chemicals
Packed and
Shipped
Typical
Pre-Treatment
Distillation
--
..
__
General Treatment
Neutralization
Lagooning
Neutralization
Scrubbers
Filters
Scrubbers
Filters
Municipal Landfill
Incineration
Disposal
Media
Landfill
Water
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Air
Collectable
Residue
Slimes
No
Filter Cakes
Scrubber
Solids
Filter
Cakes
Scrubber
Solids
Yes
No
General Quantification
Factors
>lx!08»/yr
Unknown
;>2% of volatile products--
estimated as 10x10^1 /yr
Unknown
Potential
Hazard
Phosphates
Organic
Chemicals
Air
Pollutant
Air
Pollutant
Toxic.
Flammable
Explosive
Chemicals
None
Fully
Treated
On-Site
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown' '
Discharged
to
Sewer
No
NA
CfuTnown
-------
Table V-21
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals - SIC-2819
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
<
01
Waste Media
WATER
Sodium Carbon-
ate (4.200.000
tons/year)
Sodium Hydrox-
ide (2.000.000
tons /year)
Thallium Oxide
(660. 000 tas/yr
AIR
Hydrochloric
Acid (2.000.000
tons /year)
Chlorine
(9.000.000 tons/
year)
Phosphoric Acid
(7.000.000 tons/
year)
Nitric Acid
(7,000,000 tons/
year)
Sulfuric Acid
(30,000.000 tons
per year)
Phosphate Fer-
tilizers
(5,000,000 tons
per year
Type Waste
Calcium
Chloride
Mercury
Cell
Wastes
Copperas
Monohydrate
Sulfuric Acid
Chlorination
Waste Gases
Waste Gases
Fluorides
Acid Mist
NOX
SOX
Dusts
SOX
Fluorides
Ammonia
Typical
Pre-Treatment
..
-~
Recovery
Recycling
~~
Collection
Collection
Collection
Collection
Settling
Amalgam
Decomposition
Neutralization
Recovery
Absorbers
Scrubbers
Scrubbers
Absorbers
By- Product Production
Scrubbing
Absorption
Adsorption
Reduction
Planning
Scrubbers
Scrubbers
Disposal
Water
Water
Water
Land
Ocean
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Calcium
Brine
Mercury
Iron Sulfates
Acid
Chlorine
Chloriwater
Hydrocarbons
Chlorine
Fluorides
NOX
SOX. NOX
Fluorides
Collectable
Residue
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
General Quantification
Factors
1. 5-2 T/ton prod
. 1-. 21 /ton prod
900, 000 tons waste
annually
200-300.000 barged
to sea
. l-.3% Loss
1-2% loss
.05-. 10/ton
. 4% loss
. l-.2% loss
. 1-. 40fluorides/ton
other unknown
Potential
Hazard
Water Pollutant
Mercury in Fish
Water Pollutant
Air Pollutant
Acute Reaction
Air Pollutant
Air Pollutant
Air Pollutant
Air Pollutant
-------
Table V-22
Explosives - SIC-2892
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
OS
Waste
Media
WATER
SOLID
AIR
PRODUCT
Type Waste
Smokeless
Powder
Wastes
2xl06» annually
>2%xl06l annually
>lx!06l annually
>8I/1000» product
>700xl(>3»/yr.
11/1000 * Droduct
Tnknown
7 x 106 » / vr.
20.000,000»/yr.
Potential
Hazard
None .
Toxic
Chemical
None
Explosive
None
Fully
Treated
On-Site
54%
54%
54%
Unknown
Yes
' Unk'nown
Discharged
to
Sewer
None
None
None
None
-------
I
>£>
-J
Table V-23
Department of Defense
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
Waste
Media
WATER
AIR
Type Waste
Explosive
Mfg. Wastes
-Acids
Chemical Mfg.
Wastes
-Chlorides
- Fluorides
-Phosphates
-Nitrates
-Sulfates
Incendiaries
Mfg. Wastes
-Phosphorus
-Magnesium
and Alumin-
um Salts
Explosive Mfg.
Explosive
Burning
-NOX
-SOX
-Particulates
Chemical Mfg.
-NOX
-SOX
-HC1. HF
Fuels and
Lubrication
Wastes
-Vapors
-NOX
-SOX
-Particles
Typical
Pre-Treatment
.-
—
—
--
--
..
General Treatment
Neutralization
Lagoons
Evaporation
Incineration
Coagulation and
Lagoons
Venting
Scrubbers
Filters
Precipitations
Venting
Kilters
Scrubbers
Venting
Disposal
Media
Water
Water
Land
Water
Air
Land
Air
Land
Air
Toxic Residue
None
Inorganic Salts
Inorganic Salts
Phossy Water
Yes
None
Yes
None
Yes
Collectable
Residue
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
General Quantification
Factors
Unknown
130xl06gallons
12x10^ cu. ft. contam-
inated soil
200xl06gallons '
Unknown
Unknown
Potential
Hazard
None
Water Pollutant
Leaching
Air Pollutant
Air Pollutant
Air Pollutant
-------
Table V-23
(Continued)
i
^
00
Waste
Media
SOLIDS
PRODUCT
Type Waste
Explosive
Munitions
Chemical
Munitions
Fuels & Lubri-
cants Wastes
Pesticides
Typical
Pre-Treatment
--
—
'
__
General Treatment
Demilitarization
Sea Dumps
Open Pit Burn
Neutralization
Incineration
Dilution
Incineration
Landfill
None
Disposal
Media
Land
Water
Air
Air
Land
Water
Air
Land
Toxic Residue
None
Unknown
Air Pollutants
Air Pollutants
Salts
Water Pollutant
Air Pollutant
None
Pesticide
Containers
Collectable
Residue
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
General Quantification
80-130.000 tons
awaiting disposition
7-8000 tons
20xl06 gallons per
year
3,000.000* powder
2. 000. 000 gallons
liquid awaiting
disposal
Potential
Hazard
Explosive
Air Pollutant
Air and Water
Pollutant
Air and
Water Pollutants
••
-------
Table V-24
Radioactive Waste AEC
Waste Streams and Treatment Procedures
CO
Waste Media
WATER
(Micro Curie/ml
>1(T)
{Micro Curie/ml
10'3 to 103)
(Micro Curie/ml
>10"3)
AIR
Type Waste
Mi- Level
Chemical
Reprocessing
Spent Reac-
tor Fuels
Intermediate
Fuel Declad-
ding
Solvent Ex-
traction
Ivow Level
Power Reac-
tor Wastes
I,ab Wastes
Medical
Wastes
Machining &
Metal Clean-
ing of Fuel
Elements
Chemical
Fumes En-
trained
Uranium
Typical
Pre-Treatment
__
Precipitation
Filtration
Wet Scrubbing
General Treatment
Concentrate and
Contain
Separation into Hi-
level and I,ow-level
fractions
Dclav *, Decay
Dilute & Disperse
Ponding
Disposal
Media
Underground
Storage
Land Burial
Sea
Disposal
I .and Burial
Sea
Disposal
Tailing
Ponds
Water
Toxic Residue
Radioactive
Ijong-Life
Materials
Radioactive
Ix>ng- Life
Materials
Radioactive
Jxmg- Life
Materials
Radioactive
Short- Life
Materials
None
Collectable
Residue
Yes
Yes
None
None
No
General Quantification
Factors'*
See Below and
Appendix A-12
Human
Exposure3
No
No
No
No
No
Potential
Hazard
__
__
_.
--
--
Waste Treatment processes at Reactor Sitt-s typically include: Evaporators. Gas Strippers, Ion Exchangers, Drumming, Incineration. Storage Tanks.
Power Reactor Wastes
Fuel Processing Wastes
Miscellaneous
Liquid Iru. ft. )
Solid (cu. ft. )
if Liquid (gal. >
if Solid leu. ft. 1
Solid ecu. ft. I
1070
30.000
120
17,000
170
51.000
11)75
170,000
2. 300
fl70,000
9. 700
256.000
H>80
330.000
13. 500
2, 700,000
27.000
675.000
If packaged, stored, collected, procc.^fl, and contained in accordance with AEC requirements.
-------
Ol
o
Table V-24
(Continued)
Waste Treatment processes at Reactor Sites typically include: Evaporators, Gas Strippers, Ion Exchangers, Drumming, Incineration, Storage Tanks.
Power Reactor Wastes
Fuel Processing Wastes^
Miscellaneous
Liquid (cu. ft. )
Solid (cu. ft. )
if Liquid (gal)
if Solid (cu. ft. )
Solid (cu. ft. )
1070
30.000
120
17.000
170
51,000
1975
170.000
2. 300
970.000
P. 700
256.000
1980
330.000
13, 500
2.700.000
27.000
675.000
Waste Media
AIR
(Continued)
SOLID
>2R/hr
.05-2R/hr
<.05R/hr
Type Waste
Radioactive
Particulates
(Laboratories)
Fuel
Processing
High Hazard
Reactor Fue
Fuels
Intermediate
HA2 Solvent
Extractor
Low Level HA
HA2
Mining % astes
Mill Wastes
Typical
Pre-Treatment
Filters
Aging
Decontamination
Recovery
Neutralization
with Barrmm
Sulfate
General Treatment
Containment
Filters
Activated Charcoal
Caustic Scrubbing
Packed Columns
Concentrate and
Contain
Separation into Fuels
(Hi-I-evel) and Wastes
(Low- Level) '
Dilute and Disperse
Disposal
Media
Land
Land
Underground
Storage
Land and
Sea Burial
Water
Streams
Toxic Residue
None
Radioactive
Solids
Radioactive
Long- Life
Materials
Radioactive
Long -Life
Materials
Radioactive
Short -Life
Materials
Collectable
Residue
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
General Quantification
Factors2
Human
Exposure3
No
No
No
No
No
Potential
Hazard
--
--
--
--
If packaged, stored, collected, processed, and contained in accordance with AEC requirements.
-------
4. A METHOD FOR ESTIMATING WASTE STREAM TREATMENT
REQUIREMENTS
There is an indeterminate number of waste streams that may
result from industrial production operations. Some are relatively
pollution-free while others introduce major pollutants into the
environment. A method is suggested here through which the extent
of treatment needed to reduce pollutants to acceptable levels can
be established by a comparison of their characteristics with those
that can be successfully treated in municipal sewage plants.
To make this approach workable, a means is needed to readily
and accurately define the hazards associated with particular waste
streams and to establish their disposal treatment requirements. The
following paragraphs describe methods which can be used to rapidly
evaluate the effluent data obtained by the Corps of Engineers (through
the Refuse Act of 1899) and to identify and quantify the disposal tasks
and costs indicated by evaluation of each waste stream.
This approach is based on a comparison of the waste stream
characteristics against a standard criteria, i.e., acceptability of
such wastes by a typical municipal system. More rigid criteria can
be applied, of course, but the likelihood of increased use of municipal-
type treatment systems by industry indicates that municipal acceptance
standards may be practical criteria.
Additional rationale for the use of municipal sewage acceptance
standards include:
Wastes treated in municipal sewage treatment plants show
similar characteristics from one locale to another.
A standard, and national, technology has been developed
for this type of waste. The technology is particularly
well established for primary and secondary treatment.
Municipal sewage treatment plants are demonstratively
capable of producing effluents that, to date, appear to
satisfy ecological preservation requirements.
V-51
-------
If industrial wastes can be treated so that they are
acceptable for further treatment in municipal
facilities, they too should be non-damaging to the
ecology when processed through the municipal plant.
Pretreatment of the waste stream to make it eligible for municipal
plant treatment may not be needed, may require minimum treatment,
may require extensive treatment, or some components may be so
toxic that only their removal will permit successful pretreatment.
The rating system which is outlined in the following tables and
text is based on establishing the treatment level required to meet
each of the key criterion. The more treatment necessary, the higher
the numerical rating for that criterion. When all criteria are rated,
the ratings for each characteristic provide a weighted profile of the
special treatments necessary to qualify the waste for municipal
treatment.
Table V-25 outlines a means for establishing the level of treat-
ments needed to qualify an industrial effluent stream for final disposal
through a municipal treatment plant. Table V-26 provides an example
as to how the rating system works. The expected reductions that can
be achieved by the various treatments are shown in Table V-27.
Table V-25 indicates the acceptance criteria for each key waste
characteristic and defines the percentage of removal efficiencies which
must be achieved in order to meet the criteria. For example, if BOD
had to be lowered by 85 percent to reach acceptable level, a minimum of
secondary treatment would be required and a score of 3 would be
assigned. If 99 percent of the phenol had to be removed, tertiary
treatment to achieve this level would be required, and a rating of 4 '
would be given for this characteristic. When all characteristics are
rated, a profile emerges which indicates the extent of treatment
necessary and serves as a rating as to the extent and type of hazard
contained in the wastes.
The rating system identifies treatment requirements as a
function of the concentration of key waste characteristics and/or
problem contaminants. The higher the concentration of a given waste
parameter, the more intensive will be the abatement effort required,
and, similarly, the higher the concentration of a given waste parameter,
the greater is the hazard potential of the stream, Hence, the system
combines hazard potential with treatment complexity.
V-52
-------
Table V-25
Rating Guideline Sheet
Waste Parameters BOD1 SS
ppm ppm
Acceptable Industrial Wastewater 300 350
Average Efficiency and
Type of Treatment
Treatment4 Treatment5
Rating
No Treatment 0
Primary 1 30% 65%
Intermediate 2 75% 85%
Secondary 3 85% 90%
Tertiary /Special 4 95% 95%
P" ppm
4.5-9.5 100
90%
Floating
Adjust 50%
Emulsified
85%
Phenol2 Heavy Metals na_ _
ppm ppm Other Parameters
20 See Note 3 See Note 3
Dump Rate, Temperature
95% CN, NH^, NO2.3, Phosphates, Sulfide
85%
99% 99% Antibiotics, Cresols and Creosotes,
Chromates Herbicides, Pesticides, Sulfonamides,
Strong Oxidizing and Reducing Agents,
Toxic Dyes
Remarks
Cost6, J/million gal.
100 mgd Plant
Primary $ 50-
Intermediate $105
Secondary $105
Tertiary $190
I
01
CO
Notes: 1) BOD or COD not to exceed 300 ppm.
2) Completely aerated activated sludge can biodegrade up to 2,000 ppm phenol.
3) Acceptance Limits on Heavy Metals and Selected Other Parameters - Limits on other parameters are 10 ppm.
Parameter: Cd;
Limit, ppm: 5;
Hgl
2;
Ni;
3;
Residual Br.Cl, I; CN;
100 ; 2;
Control Dump Rate @ TS; Temperature
10,000 ; 150°F
4) See Table 5-3 for an in depth discussion of treatment details and efficiencies.
5) Scoring was developed in the order of increasing complexity and cost of treatment technology
6) Cost includes capital, maintenance and operation. From Reference F.
7) References: A. Industrial Pollution Control Handbook, LUND, 1971.
B. Manual of Instruction for Sewage Treatment Plant Operations, State of New York
C. "Standards for Sewage Works." Upper Mississippi River Board of Public Health Engineers.
D. New York City Administrative Code.
E. The Cost of Clean Water, Volume 111, Industrial Waste Profile, Numbers 1-10, FWPCA, Sept. 1967.
F. AlCh E, Industrial Process Design for Water Pollution Control, Vol. 3, 1970.
-------
Table V-26
Rating Worksheet - How to Use Rating System
Waste Parameters
Acceptable Industrial Wastewatei
Example (1) Waste Profile
Treatment Profile
Example (2) Waste Profile
Treatment Profile
Example (3) Waste Profile
Treatment Profile
BOD
ppm
300
500
1
1,500
3
400
1
ss
ppm
350
400
1
400
1
150
1
pH
4.5-9.5
3
2
6
0
.
Oil
ppm
100
.
-
650
1
.
Phenol
ppm
20
.
-
500
3
300
3
Heavy Metals
ppm
See Guideline
20.0 ppm Cr
7.
.
.
Other Parameters
ppm
Sheet Note 3
50 ppm CN
2
.
350 ppm pesticides
4
Remarks
This waste profile indicates that the
stream needs immediate chemical treatment.
This waste profile indicates that the
stream needs secondary (biological) treatment
This waste profile indicates that the
stream needs tertiary treatment
I
Cn
How to Use Rating System:
A) Indicate analysis of wastewater under the appropriate heading, BOD, SS, etc. List waste parameters (which cannot be included under the six
specific headings provided) under the "Other Parameters" column.
B) The scoring is based on the type of treatment that is required to bring the waste within "Acceptable Industrial Wastewater" standards. The
efficiency figures from the Rating Guideline Sheet gives guidance as to what treatment will accomplish this.
C) Check against the Guideline Sheet, "Other Parameters" column, to see if the waste contains any of the entries listed under this heading. If
yes, enter scores of 1, 2, or 4 depending on which treatment row the entry appears in.
-------
Table V-27
Removal Efficiencies of Waste Treatment Processes
en
Ol
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
METHOD
PRETREATMENT
Screening
Degritting
Comminuting
Grease and Scum Removal
Pre -Aeration
Equalization/ Dump Rate
Control
PRIMARY TREATMENT
(Including Pretreatment)
Conventional
Gravity Separation
~
Advanced
Conventional plus
Chlorination
Detention
INTERMEDIATE TREATMENT
(Including Primary Treatment)
Flotation
Filtration (Rapid Sand)
Adsorption (Activated Carbon)
Chemical Treatment -
Clarification
(Chlorination)
GENERAL EFFICIENCY
Percent
BOD
5-10
25-50
25-50
40-50
50-95
95
50-70
SS
5-10
65
65
65
80-95
95
P
88-95
N
COD
EXAMPLES OF EFFICIENCY
EN SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS
Tanning: BOD- 5%; SS-5 to 10%
90% Grease Removal
Some BOD removal
Tanning: Chromium- 5 to 10%
Some Self- Neutralization Sedimentation
and BOD Reduction
Blast Furnace & Sintering Plant:
SS-94%; Hot Rolling Mills: SS-91%;
Lube Oils- 20%; Tanning: BOD- 25 to
62%; SS-69 to 96%; Sulfide-5 to 20%
Paper Mill: SS- 70 to 90%
Chlorination of raw sewage:
BOD- 15 to 25%
Emulsified grease: >50%
Organic Chemicals and Pesticides:
Cresols- 99%
. .Cyanide Removal with pH Adjust, and
Chlorination: >99%
REF
3
9
3
1
2, 3
6
9
9
10
-------
Table V-27
Continued
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
METHODS
INTER. TREAT. (Cont'd. )
Chem. Treat. (Cont'd. )
Neutralization, pH Adjust.
Coagulation
Flocculation
Precipitation
Oxidation / Reduc tion
Chemical Treatment -
Clarification
(Filtration)
SECONDARY TREATMENT
(Including Primary and /or
Intermediate Treatment)
Biological Treatment
(With Chlorination)
Trickling Filters
Standard
High Rate
Activated Sludge
Lagooning (aerobic)
(With Filtration or Other)
Trickling Filters
Activated Sludge
GENERAL EFFICIENCY
Percent
BOD
70-80
65-97
80-85
65-80
85-90
90
90-97
SS
80-90
90
90
P
88-95
95-98
60-90
60-80
90
N
30-90
30-50
90
COD
EXAMPLES OF EFFICIENCY
IN SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS
Affects Efficiency of Chemical Treatment
Activated Carbon, etc.
Sinter Plant: SS-98%; Hot Rolling Mills:
SS- 95%; Lube Oils- 80%
Cotton and Synthetic Textiles: BOD-
25-60%; SS-30 to 90%; TDS-0 to 50%
Chromate Removal with Reduction and
Precipitation: >99%
Oil Refinery: Phenol- 65 to 99%; Cyanide-
65 to 99%
Tanning: BOD- 65 to 80%; SS-85 to 90%;
Sulfide: 75 to 100%
High strength polymer wastes: BOD-
95%; COD- 75%; SS-97%
Tanning: BOD- 70%; SS- 80%
Rapid sand filtration: BOD- (80%); SS-(70%)
With Coagulation, Wheat Starch Prod. :
BOD- 80%; SS-88%; P-80%
With Aerated Lagoon, Corn Milling:
BOD- 90%; COD- 86%; SS-33%
REF
2
8
7
1.9
8
8.4
1.3
1,8
1
3
1
11
1
11
I
Ul
O)
-------
Table V-27
Continued
WASTEWATER TREATMENT1
METHODS
TERTIARY TREATMENT
(Including Secondary or
Intermediate)
Ion Exchange
Membrane Processes
Dialysis
Electrodialysis
Reverse Osmosis
Adsorption (Activated Carbon]
Ozonation
Chemical Treatment
Lime Clarification
Combined Systems
. Microscreening and Rapid
Sand Filtration
Lime Clarification plus
Multimedia Filtration
Lime Clarification plus
Ammonia Stripping
Lime Clarification plus
Ammonia Stripping plus
Granular Carbon Adsorption
GENERAL EFFICIENCY
Percent
BOD
95-99
(85)
90-99
(55)
(50)
(60)
(55)
(92)
SS
95-99
(90)
(90)
(70)
(99)
(90)
(99)
P
95
(86-98)
(30-50)
(65-95)
(0)
85-90
(90)
(0)
(90)
(90)
(90)
N
95
(80-92)
(30-50)
(65-95)
(0)
85-90
(0)
(0)
(0)
(87)
(87)
COD
85
(82)
(26)
(20)
(30)
(26)
(85)
EXAMPLES OF EFFICIENCY
IN SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS
Chromate recovery: >95%
Recovery of acids from acid /metals
mixtures : 75%
SS-(95%)
Activated carbon treatment of sewage
treatment plant secondary effluent:
BOD- (33%); COD- (80%); SS-(25%);
PO.-(50%); ABS-(97%)
Refinery: BOD/COD- (50 to 90%);
Phenol and Cyanide- (80 to 99%);
Vinyl resin waste (after biological
treatment): BOD- 94%; COD- 85%; SS-90%
Lime treatment of sewage treatment
plant secondary effluent: BOD- (74%);
SS-(80%); PO4-(95%); ABS-(18%)
• • - - - • - • • —
REF
1.5
5
8
8,5
1
4
1
1
1
1
- 1
I
01
-3
-------
Table V-27
Continued
Legend: BOD - Biological Oxygen Demand
COD - Chemical Oxygen Demand
P - Phosphates
N - Nitrogen
SS - Suspended Solids
Efficiency percentages with parentheses indicate efficiency relative to the influent (as secondary
treatment effluent to tertiary treatment). Efficiency percentages without parentheses indicate
efficiency relative to the raw waste.
References: Table Reference Reference Material
Number
1 AIChE t Industrial Process Design for Water Pollution Control, Vol. 3,
1970
2 The Cost of Clean Water, Volume III. Industrial Waste Profile.
<* Number 1 Blast Furnaces and Steel Mill. FWPCA, Sept. 1967
* 3 The Cost of Clean Water, Volume III, Industrial Waste Profile.
oo Number 7, Leather Tanning and Finishing, FWPCA, Sept. 1967
4 The Cost of Clean Water, Volume III. Industrial Waste Profile.
Number 5, Petroleum Refining, FWPCA, Nov. 1967
5 Industrial Pollution Control Handbook, LUND, 1971
6 NIPCC Sub-Council Report - Paper, March 1971
7 The Cost of Clean Water, Volume III, Industrial Waste Profile,
Number 4, Textile Mill Products, FWPCA, Sept. 1967
8 Pollution Abatement Engineering Program for Munition Plant
Modernization, Army Research Office, Sept. 1971
9 Manual of Instruction for Sewage Treatment Plant Operations,
State of New York
10 "The Use of Activated Charcoal In the Treatment of Trade Wastes, "
British Chemical Engineering, pp 107-110, Feb. 1961
11 Industrial Waste Study Report - Grain Mill Industry, Sverdrup
and Parcel and Associates, Inc., Aug. 1971
-------
The rating system can find practical application in the following
areas:
Serve as a basis for defining a hazardous industrial effluent.
Identify particularly hazardous wastes.
Serve as a logic basis for computerized evaluation of the
massive data accumulated regarding the 1899 Refuse
Act. This can be done as a function of:
Region
Industry group(s)
Water usage ranges
Treatment level (none, primary, secondary,
tertiary or special)
Treatment economics
Specific waste characteristics
Combinations of the above.
Provide fundamental information for policy making;
Should a plant or a group of plants treat effluents
onsite or combine with municipal systems?
Should private industry band together to build a
cooperative treatment complex?
Should government provide incentives or hardware
for cooperative waste treatment and residue
handling arrangements?
Hazardous wastes can be defined and rated based on this system,
i. e. , a hazardous industrial effluent is one that does not satisfy the
criteria for acceptance into municipal sewage treatment plants.
If this system were established, each plant would be required to
treat its wastes to a level which will qualify for acceptance into a
V-59
-------
municipal system, if avaiable, or to treat it onsite (or in some
cooperative arrangement) to a level that assumes compliance with
regulations regarding discharge into public waiter bodies. In other words,
the amount of treatment needed to make any wkste acceptable to a
municipal sewage treatment plant can be assigned specific values, and
these values used to establish an index of the toxicity of that waste, at
the particular location for which it is being rated.
The system proposed is a more thorough system for defining
hazardous waste streams than is any list of potentially hazardous
materials or waste streams. This system deals with an actual condition,
measures it against the environmental acceptability, and defines the
corrective action necessary. Because it is designed to deal with specific
waste streams, it avoids the generalities of designating certain substances
as potentially hazardous and assuming that they will be hazardous when-
ever present. "Hazardous waste materials" are hazardous only when in
sufficient concentration to exceed the threshold effects of susceptible
life forms. Until disposal systems planning is based on specific situations
and locations, it cannot control the release of hazardous wastes.
The practical value of this evaluation method is that it establishes
the level of treatment which is required to make the waste stream a
nonpolluting effluent. The identification of treatment needs does not
reduce the amount of hazardous wastes that are discharged, however.
The identification of treatment requirements is relatively meaningless,
unless a means exists to enforce legal restraints on hazardous waste
releases.
5. RATING CURRENT TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL METHODS
The waste treatment methods which are used most widely are
general in nature, can be applied to a variety of processes and waste
compounds, and are concerned with water waste streams. Histori-
cally, water has been used to remove contaminants from production
facilities either by its use as a wash or by its use directly or
indirectly (costing) in the production process. As a diluent it is a
means to reduce the concentration of hazardous wastes and lessen
its impact on the environment.
V-60
-------
Because water plays such a large palrt of our current treatment
methods, the volume which is involved is .substantial. Any attempt
to transport such water streams over lonjf distances for treatment
will involve substantial expense. Therefore, the tendency will be to
treat water waste streams on the site where the wastes are created
or within a relatively few miles of such sites. However, if wastes
must be transported over long distances for disposal (sea disposal,
lagoons), pipelines are an economical movement system in comparison
to rail, truck or barge transportation.
Once introduced into water waste streams, hazardous materials
are difficult to remove. If the introduction of such wastes creates
significant treatment problems, they can be segregated and treated
separately. Frequently, such wastes are organic compounds which
are difficult to biodegrade but which are readily incinerated. Deep-
well disposal is also used for such wastes. Many of the toxic
materials are organic solvents and are readily destroyed by inciner-
ation.
Although the various basic types of treatment and their appli-
cations are widely known, there are substantial differences in the
design features that best fit them to specific applications. It is
this adjustment and fitting process that determines the general types of
treatment that will be applied, and the specific features and the
design specifications which best adapt these general types of treatment to
the specific technical and cost requirements of individual facilities
and locations.
The effectiveness of alternative treatment methods cannot be
assessed realistically unless evaluated against a specific requirement.
Relative efficiencies of different treatments are a preliminary indi-
cation of their utility in a specific situation, but the actual require-
ments and system peculiarities are the only valid basis for selection1
between alternative methods.
(1) Evaluation Elements
The basic elements in a systematic evaluation of the
adequacy of treatment methods for hazardous waste streams
are:
Identification of the specific compounds which
compose the waste stream
V-61
-------
Characterization of the waste stream (pH, BOD,
SS, phenols, etc. ) in quantitative terms
Identification of the acceptable effluent standards
based on the materials contained in the waste stream
Selection of the alternative treatments which will
satisfy the requirements
Evaluation of the treatment requirements
Trade-off analysis to identify the most cost-effective
treatment sequence
Feasibility of financing such treatment systems
based on the economic realities of the production
costs involved.
This general methodology can be applied to a single waste
stream, combined waste streams, and to single or multiple
disposal sites. If wastes are to be brought to a distant site, the
first two factors must be evaluated for each waste stream, the
transportation costs to the process site established for each
waste stream, and then the last two factors evaluated for the
combined waste streams.
Although systematic methodology can be devised to
measure, rate, and evaluate the effectiveness of alternative
disposal systems in removing hazardous materials from waste
streams, such methodology cannot be used to evaluate current
practices since the data necessary to operate the evaluation
system is not available.
In the absence of detailed data on waste stream charac-
teristics and their treatment needs, only crude evaluations
can be made as to the effectiveness of current practices and
future treatment requirements. Little information is published
concerning the hazardous waste streams which are produced.
Conjecture as to their composition and characteristics is based
on the hazardous characteristics of "pure" compounds produced
and used in industry and in the commercial and household
sectors.
V-62
-------
(2) Evaluation Problems
An evaluation system that rates the effectiveness of current
hazardous waste treatment and disposal practices must cope
with several interrelated problems: '.
Does a hazardous waste condition exist?
What is the condition and how serious?
What steps have been taken to minimize the hazards?
How effective are these actions?
What additional steps are necessary?
If answers to these questions can be obtained, the rating
system will be able to identify and evaluate the actions needed
to adequately control the disposal of hazardous wastes.
The identification of wastes which create hazardous
conditions is a complex task. The hazardous condition may be
caused by a radioactive, explosive, corrosive, pathogenic
or toxic material and its effect is dependent on the suscepti-
bility of the material or living organism exposed to the hazard.
Since a hazardous condition exists only when a material is
present which exceeds the threshold tolerance of a susceptible
material or population, three data elements are needed to define
the hazardous condition: the magnitude of the hazardous effect,
the susceptibility of the material or population, and the dilution
effect of the media that contains the hazard.
The constant factor is the material that creates the
hazardous effect. The location where the waste occurs will
determine who or what is threatened and the mitigating effects
of fortuitous neutralization or dilution. The key to the identi- :
fication of a hazardous waste condition is the determination that
a potentially hazardous material is present in the waste stream
in amounts that exceed the tolerance levels of the threatened
population or materials.
V-63
-------
Analysis of the waste stream to establish its hazardous
properties is rather easy for radioactive, corrosive or
flammable materials, but is more difficult if the significant
hazard is pathogenic or toxic.
An alternative to qnsite analysis is knowledge of the
characteristics of the chemical components that compose the
waste stream or that may enter the waste stream. When toxic
materials are present, the possibility that hazardous waste
conditions exist must be assumed.
Evaluation of the raw materials used in the production
process, the production processes used and the by-product
materials expected, can establish a list of potential constituents
of the waste streams. Comparison of such compounds with a
comprehensive list of toxic materials will identify the hazardous
potential of the waste stream and aid in selecting the analytical
techniques which can best verify initial assumptions as to
hazard potential.
(3) Characterization of Hazardous Conditions
The type waste streams which result from processing
operations are dependent on the chemical characteristics of
the reactants and the physical conditions under which the
reactions take place. Since the combination of reacting compounds
and the reaction conditions may vary greatly, the waste products
from chemical industry vary greatly. However, when the
reactants and the production process are known, the waste
product possibilities are greatly narrowed. Without specific
raw material and process information, the probable content of
the waste stream is indeterminate.
When the processes, raw materials and output quantities
are known, useful approximations can be made as to the probable
toxic hazards associated with waste streams. Such information
has been developed for some industries. Unfortunately, however,
the waste streams from such industries frequently are inter-
mingled with those from plants about which little is known, and
the combined waste streams become an enigma as to potential
toxic effects. Such intermingled waste streams, when they are
part of river systems, are no longer trie treatment responsibility
V-64
-------
of specific community or plant, and corrective treatment is
no longer feasible.
The waste streams which result from chemical processing
are dependent on the chemical characteristics of the reactants
and the physical conditions under which the reaction takes place.
Process conditions of temperature and pressure modify the
physical characteristics of chemical compounds and may convert
solids into liquids and gases, liquids into gases, or mixtures of
liquids into solids. Side-reactions of compounds may produce
unwanted waste by-products. Unless the specific conditions and
reactants are known, the content and condition of the waste
stream is indeterminate. Compounds which are individually
inert, corrosive, flammable, explosive, or toxic under normal
conditions, may react with other components and become
relatively less dangerous or may be converted from a nonhaz-
ardous state to one of substantial hazard.
Knowledge of the chemical compounds involved in or
produced by the production process helps identify potentially
hazardous wastes. When physical properties of commercial
chemicals are known, the hazards associated with each are
reasonably predictable. When all the reactants, processes
and products are identified, the key hazards and the alternative
treatments needed to avoid the release of hazardous wastes
are readily identified. The most cost-effective treatment will
be dependent on the mix of materials to be treated, quantities
to be treated, enforcement standards, and other variables.
Unless there is information as to the raw materials, production
processes, and final products, no sensible judgment can be
made regarding the most cost-effective treatment processes.
The minimum information necessary to define the possi-
bility that hazardous waste conditions exist is (1) an analysis of
the effluent stream, and (2) knowledge of the input and output
products. Armed with such data, a judgment can be made as
to the pollution potential of the waste streams. (The method
for evaluating the treatment requirements, based on the effluent
analysis, has been described in the previous section. ) Specific
knowledge of the entire product line, production processes and
waste stream is needed for such decisions in order to define
the most cost-effective treatment processes.
V-65
-------
(4) Treatment Variations
I
A variety of methods are available to treat waste streams
and remove contaminants. The treatment of choice is dependent
on the characteristics of the waste stream and those of the
material or materials to be removed. If the hazardous compound
can be isolated and treated as a single* compound, the treatment
method will be substantially different than the methods used if
the compound is part of a water waste stream. If several
contaminants are to be treated while in the same waste stream,
the quantity and characteristics of the major contaminants may
affect the choice of treatments.
An analogy can be drawn between the decision process
involved in diagnosing and treating a sick patient and in diagnosing
and treating a hazardous waste stream. In each case, a diagnosis
must be made, based on a specific situation, as to the problem
to be solved and the most suitable treatment. A variety of
treatments are available and must be fitted to the particular
needs of the specific situation. The "best" treatment for a
specific patient may not be the "best" for all patients.
The list of hazardous materials that have been developed
can be used to illustrate how different conditions may effect the
selection of the appropriate disposal process. Each of the
compounds on this list may require safe disposal under a
variety of different disposal conditions, i. e. :
As part of the disposal process related to its
production
Asa major raw material component in the production
of other chemical compounds
As a minor component in a production or commercial
treatment process
As a retail consumer product which enters the
municipal disposal system.
i
Few compounds are used for only one purpose. The use
to which the compound is put and its relation to other compounds
in the disposal process, will influence the selection of the best
waste disposal treatment process.
V-66
-------
Examples of the waste treatment methods for sulfuric
acid under various conditions may h^lp illustrate this point.
During the production process, every effort is made to minimize
the loss of sulfuric acid; recovery arid recycling of inadvertent
wastes is the treatment of choice. In an oil refinery, sulfuric
acid is recovered, restrengthened and reused. When used to
acidulate phosphate rock to produce super phosphate, every
effort is made to insure the complete reaction of the acid with
the phosphate rock. A variety of treatments is used to neutralize,
recover, or safely dispose of residual acid mixes used to pickle
steel. When used as a laboratory chemical, its safe disposal
may consist only of careful dilution to acceptable municipal
levels.
The treatment methods which apply under specific condi-
tions are dependent not only on the chemical characteristics
of the materials involved, but on their relative importance in
the disposal process. The disposal means for a specific chemical
is tailored to their individual characteristics, i. e. , incineration
of flammable materials or neutralization of corrosive materials.
When they are a component of a generalized waste stream, the
treatment methods are less specific and are designed to safely
handle a variety of chemicals.
Under certain production conditions, individual compounds
may be separated from the remaining waste streams and disposed
of by separate action, i. e. , solvents may be burned, acids may
be piped to a deep well. Separate disposal processes are also :
used if the incorporation of one waste with another would make
the disposal of the combined waste stream more difficult.
In general, when a large number of different waste mater-
ials exist, the treatment process of choice is the conventional
screening, settling and biological, conversion process. Incin- '
eration processes are the method of choice for toxic organic
wastes which are isolated for separate disposal. Recovery and
recycling are used in the production processes to ensure the
optimum practical yield from the input materials.
V-67
-------
(5) Evaluation of Current Practices
Although a variety of treatment methods have been
developed that can treat any identified .waste successfully, the
use of these methods is not widespread. Full treatment to
remove all waste hazards is rare. The costs that are incurred
in treating wastes from major production plants are substantial.
The Deepwater Pilot Plant Treatability Study conducted by
the Delaware River Basin Commission, illustrates the costs
involved. This project had the following objectives:
To determine the treatability characteristics of the
component industrial and municipal wastes (nine
plants, four communities)
To develop design criteria for the facility to achieve
90-95 percent BOD reduction as well as to meet other
effluent quality requirements
To test methods of secondary and advanced waste
treatment of combined municipal and industrial
wastes
To estimate cost of construction and operation of
the facility
To provide data on which to base an equitable
appointment of cost among the industries and
municipalities to be served
To demonstrate the expeditious and timely resolution
of the technical and economic difficulties of achieving
a regional solution to a complex multi-industrial
and multi-waste disposal problem.
The project has operated for over two years at a cost of
over one million dollars. The costs involved in developing
this detailed design data are indicative of the level of expenditure
needed if treatment requirements are to be established.
The wastes produced in the nine production plants involved
in the Deepwater Pilot Plant Treatability Study are typical of
the water wastes of chemical industry. The costs to construct
V-68
-------
a treatment facility to adequately trekt 105 million gallons of
wastes per day produced in these, plaAts is estimated as approxi-
mately $60, 000, 000. Based on these cost estimates, the cost
to upgrade all chemical industry treatment facilities will be
several billion dollars. These projections of costs based on
the Deepwater Pilot Plant Study are unlikely to be accurate bu,t
are indicative of the magnitude of the treatment costs which
must be incurred to signficantly reduce overall water pollution
levels.
The fact that hazardous waste streams are inadequately
treated can be established by reviewing data as to the extent
of water waste treatment. The tables which follow titled
"Industrial Water Treatment Practices" and "Evaluation of
Industry Treatment Processes" have been developed from data
contained in Water Use in Manufacturing, Bureau of the Census,
published in 1971. The value shown under the title "Required
Waste Water Treatment, " in the second table, is 200 if
secondary treatment is required or 300 if tertiary treatments
are necessary to remove hazardous materials from the water
waste streams of each particular industry. The other columns
in this table show the percent of the industry that uses primary,
secondary and tertiary treatments. Adding these percentages
and dividing by the required rating provides the values shown
in the rating column. Note that only the Petroleum Refining
industry provides primary and secondary treatment. The
percentage of industries providing tertiary treatment is based
on estimated values rather than published data.
V-69
-------
I
-q
O
Table V-28
Industrial Water Treatment Practices
(Data in Billions of Gallons Unless Noted Otherwise)
Industry
SIC
70
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
22
2211
2221
2231
26
28
2812
2815
2816
2818
2819
282
2821
2822
2823
2824
Title
Food
Meat
Dairy Products
Canned, Cured and Frozen
Grain Mill Products
Bakery
Sugar
Confectionary
Beverages
Miscellaneous
Textile Mill Products
Cotton
Synthetics
Wool
Paper and Allied Products
Chemicals and Allied Products
Alkalis and Chlorine
Cyclic Intermediates and Crudes
Inorganic Pigments
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
Plastic Materials and Synthetics
Plastic Materials and Resins
Synthetic Rubber
Cellulosic Man-Made Fibers
Organic Fibers
Discharged
752.9
99.5
53.0
119.8
67. 1
3.2
233.0
18.6
97.4
61.0
136.0
27.8
10.9
14. 1
2.077.6
4.175. 1
364. 1
129.0
91.5
2.033.3
468.0
581.8
198.8
57.9
176.4
148.6
Discharged
to Sewer
337.5
65.3
31.0
41.7
19.2
1.9
3.9
3. 1
50.5
20.8
50.6
6.0
4.4
3.6
72.4
181.1
47.2
4.7
1.0
39.2
42.6
15.3
12.3
2.1
.3
.6
Percentage
Discharged
to Sewer1
31. 5
65.5
59.5
34.8
28.5
59.3
1. 7
16. 7
51.8
34. 1
37.3
21.6
40.3
25.5
.3
.4
13.0
3.6
1. 1
.2
9.1
2.6
6.2
3.6
.2
.4
Process
Water
290.5
62.3
16.0
71.0
11.8
1. 1
74. 1
2. 5
19. 1
21.0
109.0
19.4
8. 1
11.9
1.477.9
733.4
18. S.
19. 3
21. 2
394.0
75.2
104.2
50.9
15. 1
30.5
7. 7
Treated
Water
184.7
38.5
2. 1
47.7
6.0
.2
70.8
.9
7.4
11. 1
53.7
9.5
5.3
5.9
915.3
674.2
117.3
50.0
21. 7
142.2
133.4
141.5
31.9
tl.l
31.8
33.7
Percentage
of Process
Water
Treated2
63.5
61.8
13. 1
67.0
50.8
18.2
95.5
3.6
38.6
52.8
49.2
49.0
65.3
49.5
61.7
92.0
100
100
100
36.0
100
100
62.5
100
100
100
Primary
Treatment1
88.6
18.5
.8
31. 1
4.4
--
49.0
--
1.5
5.1
30.8
2.8
2.4
3. 9
565.8
304.1
22.5
29. 1
10.4
63.3
78.5
60.2
20.1
23.6
21.0
8.1
Percentage
Primary 4
Treatment
30.5
29.6
5.0
43.7
37.3
--
66. 1
--
7.8
24.3
28. 1
14.4
29.6
32.7
38.3
41.3
100.0
100.0
49.0
16. 1
100.0
57.7
60.0
100
68. 9
100
Secondary
Treatment
5
17.0
6.5
.6
4.2
.6
--
6.1
-.
.6
.4
8.2
2.6
3.3
.2
132. 7
87.8
. 3
9. 1
1.0
35.6
8.7
29. 4
13.5
2.5
12. 3
1. 1
Percentage
Secondary
Treatment 6
5.8
10.4
3.8
5.9
5.0
..
8.2
__
3. 1
1.9
7.5
13.4
41. 2
1. 7
8.9
12.0
1.6
47.2
5.0
9.0
11.6
28.2
26.6
16.5
40.3
14.2
*SOURCE: Water Use in Manufacturing, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1971.
Percentage of discharged waters sent through municipal sewage.
2
Percentage of processed water treated prior to release.
Primary Treatment: Neutralization, Sedimentation, Flotation, and Coagulation.
Percentage of processed water receiving primary treatment.
Secondary Treatment: Activated Sludge. Trickling Filters, Filtration, Sedimentation and Digestion.
Percentage of processed water receiving secondary treatment.
-------
Table V-28
(Continued)
Industry
SIC
283
284
2851
287
2892
2911
3111
3292
33
331
333
3331
3332
3333
3334
347
3471
Title
Drugs
Soaps. Cleaners and Toilet
Preparations
Paints and Allied Products
Agricultural Chemicals
Explosives
Petroleum Refining
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Asbestos Products
Primary Metal Industry
Blast Furnaces, Basic Steel
Production
Primary Non- Ferrous Metals
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Aluminum
Metal Services
Plating and Polishing
Discharged
67.4
30.3
6.5
113.9
143.1
1,210.0
14.0
6.4
4.695.5
4. 128.8
412.1
37.3
6. 7
44. 1
199.9
8.0
7.4
Discharged
to Sewer
9.8
5.7
4.6
.9
(z)
5.5
9.4
.8
143.3
77.7
12.4
1.7
(z)
2.2
8.2
5.9
5.6
Percentage
Discharged
to Sewer^
14.5
18.8
70.8
.8
--
.5
67.2
12. 5
3.0
1.9
3.0
4.5
--
5.0
4. 1
73.8
75.6
Process
Water
6.8
3.5
2.7
28.8
28.0
91.7
13.5
5.0
1.207.2
1.049.2
88.9
26.8
5.5
4. 1
23.5
7.2
6.7
Treated
Water
6.3
.6
.3
29.9
17.8
917.1
9.5
2.2
1.430.9
1.355.2
36.7
11.9
2.2
3.9
18.3
2.0
1.9
Percentage
of Process
Water
Treated^
92.6
17.1
11. 1
100
62.6
100
70.3
44.0
100.0
100.0
41.3
44.3
40.0
95.0
77.8
27.8
28.3
Primary
Treatment"*
2. 5
.4
.2
19.0
15.0
682.8
3.0
1.9
893.2
870.9
25.4
8. 8
--
--
10. 5
.5
(D)
Percentage
Primary
Treatment4
36.8
11.4
7.4
65.8
53.5
100.0
22.2
38.0
62.4
83.3
28.6
32.8
--
--
44.6
6.9
Secondary
Treatment^
.8
._ '
-
.6
. 7
378.7
1.4
1. 4
304.4
300.7
1. 4 .
--
--
--
1. 3
. 2
(D)
Percentage
Secondary
Treatment6
11.8
__
--
2.8
2.5
100.0
10.3
28.0
25.2
28.6
1.6
--
--
--
5. 5
2.8
+SOURCE: Water Use in Manufacturing, Bureau of Census. U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1971.
Percentage of discharged waters sent through municipal sewage.
2
Percentage of processed water treated prior to release.
Primary Treatment: Neutralization, Sedimentation, Flotation and Coagulation.
Percentage of processed water receiving primary treatment.
Secondary Treatment: Activated Sludge, Trickling Filters, Filtration, Sedimentation and Digesti
Percentage of processed water receiving secondary treatment.
igestion.
-------
Table V-29
Evaluation of Industry Treatment Practices
-------
The limited data on the extent df treatment of air waste
streams precludes any general assessment of the extent of air
waste treatment. The data that is published relates to the
removal effectiveness of various air treatment processes,
when applied, rather than to how widely such methods are used.
The removal efficiencies which can be expected from various
methods are shown in the following table.
Table V-30
Approximate Characteristics of Dust and Mist Collection Equipment (8)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Equipment type
Settling chambers
1. Simple
2. Multiple tray
Incrlial separators
1 . BalUc chamber
2. Orifice impact ion
.'?. Louver tvpe
4. Gas reversal
5. Routing impeller
Cyclones
1. Single
2. Multiple
Filters
1. Tubular
2. Reverse jet
3. Envelope
Electrical predpilatnrs
1. One-stage
2. Two-stage
Scrubbers
I. Sprav tower
2. Jet
3. Venturi
4. Cyclonic
5. Inertia!
0. Packed
7. Rotating ini|>eller
Relative
cost"
1
2-0
1
1-3
1-3
1
2-6
1-2
3-6
3-20
7-l'2
3-20
.
6-30
2-6
1-2
4-1(1
4-12
3-10
4-10
3-6
4-12
Smallest
particle
collected
(M)'
40
10
20
2
10
40
5
15
5
<0.l
«>.!
«>.!
<().!
<(>.!
10
2
1
5
2
5
2
Pressure
drop
(inches 1 !,O)
0.1-0.5
0.1-0.5
0.5-1.5
1-3
0.3-1
0.1-0.4
—
0.5-3
2-10
2-6
2-6
2-6
0.1-0.5
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.5
—
10-15
2-8
2-15
0.5-10
—
Power usedr
/ kw \
VI 000 IV'/miii/
O.I
O.I
0.1-0.5
0.2-0.6
0.1-0.2
0.1
0.5-2
0. 1 -0.6
0.5-2
0.5-1.5
0.7-1.5
0.5-1.5
0.2-0.6
0.2-0.4
0.1-0.2
2-10
2-10
0.6-2
O.H-8
0.6-2
2-10
Remarks
Large, low pressure drop, precleaner
Difficult to clean, warpagc problem
Power plants, rotary kilns, acid mists
Acid mists
l-'ly ash, abrasion problem
1'rcclcaner
Compact
Simple, inexpensive, most widely used
Abrasion and plugging problems
High ellicietify. temperature and humidity limiK
Mine compact, constant /low
Limited capacity, constant Mow possible
High efficiency, heavy duty, expensive
Compact, air conditioning service
Common, low water u
-------
Realistic evaluation of the treatmehts given to waste streams
by industry, indicates that many hazardous materials are
being released into the water streams and air streams. Fortun-
ately, dilution reduces the hazards below the threshold levels
of the human population, or the general pollution level is such
that people refrain from exposing themselves to such air or
water waste streams. The continuous increase in the amounts
of wastes released and the variety of hazardous substances
produced, indicates that the threshold safety levels may be
exceeded in the future. Since the chronic effects of chemical
substances are difficult to measure, the threshold levels of
some substances may have been exceeded already.
The substances listed as hazardous compounds are
examples of the types of toxic compounds which should be
excluded from waste streams. If steps are taken to minimize
their release, such actions will eliminate, concurrently, other
compounds of comparable hazard.
6. DISPOSAL OF SMALL LOTS OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The disposal of small amounts of hazardous materials is quite
different from the treatment methods used to remove contaminants
from water or air waste streams or from the disposal techniques
which might be used to dispose of large amounts of a single compound.
The objective when disposing of small amounts is to render the
material harmless while ensuring the safety of the persons involved
in the disposal and in the vicinity of the disposal action.
The disposal of relatively small amounts of hazardous materials
poses unique problems. Such disposal problems arise in commercial
operations which use a small amount of a variety of materials, or
when such materials are used in retail establishments or households.
The disposal means used most frequently are the conventional
municipal services, trash collection and sewage systems. The disposal
process normally consists of using the material fully and then discar-
ding the container, or discarding the container with a small residue,
or emptying the residual chemicals into a drain and then discarding
V-74
-------
the container. Problems arise when the containers are damaged or
leak, or when the user is not familiar with Safe handling and disposal
practices.
Various techniques have been developed by the chemical industry
to ensure safe disposal practices. When hazardous materials are in
their pure form (e.g., as products), they are frequently transported
and used in large quantities. On occasion, due to accidents, contami-
nation, etc. , it becomes necessary for the transporter or user to
dispose of the otherwise valuable materials. The chemical industry
has historically refrained from including disposal instructions on
package labels, for two reasons. First, detailed disposal instructions
would, in many cases, require inclusion of the product formulation,
and such information is proprietary with the producers. The second,
and very practical reason, is that the manufacturers have no way of
knowing many of the ultimate users, particularly in terms of the
users' technical knowledge and ability to understand fully any
instructions that might be included on labels.
For these reasons, the chemical manufacturers have preferred
to provide the service of taking back hazardous materials and disposing
of the materials themselves. This is particularly true of the larger
chemical manufacturing firms. Recently, however, the manufacturers
have entered into a cooperative arrangement which provides a central
point of contact for materials' users who encounter disposal problems,
especially with respect to large spills. The central point is now the
Manufacturing Chemists Association, and a common telephone number,
termed the "hot line, " is available to all users. This does not mean
that the manufacturers no longer provide the disposal service, only
that the necessary arrangements can be made through a single point
of contact. Each occurrence is handled on its own characteristics,
and the manufacturers feel that disposal instructions on labels will
not become necessary. A series of publications have been prepared
by various organizations as guides to the safe handling and disposal
of hazardous compounds. Among these publications are:
Industrial Data Sheets—National Safety Council.
Information is provided on properties, uses, containers,
shipping regulations, storage, hazards, handling, first
aid, toxicity and waste disposal practices.
Data Sheets and Chem-Cards—Manufacturing Chemists
Association. Information is given on the properties,
hazards, handling, storage, safe'ty, waste disposal and
first aid related to specific hazardous materials.
V-75
-------
Chemical Hazards Bulletins—American Insurance Asso-
ciation. Information given is similar to that in the
previous publications.
Hygiene Guide—American Industrial Hygiene Association.
Information is provided on hygienic standards, toxic
levels, and medical information on hazardous materials.
A large number of other publications provide data as to the safe
handling of dangerous materials. A comprehensive list is contained
in Chemical Safety References published by the National Safety Council.
The key reference to the safe disposal of hazardous materials
is titled Laboratory Waste Disposal Manual published by the Manu-
facturing Chemists Association. This manual provides recommen-
dations for the treatment and disposal of hazardous chemical wastes.
The manual stresses safe procedures for onsite waste disposal from
small laboratories,especially those in small communities not possessing
sophisticated equipment. The compounds that are included in the list
of hazardous compounds have been identified with a disposal method
listed in this manual. This was accomplished by listing in the data re-
cords the disposal technique which is applicable. These disposal
methods also assist in identifying the physical properties of the
compound such as its flammability, explosive characteristics, and
toxicity. Figure V-3 lists excerpts from the MCA Manual.
7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Review of the data and information available on hazardous
materials contained in industry waste streams indicates that sufficient
data is not available to specifically identify and quantify the hazardous
waste streams. While individual industrial production facilities may
have detailed data, few have published such data. Where detailed
studies of waste treatment processes have been made (the Deepwater
Pilot Plan Treatability Study), the identification of waste streams to
production facilities has been avoided. Historically, industry has
not analyzed waste streams with the same level of interest and in the
detail that is devoted to process output streams. The lack of data
may also be due to a reluctance to identify materials that may create
community-relation problems.
V-76
-------
Hazardous Wastes
la Organic Acid Halides
Ib Inorganic Halides
2 Aldehydes
3 Alkali & Alkaline Earth
Metals Alkyls &
Alkoxides
4a Chlorohydrins, Nitro
Paraffins
4b Organic Halogen &
Related Compounds
4c Substituted Organic Acids
5 Aromatic Amines
6 Aromatic Halogenitor
Amines & Nitric
Compounds
7a- Aliphatic Amines
7b Organic Phosphates
8 Azides & Axo Compounds
9 Carbon Disulfide
10 Caustic Alkali &
Ammonia
11 'Inorganic Salts
12a Oxidizing Agents
12b Reducing Substances
13 Mercaptans & Organic
Sulfides
.... .
Hazard
Fire Explosive
' •
•
•
•
•
•
Neutralize
X
x/xx
x/xx
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Absorb
X
XX
X
XX
X
X
XX
X
X
Dissolve
in Solvent
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX "
XX
X
XX
Incinerate
XX
x/xx
XX
XX
x/xx
XX
x/xx
-" x/xx "
XX
x/xx
X
X
XX
l>.^.
^ m
CO
?•$*
fr^ __ HH
ra "o c;
°ES
P V <
O 1 1
Ps" O CO
P O
OfQ fD
fD Q,
C- M
O 0)
CO
x Method one
xx Method two
-------
Hazardous Wastes
14 Cyanides & Nitrates
15 Ethers
16 Hydrazines
17 Hydrides
18 Hydrocarbons, Alcohols,
Ketones, Esters
19 Inorganic Amides
20 Organic Amides
21 Inter Non- Metallic
Compounds
22a Inorganic Peroxides
22b Organic Peroxides
23 Inorganic Sulfides*
24a Organic Acids
24b Inorganic Acids
25 Carbides
26 Selected Gases Solids
27a Scrap Metals
"~ 2TB Mercury Recovery
27c Phosphorus
27d Arsenic, Antimony
Bismuth
27e Selenium, Tellurium
27f Lead & Cadmium
27g Beryllium
27h Strontium-Barium
27i Vanadium
27 j Halogenated Solvents
28 Cellulose Nitrate
Hazard
Fire Explosive
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Neutralize
XX
XX
XX
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
XX
XX
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
Absorb
X
X
X
XX
X
X
Dissolve
in Solvent
XX
X
XX
Incinerate
X
X/ XX
X
X
x/xx
X
X
XX
X
Landfill or Air Release
Salvage
Dissolve water soluble components - Convert others to'sxrittrble- nitrate's"'
Precipitate mercuric sulfide - Dry - Ship to suppliers
Cover with water - evaporate - burn
X
X
Acidify, add sodium sulfite, heat, filter, dry & ship
Acidify with nitric acid, evaporate, dilute, add H2S, filter, dry & ship
( Acidify with HCL, filter, treat filtrate with NH4OH, boil, precipitate,
1 filter, dry & ship
Add to lister of ammonium carbonate, add NH4OH slowly, filter, dry
and package
Distill or return to supplier .
• •
X
IS
5' »
c ft
Q ^
a <
GO
'Add Fed,
-------
In view of these difficulties, assumptions must be made as to
the probability of hazardous materials being present in conventional
waste streams. Some information as to the type of materials in air,
water and solid waste streams may provide;an indication as to the
control methods which may be needed and the type waste stream which
must be considered for special disposal treatment.
In the absence of knowledge as to specific materials in the
waste streams, the following reasoning can be used to establish the
possibility of a signficant hazardous waste stream.
It is essential to identify potentially hazardous disposal
conditions. If hazardous materials are present in a waste
stream, a hazardous waste condition may exist.
The materials that are considered to contribute most to
the creation of hazardous wastes are those that are the
most toxic, corrosive, radioactive, explosive, flammable,
etc. , of those which are used or produced in commercial
amounts.
If hazardous materials are part of the raw material input
or output stream (i.e. , used or produced in the manu-
facturing facility), some fraction of the amount used will
appear in the air, water or solid waste streams.
The continuous use of a number of hazardous materials
increases the probability that hazardous wastes are
created.
The use of deep-well disposal systems, disposal contractors,
deep-sea disposal, or other special disposal methods may
indicate the existence of hazardous waste streams.
The presence of hazardous materials does not indicate
that a hazardous condition exists. Many industrial
processes involve hazardous materials that are controlled
safely.
When hazardous materials are distributed in small
containers, such materials will appear in municipal waste
streams.
V-79
-------
The presence of organic compounds in waste streams
may indicate a hazardous waste:. Little is known as to
the chronic effects of most orgsinic compounds. Relative
hazardous effects are based largely on observed acute
effects. Carcinogenic or similar chronic effects of
many compounds are unknown.
The probability that a hazardous waste stream is produced at
an industrial site can be estimated based on a set of material
production-consumption characteristics. Table V-31, on the following
page, indicates these characteristics and the evaluation of such
characteristics for different segments of the industrial community.
Some industries produce waste streams that are typical of the
industry, i.e., textile, pulp and paper, leather tanning, and plating
wastes. The characteristics of these waste streams are similar.
Other industries have highly variable waste streams. The chemical
industry produces thousands of different materials by a wide variety
of processes and may produce over a thousand different products at
a single facility.
The quantities of wastes produced are dependent on the materials
processed. The extractive industries produce large quantities of
spoil from which the valuable ores have been extracted; for example,
an average of seven barrels of brine is produced for each barrel of
oil. Some industrial operations produce little waste; for example,
the electrolysis of brine to produce chlorine and caustic, but such
waste (mercury) may be significant although small in quantity.
The list of hazardous wastes that has been prepared identifies
those substances which are significant wastes, even in relatively
small amounts, because of their toxicity or other hazardous properties.
It is not, of course, an exhaustive list of hazardous material, but
does represent the type materials that create conditions which are
potentially hazardous. This list provides a means to evaluate the
potential hazards involved in a specific waste stream. If these
compounds are present, it is presumptive evidence that a hazard
exists which requires control.
The list can be used in several ways: to identify the producers
of particularly hazardous materials, to identify the industrial consumers
mers of such materials, and to identify the extent to which these
materials enter the municipal waste stream's.
V-80
-------
Table V-31
Hazardous Material Use, Production and Wastes by Type Industry
i
00
Industry
10 Mining
20 Food
22 Textiles
26 Paper & Allied Products
2812 Alkalis & Chlorine
2815 Cyclic Intermediates
2818 Organic Chemicals
2819 Inorganic Chemicals
282 Plastic Materials
283 Drugs
284 Soaps & Cleaners
285 Paints & Allied Products
287 Agricultural Chemicals
2892 Explosives
29 Petroleum & Coal Products
31 Leather Tanning
329 Asbestos Products
331 Blast Furnaces & Steel
333 Non Ferrous Metals
347 Metal Services
DOD
AEC
NASA
Consumers
Properties and
Products Used
C E F R P
XX X
X
XXX
X X
XXX
XXX
X X
XXX
X XXX
X X
X
XXX
X
XXX
X X
X
X
X X
X X X X
X X
XXX
Properties
Products Made
C E F R P
X
X
XXX
XXX
XXX
X X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
XXX
X
X X
Toxic
Materials Used
S H G O I
X X
X
XX X
X
XX XX
X XXX
XX XX
X XX
X X
XX XX
X XX
XX XX
X
X X
X X
X X - X
XX XX
X X
X XX
X 1C XX
Toxic
Materials Produced
S H G O I
X X
X XX
X XX
X X
X
X XX
X
X XX
XXX
X X
X XXX
X
X
X
Disposal Methods
DW Sea Con AEC
X
X
XXX
XXX
XXX
X X • X
X X
X
XXX
X
XXX
X
X
XX X
X X
X X
X
Toxic
Wastes Produced
S H G O I
XX X
x x
X X
X
X X X X
X XX
XXX
X
X XX
X XX
X X
X XX
X X
X X X X
X X
XX X
X X X X
X XX
XX XX
Hazard Code
C = Corrosive
E « Explosive
F • Flammable
R = Radioactive
P • Pathogenic
Toxic Code
S = Toxic solvents
H « Toxic metals
G s Toxic Gases.
O • Toxic Organics
1 ~ Toxic Inorganics
Disposal Code
DW = Deep well
SEA = Deep Sea Dump
CON = Contract Disposal
AEC = Radioactive Disposal
-------
Constraints on interviews and the mailing of questionaires
prevented a detailed analysis as to the specific locations that produce
and use the materials on this list. A detailed analysis of a few major
SMSAs should be made to identify the industrial use and commercial
distribution of these materials. Such inforfnation should establish
the practical relationships between these compounds and the hazard
potential of air, water and solid waste streams. Then control
measures based on these compounds, which insure their safe handling
and disposal, will adequately protect against other compounds with
similar properties.
The concept of controls over hazardous wastes must recognize
the realities of waste production. Most wastes are created at the
time a material is made or consumed. Most chemical compounds
are produced and consumed within the chemical industry. Some are
produced for retail use, while many compounds are used to a minor
degree for small commercial, retail or household purposes. The
major waste quantities are related to industrial production.
The industrial producers and consumers of hazardous materials
operate extensive facilities which most frequently produce or consume
a variety of chemicals. The waste treatment methods they use are
designed to cope with a variety of materials to the degree needed to
satisfy the legal requirements of local authorities. The waste
treatment process is designed to produce wastes which are acceptable
to the community. Such treatment facilities are not designed to
completely remove hazardous effects. They reduce harmful effects
to an acceptable level. Typically such treatment methods involve
dilution of waste materials with water and the treatment of such
wastes as part of a water stream.
Once introduced into water, compounds are not readily separated
and the dilution factors insure that thousands and/or millions of
gallons of water per day must be treated. The large quantities of
water involved make it uneconomic to ship such waste streams. Local
treatment is most practical. The shipment of conentrated waste
streams are more economic than the shipment of dilute waste streams.
Because of this truism, concentrated waste streams are more likely
to be considered as candidates for movement to disposal sites other
than those at the site where the waste originates.
V-82
-------
Those waste streams which are now transported to offsite
disposal plants or dumps provide an indicatibn as to the type of waste
streams which may be the initial candidates ;for national disposal
sites. These collectable hazardous waste streams include:
Ocean disposal of barge delivered liquid and solid wastes
Deep-well injection streams
Contract disposal wastes
Munition disposal operations
Radioactive wastes
Industrial chemical containers.
The economics of waste disposal will determine, ultimately, the
amounts and types of wastes that will be moved to distant disposal
sites. It is unlikely that industry will move wastes if they can be
treated satisfactorily and more economically at the point of origin.
The data in the table on the following page illustrates the type
and quantities of materials now moved to offsite disposal locations.
Should deep-well disposal and deep-sea disposal be restricted,
a substantial improvement in onsite capabilities for tertiary
treatment will be required. Most wastes now deep-welled will
require tertiary treatment to remove toxic contaminants.
V-83
-------
Table V-32
Quantitative Data on Offsite Disposal Tonnages
Marine Disposal Operations - 1968
Waste Type Amovint (tons per year)
Dredge Spoils 52, 200, 000.
Industrial Wastes 4, 690, 5001 '
Sewage 4, 477, 000
Construction and Demolition 574, 000
Explosive 15,200
Radioactive 4
Garbage 26,000
Miscellaneous 200
61, 982,904
(3)
Deep-Well Injection Streams - 1968V
Oil Field Brines 10, 000, 000 barrels/day
Chemical Wastes >1, 000, 000 barrels/day
a. Inorganic Salt Solutions
b. Mineral and Organic Acids
c. Basic Solutions . , . ,__ , . „
, _,, , . , , ^. . , approximately 175 deep wells
d. Chlorinated and Oxygenated rr j r
Hydrocarbons
e. Municipal Sewage
Contract Disposal Wastes
30-40, 000 tons annually
Munitions Disposal - 1970
80-120, 000 tons Explosive Munitions
8, 000 tons Chemical Munitions
Radioactive Wastes - 1963
70, 000, 000 gallons High Level Wastes Stored
7, 000, 000 cubic feet Solid Waste Buried at Atomic Energy
Commission Sites
400, 000, 000 gallons Low Activity Waste Processed
V-84
-------
Table V-32
(Continued)
Industrial Chemical Containers - 1971
! 75 percent < 33 ounces
5 percent 33 to 127 ounces
20 percent > 127 ounces
Ocean Disposal of Barge Delivered Liquid and Solid Wastes from
U.S. Coastal Cities, Environmental Protection Agency, Report
No. SW-19c, 1971.
(2)
Industrial Wastes Include
Waste Acid 58 percent 2,720,000 tons
Refinery Wastes 12 562,000
Pesticide Wastes 7 328,000
Paper Mill Wastes 3 142, 500
Other 20 938,000
(3)
Injection Wells and Operations Today, E.G. Donaldson, U.S.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Bartlesville, Oklahoma.
V-85
-------
tic
VI. MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The following sections summarize the major findings and
conclusions which were developed as the study progressed. They
have been grouped under the following headings:
Definition of Hazardous Wastes and Identification of
Hazardous Effects
Selection and Rating of Hazardous Materials
Quantification and Distribution
Waste Treatment Processes
National Disposal Systems.
Many of the conclusions presented may overlap these categories
and relate to two or more general areas, but this is only indicative
of the complex, integral nature of the hazardous waste and hazardous
effects problem.
1. DEFINITION OF A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL AND HAZARDOUS
EFFECTS
It is difficult to give a simple explanation of what is meant by
the term hazardous. The term implies a substance, or mixture of
substances, which has (have) an inherent potential of being harmful
to man or to the environment. In this context, the term also tends to
describe a condition or situation rather than a material. The situation
could involve a toxic substance, a flammable or explosive substance,
or a highly reactive substance. A reactive substance, in turn, could
cause fire, explosion, or the formation of toxic substances. All
substances in these latter categories, as well as others not speci-
fically mentioned here, have a potential to produce harmful effects
to humans, plants, animals, etc. They codld, therefore, by classed
VI-1
-------
as hazardous substances. The term "potential1.1 is significant, since
a great many materials are suspected of being hazardous to various
life forms, but too little is known factually about their hazardous
effects to permit including them in the hazardous category. It is the
effort to hold to facts that has resulted in the relatively short list of
materials identified as hazardous in this study.
i
The term hazardous also connotes an element of change or
uncertainty. In the context of waste materials and their potential
dangers, chance or uncertainty derive from the various ways that
humans or the environment can be exposed to harmful amounts of
a waste substance. Harmful amounts vary and are dependent upon
factors such as the type of receptor (i.e. , humans, plants, animals,
etc. ), the type and amount of exposure (i. e. , levels of concentration,
magnitude of dose necessary for damage to occur, magnitude of
explosion, violence of reaction, etc. ), and the duration of exposure.
To appraise one hazardous substance relative to another,
comparison must be made on the basis of criteria which serve as
standards for rating each appropriate factor, as described above.
When the nature of hazardous wastes is thus understood, the
difficulty of defining and listing hazardous wastes becomes more
apparent. The process of creating the toxic materials and the methods
used to treat such materials when they become waste can be better
described. Evidence as to the deleterious effects of such materials
is more elusive.
The following conclusions have been reached concerning the
definition of hazardous materials and hazardous effects:
(1) Knowledge of the long-range effects of chemical components
is quite limited. Severe knowledge gaps, concerning both
ecological systems interrelationships and the total effects
of hazardous substances on all receptors, limit under-
standing as to which factors are pertinent and most
important to the identification of hazardous compounds.
(2) By using an extensive set of criteria to define hazardous
substances, a list of substances which possess a high
potential for creating hazardous conditions as uncontrolled
wastes can be developed. This list is valuable for defining
the relative dangers which may develop if hazardous
substances are not controlled throughout their life cycle.
VI-2
-------
(3) The development of a list of hazardous substances is not
equivalent to the development of a list of hazardous wastes,
largely because of the unknown nature of effects possible
from mixed waste streams, especially synergistic effects
of a variety of input materials.
(4) Wastes to be hazardous must contain one or more hazardous
substances in sufficient concentration to be detrimental
to human health or other elements of the ecological system.
2. SELECTION AND RATING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
As part of the current study, a list of "hazardous compounds"
was developed and each compound was later rated, relative to the
others listed, on the basis of a defined set of criteria. Knowledge
gaps have a critical impact on the list of hazardous substances. In
particular, knowledge of the long-range effects of chemical compounds
on man or the environment are quite limited. In many instances it
may take years for the effects of new compounds, or even compounds
now in use, to be noticed and be traced directly to a particular chemical
compound. Quantitative cause and effect relationships will take
additional time to establish. Because of this, it is likely that many
compounds or materials with highly deleterious long-range effects
are not on the list developed during this study.
Conclusions reached relative to the selection and rating of
hazardous materials include:
(1) The list of 424 hazardous compounds which has been
developed is representative of a larger unidentified set
or list of hazardous compounds.
(2) The list of hazardous compounds can be useful for future
research in tracing the flow of identified hazardous
compounds from their points of manufacture to points of
use, and to categorize their status at any given time as:
Intermediate in manufacturing processes
Consumables in manufacturing processes
VI-3
-------
Hazardous end products
Nonhazardous end proddcts
Others.
(3) Knowledge concerning the presence of particularly toxic
compounds in complex waste streams provides useful
indication of the amount of waste control or treatment
required.
(4) Continual industrial process and product changes produce
a continuous stream of new compounds, some of which are
hazardous. Data deficiencies relative to this stream
introduce the possibility of omissions of some hazardous
materials from the list. However, the development of a
meaningful program to deal with hazardous wastes is not
dependent upon a complete or totally comprehensive list
and rating of hazardous substances.
(5) The rating procedure developed includes ratings on the
basis of known effects to ecological populations and the
effects of flame, explosion, and reaction in addition to
human toxic effects. Also, the rating system is modular
in design providing a flexible capability to:
Develop and examine alternative ratings on
the basis of adjusted weightings of the various
modules
Develop specific hazard ratings for human
effects, other ecological effects, or flame/
explosion/reaction effects either individually
or by any combination
Develop specific hazard ratings for air, water,
or land disposal either individually or by any
combination.
VI-4
-------
3. QUANTIFICATION AND DISTRIBUTION
Initial waste streams of production plants include process,
storage, and package product wastes. Each customer also develops
wastes either as process waste streams or as packaged wastes.
Estimates of probable waste quantities are frequently made based on
fractions of the total production. Such estimates provide a general
indication as to disposal needs.
Several conclusions have been reached with respect to quantifi-
cation and distribution of hazardous materials:
(1) Gross quantification data (i. e. , number of pounds of waste
material produced in different areas by type industry),
is useful as a general indicator of the magnitude and
pervasiveness of industrial waste streams. Such data
assists in defining the scope of the problem and gives
some indication as to disposal needs.
(2) While gross quantification data are useful and valid, as
described above, their use to estimate the quantities of
wastes in a particular geographical area with an implied
degree of accuracy is probably not valid and may lead to
erroneous conclusions, because of the great number of
variables in production processes within small segments
of any one industry.
(3) The amount of waste produced does not indicate the
hazards which may be produced by such wastes.
Hazardous wastes must produce toxic concentration effects
greater than can be tolerated by the threatened life system.
The existence of such concentrations must be established
on a continuing plant-by-plant basis by analysis of waste
generated.
VI-5
-------
4. WASTE TREATMENT PROCESSES
Any waste stream may be hazardous under certain conditions.
That is, the toxicity of the materials, the susceptibility of the environ-
ment, and the concentration in the air, soil, 01* water may exceed
the tolerable levels.
The disposal treatment required and the facilities needed to
cope with hazardous wastes are specifically related to the products
made, the processes involved, waste stream characteristics, and
local geographic, demographic, and environmental conditions. Each
industrial facility will find it necessary to tailor disposal facilities
to its individual needs, i.e. , methods cannot apply in common even
across single industries.
In general, disposal processes at individual plants treat only
the waste streams originating in the production process. That is,
they do not contribute materially in disposing of packaged products
which frequently create additional hazardous disposal conditions.
Municipal disposal systems, for example, are not designed to deal
with potentially hazardous materials. In general, dilution with
other materials is the only operational safeguard currently in use.
Means to control the hazards associated with the disposal of
toxic explosive materials used in business and households need to be
developed. The studies which have been made for pesticides indicate
some of the actions which are needed. Current regulations covering
drugs and other carefully controlled products such as rodenticides
and alcohol may provide insights into the means to control the
movement and disposal of such materials.
The following specific conclusions were reached in the above
study areas:
(1) Accurate characterization of waste streams is essential
to the evaluation of hazard potentials and to the design of
waste treatment to abate such hazards, yet these charac-
terizations have not been made in the majority of indus-
trial situations.
VI-6
-------
(2) Waste characterization data should be used to identify the
specific treatments which are required and the removal
or corrective efficiencies which must be achieved once
criteria for waste is established! The most useful approach
appears to be the development of disposal processes which
can be used to dispose of a wide variety of compounds by
a single treatment sequence.
(3) Following conclusion 2 above, indepth studies of specific
industrial processes are needed in several areas in order
to:
Determine the composition of associated
waste streams in detail
Establish the feasibility of separating certain
hazardous compounds from general waste
streams (e.g., heavy metals, phenols)
Develop alternative ways of categorizing and
rating treatment requirements of composite
waste streams.
(4) The selection of waste treatment systems and disposal
sites is highly influenced by external conditions such as
data concerning geology, topography, meteorology,
population density, industry concentrations, and political
boundaries. Indepth studies into these external conditions
are needed to avoid costly long-term miscalculations.
(5) Data on waste characteristics for individual plants obtained
by the Corps of Engineers, through enforcement of the
Refuse Act of 1899, should be used for conversion into
estimates of disposal treatment needs and costs by means
of relatively simple automated calculations. Such estimates
can be accumulated into data specific to plants, localities,
and regions and be the basis for national disposal planning
and control.
VI-7
-------
5. NATIONAL DISPOSAL SYSTEM
While it is intuitively acceptable to expand the operational
practices of the AEC for radioactive wastes to other materials which
tend to create hazardous conditions, these practices may not be
applicable to the wide range of industrial wastes. Radioactive wastes
by and large are inevitable by-products of other operations. With few
exceptions little use has been found for them. On the other hand,
most hazard creating chemical compounds are produced for specific
purposes and needs. The wastes involved in their production process
may or may not create conditions which are hazardous. Generally
speaking, the chemical industry has dealt successfully with toxic/
flammable/explosive compounds and possess the technology to dispose
of all waste safely.
Specific conclusions with respect to the development of a
national disposal system or systems are:
(1) A national disposal system can minimize toxic wastes by:
Improving plant treatment practices
Improving controls over materials in
distribution channels
Defining subsystems for collecting specific
toxic residues
Developing improved packages which will
assist in the safety and completeness of
disposition.
(2) National disposal sites should be developed only if needed
as part of a comprehensive hazardous material system.
VI-8
-------
VII. RECOMMEND A TIQJSfS
1. HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL SYSTEM
Develop a national hazardous waste control, collection and
disposal system which might include as a component, as needed,
hazardous waste disposal sites and processes. The system concept
should consider all steps necessary to control designated hazardous
substances from their initial production through intermediate stages
of use to final disposal.
Control system development should incorporate the following
major tasks:
Identification of critical waste processes or products
Licensing of production and disposal processes
Specification of handling and treatment methods
Inspection for conformance
Prescriptions for labeling, warnings and disposal methods
Designation of collection points for specific waste
categories requiring special handling
Licensing of contractors for disposal or recycling
Designation of ultimate disposal methods
Development of implementation plan.
VII-1
-------
2. INDEPTH HAZARDOUS MATERIAL STUEJY
Conduct an indepth study of a limited number of hazardous
materials in order to establish the quantities, distribution and disposal
possibilities. In essence this study would serve as a feasibility study
for a national hazardous waste control system, i Tasks would include:
Selection of about 10 to 15 hazardous materials based on
highest production quantities and widest distribution
Investigation of production, distribution, and disposal
patterns for selected materials
Determine possibilities and problems with a national
disposal system
Preparation of a national profile to illustrate the findings
Develop projections for a national system for a large
number of hazardous wastes.
3. WASTE STREAM HAZARD ANALYSIS
Conduct a study of plant waste streams to establish waste
characteristic profiles, identify the hazardous parameters of a
given waste content and recommend treatment profiles. Treatment
processes will be directed toward the processing required to achieve
the minimum acceptable standard for introduction to a municipal
treatment system. Major tasks would include:
Identification of municipal acceptance standards
Collection of typical waste characteristic profiles from
Corps of Engineers
Identification of treatment level (by characteristic) for
various wastes which is necessary to meet standard
Establishment of automated program to read-in waste
profile and read-out treatment profile
VII-2
-------
Provide routine to
Estimate cost of adequate treatment facilities by
type and quantity of waste
Estimate sludge and othe"r residue production in
industrial and municipal treatment
Sort data — profile, treatment requirements, costs,
effluent quantity, SIC, geographical location
Preparation of computer program for above
Provide for analysis of inplant processes by these methods.
4. HAZARDOUS EFFECTS RESEARCH
Launch a research effort directed toward the specific task of
identifying the hazardous effects of various materials. The result
of this effort should be combined with a program to require firms
to file data on new compounds (similar to FDA Requirements).
Criteria for such industry data should also be established. Major
tasks in this effort would include:
Analysis of new chemical substances and other potentially
harmful substances
Early identification and characterization of substances
which may produce hazardous effects due to long-term
persistence and toxic effects of accumulation
Determination of persistency of toxic substances in soil,
water, etc.
Determination of mutagenic and carcinogenic effects.
A specific laboratory should be tasked to monitor and direct
this research program and to assemble, correlate, and distribute
data acquired through this research effort.
VI-3
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Number
INTRODUCTION 1
1. STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION
(SIC) CODES 3
SIC 01 - Agricultural Production 4
SIC 10 - 14 Mining 5
SIC 20 - Food and Kindred Products 9
SIC 22 - Textile Mill Products 12
SIC 26 - Paper and Allied Products 15
SIC 28 - Chemicals and Allied Products 17
SIC 2834 - Pharmaceutical Preparations 23
SIC 2879 - Agricultural Pesticides, and Other
Agricultural Chemicals, Not Elsewhere
Classified 24
SIC 2892 - Explosives 25
SIC 29 - Petroleum Refining and Related
Industries 27
SIC 30 - Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics
Products 31
SIC 311 - Leather Tanning and Finishing 32
SIC 33 - Primary Metal Industries 34
SIC 333 - Primary Smelting and Refining of
Nonferrous Metals 38
SIC 347 - Coating, Engraving, and Allied
Services 39
Radioactive Wastes - U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission 42
Waste Management in the Department of
Defense 46
-------
Page
Number
2. DISPOSAL PRACTICES AND TECHNIQUES, AND
TYPES OF POLLUTION 47
Air Pollution 48
Biological Treatment 60
Corps of Engineers 61
Deep Well 62
Economic Data 63
Federal Regulations 64
Fluidized-Bed 66
General Disposal Techniques 67
Hazardous Spills 73
Health Hazards 74
Hospital Wastes 76
Identification of Hazardous Materials 77
Incineration 79
Ion Exchange . 81
Lagooning ^ 82
Literature Lists - General 83
Math Modelling and Cost Techniques 85
Oxidation Reduction 86
Pesticide Collection and Disposal Systems 87
Sludge Disposal 88
Solid Waste - General 89
Toxic ity 97
Utilities 105
3. SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCE MATERIAL 106
-------
INTRODUCTION
The fundamental effort in conduct of the Hazardous Materials
Study was a literature survey. The principal objective of this analytical
survey was a systematic screening of available literature data. Several
thousand abstracts were obtained, perused by the study team, and
assessed according to their relevance within the context of the study.
Requests were then submitted for those documents felt to be most
propitious. Additional documents were identified and acquired as a
result of personal interviews conducted with representatives of industry,
trade associations, and Governmental agencies. In all, approximately
800 documents were accepted as containing information worthwhile to
the purposes of the study.
In accordance with the major thrust of this study and the contents
of the acceptable documents, three separate categories were established
for cataloging the incoming material. These major categories are:
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes
Disposal Practices and Techniques, and Types of Pollution
Supplementary Reference Material.
Within each category, further subjective differentiation was made, and
is reflected in the table of contents to this bibliography as an aid to the
user in locating references of interest among the very large number
included.
Consequently, as each document was received, the required
bibliographical information was recorded, a control number was given,
and the document was filed by subject within the appropriate category.
The bibliographical information was also filed categorically for easy
reference and for later transcription. Distinction was made between
articles, magazines, reports, and books. All literature was identified
by title, since this seemed to be most conducive for easy access of
the documents. Both the study team and EPA personnel referred to
material by title, and, in most cases, the title implied the subject
-1-
-------
content of the document. In addition, the company, association,
Governmental agency, etc., with which the author was associated
at the time of publication, proved to be beneficial in analyzing the
literature data, and this information was included in the bibli-
ographical material.
This bibliography contains all information discussed above for
those documents considered to be acceptable. This information is
separated into the three categories and a brief description of each
category precedes the literature listing.
-2-
-------
1. STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION (SIC) CODES
Thirteen major SIC codes were selected in this category. The
last two sections are not SIC codes but represent major agencies,
within the government, that must be considered in a study of this
nature: the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of
Defense. Several major SIC codes are further classified by the finer
SIC code breakdown. Within each section, all documents are listed
alphabetically by title according to the type of material: article,
magazine, report, and book.
-3-
-------
SIC 01 - AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
REPORTS
A Study of Farm Waste, Farm Animal Waste; Characterization,
Handling, Utilization, S.A. Witzel, O. J. Attoe, E. McCoy, L. B.
Polkowsky, and K. Crabtree, University of Wisconsin, Project
OSW UI-00556-01 to -04, for the U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Office of Solid Waste, 1970.
The Pollution Potential of the Confined Livestock Feeding
Industry, Midwest Research Institute, Project 3481-C, for the
Environmental Protection Agency, June 1971.
-4-
-------
SIC 10 - 14 MINING
ARTICLES ;
j
"A Long-Range Look at Acid Mine Drainage, " based on Paper
by E. P. Hall (of Consolidation Coal Co. ), Mining Engineering,
January 1966, pp. 61-62. »
"An Operator's Approach to Mine Water Drainage Problems and
Stream Pollution, " H. E. Steinman (of Vesta-Shannopin Coal
Division, Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.), Mining Congress Journal,
July 1960, pp. 70-73.
"Acid Mine-Drainage: Control Case Histories, " Coal Age,
June 1964, pp. 72-77.
"Acid Mine-Drainage Control: Principles and Practices Guide, "
Coal Age, June 1964, pp. 81-86.
"Acid Mine Drainage Pollution Control - Approach to Solution, "
S. Krickovic (of U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines),
Mining Congress Journal, December 1966, pp. 64-68.
"Acid Mine Drainage Research Potentialities, " G. P. Hanna, Jr.,
J. R. Lucas, C. I. Randies, E. E. Smith, andR. A. Brant (of
Ohio State University), Water Pollution Control Federation
Journal, Vol. 35, No. 3, March 1963, pp. 275-296.
"Bibliography on Solid Wastes and Recycling Research, " U.S.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines.
"Clear, Alkaline Run-Off is J&L's Goal in Water-Treatment Plan, "
Coal Age, August 1967, pp. 70-74.
"Lime Slurry System at Pursglove No. 15 Mine, " V. H. Ream
(of Christopher Coal Co. ), Mining Congress Journal, January 1970,
pp. 55-59.
"Neutralization of Acid Mine Drainage, " D. W. Hill, Water Pollution
Control Federation Journal, Vol. 41, No. 10, October 1969, pp. 1702-1715.
"New Technology of Leaching Waste Dumps, " E. E. Malouf and
J. D. Prater (of Kennecott Copper Corp.), Mining Congress Journal,
November 1962, pp. 82-85.
-5-
-------
"Pelletizing Fine Coal Recovered from Pumped Refuse, "
H. N. Egan. Mining Engineering, November 1967, pp. 73-75.
!
"Pollution Control in Mining and Processing of Indiana Coal, "
R. A. Woodley (of Commercial Solvents Corp. ), and S. L. Moore
(of Industrial Waste Section, Indiana State1 Board of Health), Water
Pollution Control Federation Journal, January 1967, pp. 41-49.
"Stabilizing Mine Dumps, " Mining Magazine, Vol. 119, No. 4,
October 1968, pp. 296-299.
"This Month in Mining - Symposium Sees Hard Times Ahead for
Industry in Clean-Up of Tailing and Milling Wastes, " Engineering/
Mining Journal, May 1970, pp. 102-104.
"Treatment of an Old Sands Dump at the Luipaards Vlei Estate
and Gold Mining Co., Ltd. " P. B. Weehuizen (of Venter Post
Gold Mining Co., Ltd.), Mining Magazine, Vol. 115, No. 6,
December 1966, pp. 464-471.
MAGAZINES
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 7, July 1970.
REPORTS
Burning Coal Refuse Banks and the Associated Environmental
Problems, L. M. McNay, U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Mines, Information Circular, 1970.
Case Studies of Municipal Waste Disposal Systems. H. W. Sheffer,
E. C. Baker, and G. C. Evans, U. S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Pub. 8498, 1971.
Chemical and Vegetative Stabilization of a Nevada Copper Porphyry
Mill Tailing, K. C. Dean, R. Havens, and K. T. Harper, U. S.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Pub. 7261, May 1969.
Chemical Stabilization of the Uranium Tailings at Tuba City, Arizona,
R. Havens and K. C. Dean, U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Minea, Pub. 7288, August 1969.
-6-
-------
Coal Refuse Fires, an Environmental Hazard, L. M. McNay,
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau'of Mines, Pub. 8515, 1971.
Design of Dams for Mill Tailings, C. D. Kealy and R. L. Soderberg,
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Pub. 8410, 1969.
Dewatering Florida Phosphate Pebble Rock Slime by Freezing
Techniques, M. H. Stanczyk, I. L. Feld, andE.W. Collins,
U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Pub. 7520,
June 1971.
Disposal of Solid Wastes from Coal Mining in Washington, Oregon,
Montana, M.R. Geer, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Mines, Pub. 8430, 1969.
Distribution of Sulfide and Oxide Copper in Copper Mill Tailings,
J. C. White and A. R. Rule, U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau
of Mines, Pub. 7498, April 1971.
Fly Ash Utilization - A Summary of Applications and Technology.
J. P. Capp and J. D. Spencer, U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Mines, Pub. 8483, 1970.
Ignition and Control of Burning of Coal Mine Refuse, J.W. Myers,
J.J. Pfeiffer, E. M. Murphy, andF.E. Griffith, U.S. Department
of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Pub. 6758, 1966.
Industrial Waste Study of the Flat Glass, Cement, Lime, Gypsum,
and Asbestos Industries. Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.,
July 1971.
Mineral Facts and Problems, U. S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Mines Staff, Bulletin 630, 1965 Edition.
Mineral Facts and Problems, U. S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 650.
Mineral Industry Solid Wastes and Our Environment, U. S.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, c. 1971.
National Inventory of Sources and Emissions, Cadmium, Nickel,
and Asbestos; Section II: Nickel, W. E. Davis & Associates,
for the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National
Air Pollution Control Administration, February 1970.
-7-
-------
Pennsylvania Anthracite Refuse - A Survey of Solid Waste from
Mining and Preparation, J. C. MacCartnej^, R. H. Whaite, U. S.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Pub. 8409, 1969.
!
Proceedings of the First Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium,
Chicago, Illinois, March 27-28, 1968, Illinois Institute of Technology
Research Institute, 1968.
Proceedings of the Second Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium,
Chicago, Illinois, March 18-19, 1970, Illinois Institute of Technology
Research Institute, 1970.
Reclamation of Acidic Coal-Mine Spoil with Fly Ash, L. M. Adams,
J. P. Capp, and E. Eisentrout, U. S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Pub. 7504, April 1971.
Recovery of Phosphates and Metals from Waste Phosphate Sludge
by Reduction-Sinter Processes, R.F. Waters, H. E. Powell, and
A. A. Cochran, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines,
Pub. 7533, July 1971.
Surface Mining and Our Environment, U. S. Department of Interior,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Staff Report, 1967.
Utilization of Waste Fluosilicic Acid: Section 1 — Laboratory
Investigations; Section 2 - Cost Evaluation, H. E. Blake, Jr.,
W. S. Thomas, K.W. Moser, J. L. Reuss, and H. Dolezal, U.S.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Pub. 7502, April 1971.
Waste Disposal Costs at Two Coal Mines in Kentucky and Alabama,
V. A. Danielson and D. H. White, Jr., U. S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Pub. 8406, 1969.
Waste Disposal Costs of a Florida Phosphate Operation, J.R. Boyle,
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Pub. 8404, 1969.
-8-
-------
SIC 20 - FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS
ARTICLES
"A Pollution Abatement Program for Distillery Wastes, "
R. G. Paulette, C. S. Boruff, and J. O. Nack, Water Pollution
Control Federation Journal, Vol. 42, No. 7, July 1970, pp. 1387-
1394.
"Baffled Biological Basins for Treating Poultry Plant Wastes, "
N. L. Nemerow, Water Pollution Control Federation Journal,
September, 1969, pp. 1602-1612.
"The Treatment of Effluents from the Milk Industry, " A. B. Wheatland,
(of Water Pollution Research Laboratory, England), Chemistry and
Industry, September 16, 1967, pp. 1547-1548.
"Waste Disposal in the Meat Industry, Part I, " A. J. Steffen,
Water and Wastes Engineer ing/Industrial, Vol. 7, No. 3,
March 1970, pp. B-20 to B-22.
"Waste Disposal in the Meat Industry, Part II, " A. J. Steffen,
Water and Wastes Engineer ing/Industrial. Vol. 7, No. 5, May 1970,
pp. C-l to C-4.
"Wastewater Treatment from Potato Processing, " O. Sproul,
K. Keshavan, M.W. Hall, and B. B. Barnes, Water and Sewage
Works, February 1968.
REPORTS
A Report on Bottled and Canned Soft Drinks and Flavoring Extracts
and Syrups, Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc. ,
for the Environmental Protection Agency, August 1971.
Aerated Lagoon Treatment of Food Processing Wastes, K. A. Dostal,
Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory, Project 12060, for the
Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office, March 1968.
Aerobic Secondary Treatment of Potato; Processing Wastes,
The R.T. French Co., Project 12060 ElHV, for the Environmental
Protection Agency (Grant WPRD 15-01J68), December 1970.
-9-
-------
Cannery Waste Treatment, Kehr Activated Sludge, FMC Corp.,
for the U. S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Quality
Administration (Grant 12060 EZP), September 1970.
•j
5
Current Practice in Potato Processing Waste Treatment,
K. Guttormsen and D. A. Carlson, University of Washington, for
the U. S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration (Grant WP-01486-01), October 1969.
Final Report Industrial Waste Study of the Meat Products Industry,
J.P. Pilney, E. E. Erickson, and N. O. Halvorson, North Star
.Research and Development Institute, for the Environmental
Protection Agency, July 8, 1971.
Industrial Waste Study of Canned and Frozen Fruits and Vegetables,
SCS Engineers, for the Environmental Protection Agency, July 17, 1971.
Industrial Waste Study of the Grain Mill Industry, Sverdrup & Parcel
and Associates, Inc., for the Environmental Protection Agency,
August 1971.
Industrial Waste Survey of the Distilled Spirits Industry, Associated
Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc., for the Environmental
Protection Agency, August 1971.
Industrial Waste Survey of the Malt Industry, Associated Water and
Air Resources Engineers, Inc. , for the Environmental Protection
Agency, August 1971.
Industrial Waste Survey of the Malt Liquor Industry, Associated
Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc., for the Environmental
Protection Agency, August 1971.
Proceedings: First National Symposium of Food Processing Wastes.
April 6-8, 1970, Portland, Oregon, U. S. Department of Interior,
Federal Water Quality Administration, Research Series 12060,
April 1970.
Secondary Treatment of Potato Processing Wastes, K. A. Dostal,
Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory, Project 12060, for the
Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office,
July 1969.
-10-
-------
I
Solid Waste Management in the Food Processing Industry,
A.M. Katsuyama, N. A. Olson, R. L.
National Canners1 Association and We
Quirk, andW.A. Mercer,
stern Research Laboratory,
for the Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.
Study of Wastes and Effluent Requirements of the Dairy Industry,
A.T. Kearney & Co., Inc., Report ATK-ENV-71-02-1, May 1971.
The Cost of Clean Water, Volume III: Industrial Waste Profile
No. 6 - Canned and Frozen Fruits and Vegetables. U. S. Department
of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
September 1967.
The Cost of Clean Water. Volume III: Industrial Waste Profile
No. 8 - Meat Products. Wichita State University, Department of
Economics, for the U. S. Department of Interior, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, September 1967.
The Cost of Clean Water. Volume III: Industrial Waste Profile
No. 9 - Dairies, U. S. Department of Interior, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, September 1967.
Treatment of Citrus Processing Wastes, The Coca Cola Co.,
Foods Division, Project 12060, for the Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Quality Office (Grant WPRD 38-01-67),
October 1970.
Waste Reduction in Food Canning Operations, National Canners1
Association Research Foundation, Western Research Laboratory,
for the U. S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Quality
Administration (Grant WPRD 151-01-68), August 1970.
-11-
-------
SIC 22 - TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS
ARTICLES
"Aerated Stabilization of Synthetic Organic Chemical Wastes, "
F. D. Bess and R. A. Conway (of Union Carbide Corp. ), Water
Pollution Control Federation Journal, Vol. 38, No. 6, June 1966,
pp. 939-955.
"Aerobic Treatment of Textile Mill Waste, " E. L. Jones, T. A. Alspaugh,
and H. B. Stokes (of Cone Mills Corp.), Water Pollution Control
Federation Journal, Vol. 34, No. 5, May 1962, pp. 495-512.
"Biological Treatment of Textile Effluents, " A. I. Biggs (of the
Confederation of British Industry), Chemistry and Industry,
September 16, 1967, pp. 1536-1538.
"Disposal of Dye and Finishing House Wastes and Similar
Materials, " E. C. Oden, Sr., Water and Sewage Works.
September 1967, pp. 367-368.
"Energy-Induced Changes in an AZO Dyestuff Waste, " A. I. Mytelka
(of AeroChem Research Laboratories, Inc. ) and R. Manganelli
(of Rutgers University), Water Pollution Control Federation Journal,
February 1968, pp. 260-268.
"Orion Manufacturing Wastes Treatment, " E. F. Taylor,
F. T. Bodurtha, Jr., R. F. Rocheleau, and G. C. Gross (of E. I.
duPont de Nemeurs & Co. ), Water Pollution Control Federation
Journal. Vol. 33, No. 10, October 1961, pp. 1076-1089.
"Pollution Factors and Treatment of Textile Waste Waters, "
P.W. Sherwood, The Textile Manufacturer. June 1965, pp. 235-238.
"Sodium Hydroxide Recovery in the Textile Industry, " C. S. Carrique
and L. U. Jauregui (of University of Buenos Aires), Purdue University -
Engineering Extension Series 121, 1966, pp. 861-868.
"Some Differences Between British, American and Continental
Practice," Dr. L. Klein (of Mercey River Board, England), pp. 3-32.
-12-
-------
,-
"Stream Pollution and Effluent Treatment, with Special Reference
to Textile and Paper Mill Effluents, " Dr. L. Klein, Chemistry and
Industry, May 23, 1964, pp. 866-873.
"Tannery, Textile and Wool Scouring Wastes, " reviewed by
T. A. Alspaugh, Water Pollution Control Federation Journal,
1967 Literature Review, Vol. 40, No. 6, June 1968, pp. 1165-1171.
"The Disposal and Recovery of Textile Wastes, Part I - The
Problem; Preliminary Studies; Experimental Work; Disposal by
Chemical Precipitation, " M.S. Campbell (of The Textile
Foundation), Textile Research, pp. 490-504.
"The Treatment and Control of Bleaching and Dyeing Wastes, "
A. H. Little (of The Cotton, Silk and Man-Made Fibres Research
Association), Water Pollution Control, 1969, pp. 178-189.
"Trade Effluent Control in the Carpet Industry, " D. Evers (of the
Trent River Board), Textile Institute and Industry, September 1965,
pp. 237-240.
"Waste Treatment Studies at Cluett, Peabody and Company Finishing
Plant, " R. H. Souther (of The Arrow Company Division), American
Dyestuff Reporter, July 28, 1969, pp. 13-16.
"Zeroing in on Five Top Trouble Spots, " Textile World, October 1971,
pp. 41-46.
REPORTS
A Simplification of Textile Waste Survey and Treatment, J.W. Masselli,
N.W. Masselli, and M. G. Burford, Wesleyan University, for the New
England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, July 1959.
Industrial Waste Studies Program - Textile Mill Products,
Arthur D. Little, Inc., for the Environmental Protection Agency,
Water Quality Office, May 28, 1971.
-13-
-------
Industrial Waste Surveys of Two New England Cotton Finishing
Mills, M.G. Burford and J. W. Masselli (of Wesleyan University),
W. J. Snow (of Connecticut State Water Cpmmission), and
H. Campbell and F. J. DeLuise (of University of Rhode Island),
for the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission,
June 1953.
Pollution Sources from Finishing of Synthetic Fibers. J.W. Masselli
and M.G. Burford, Wesleyan University, for the New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, June 1956.
Reuse of Chemical Fiber Plant Wastewater and Cooling Water
Blowdown, Fiber Industries, Inc. and Davis & Floyd Engineers,
Inc., Project 12090 EUX, for the Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Quality Office (Grant WPRD-100-01-68),
October 1970.
The Cost of Clean Water, Volume III: Industrial Waste Profile
No. 4 - Textile Mill Products. U. S. Department of Interior,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Pub. IWP-4,
June 30, 1967.
-14-
-------
SIC 26 - PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
ARTICLES
"Development and Research into Pulp and Paper Waste Treatment
in France," J. Bebin, Technical Paper T215, Pulp and Paper.
Vol. 71, No. 10, May 5, 1970, pp. 53-56.
"Disposal System for Mixed Primary and Secondary Sludges, "
O. B. Burns, Jr. (of West Virginia Pulp and Paper) and J. L. Mancini
(of Hydroscience. Inc. ), Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper
Industry Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1967, pp. 99A to 104A.
"Economic Aspect of Industrial Effluent Treatment, " A. L. Caron
(of National Council for Stream Improvement), Technical Association
of the Pulp and Paper Industry Journal, Vol. 47, No. 9, September
1964, pp. 62A to 72A..
"Paper Mill Sludge Dewatering, " G. H. Koenitzer (of Beloit Corp. ),
Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry Journal,
Vol. 51, No. 12, December 1968, pp. 53A to 56A.
"Spent Liquor Disposal Via Fluo-Solids Combustion at an NSSC
Mill, " H. Mills (of Dorr-Oliver, Inc. ), Paper Trade Journal,
Vol. 154, No. 33, August 17, 1970, pp. 26-31.
"Stock Preparation for Sorted Waste Paper, " W. Musselmann
and J.M. Voith, Paper Technology, Vol. 8, No. 3, June 1967,
pp. 270-277.
"The Effects of Industrial Wastes from Charmin Paper Products
Company on Fish of the Cheboygen River Drainage System, "
P.M. Thomas ( of The University of Michigan), and R.O. Legault
( of The University of Ottawa), July 16, 1966, Water Research.
Vol. 1, 1967, pp. 217-229.
REPORTS
A Paper Industry Environmental Control Technical Program,
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream
Improvement, Inc., (NCASI).
-15-
-------
Aerial Photographic Tracing of Pulp Mill Effluent in Marine
Waters, F. J. Burgess and W. P. James,* Oregon State University,
Project 12040 EBY, for the U.S. Department of Interior, Federal
Water Quality Administration (Grant WP-00524), August 1970.
C-E Recovery, Bark and Power Boiler, CLE Combustion
Engineering, Pub. SP-1014 0106610.
Dilute Spent Kraft Liquor Filtration Through Wood Chips, North
Carolina State University, Project 12040 EUG, for the U.S.
Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration (Grant WPRD 115-01-68), National Technical
Information Service, Pub. PB-191-873, April 1970.
Foam Separation of Kraft Pulping Wastes, Georgia Kraft Co.,
Project 12040 EUG, for the U.S. Department of Interior, Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration (Grant WPRD 117-01-68),
Pub. PB-189-160, October 1969.
Industrial Waste Study of the Paper and Allied Products Industries
WAPORA, Inc., for the Environmental Protection Agency, July 1971.
NCASI Report to Members, National Council of the Paper Industry
for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., 1970.
NCASI Technical Review, National Council of the Paper Industry for
Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., Bulletin 16, June 1, 1971
The Cost of Clean Water, Volume III; Industrial Waste Profile No. 3
Paper Mills, Except Building, U. S. Department of Interior,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, November 1967.
-16-
-------
SIC 28 - CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
ARTICLES
"A Comprehensive Survey of Industrial Waste Pollution in South
Carolina," R. W. Hann, Jr. (of Texas A&M University) and
F. D. Callcott (of The Harwood Beebe Co. ), Proceedings of the
Twentieth Industrial Waste Conference, 1965, Engineering
Bulletin of Purdue University, pp. 538-550.
"Ability of Activated Sludge Microorganisms to Oxidize Aromatic
Organic Compounds, " C. V. Marion and G. W. Malaney (of Ohio
State University), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Industrial Waste
Conference, 1963, Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University,
pp. 297-308.
"Chemical and Allied Products, " reviewed by A. I. Mytelka,
Water Pollution Control Federation Journal, 1967 Literature Review,
Vol. 40, No. 6, June 1968, pp. 1198-1199.
"Chemical Plant Waste Treatment by Ten Methods, " A. C. Hyde
(of E. I. duPont de Nemeurs and Co. ), Water Pollution Control
Federation Journal, Vol. 37, No. 11, November 1965, pp. 1486-
1494.
"Contract Disposal Catches On, " Chemical Engineering,
November 17, 1969, pp. 138-140.
"Effect of Boron on Aerobic Biological Waste Treatment, "
S.K. Banerji, B. D. Bracken, and B. M. Garg (of the University
of Delaware), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Industrial Waste
Conference, 1968, Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University,
pp. 956-965.
"Effluent Treatment at a Fine Chemicals Factory, " D. H. Bell
(of B. D. H. Laboratory Chemicals Works, England), Manufacturing
Chemist, May 1960, pp. 194-197.
"New Chemical Precipitation Plant Designed for 'Secondary'
Removals, " T. M. Riddick (of Thomas M. Riddick & Associates),
Wastes Engineering, December 1963, pp. 652-653, 666.
-17-
-------
"Oxidation of Selected Carcinogenic Compounds by Activated Sludge, "
P. A. Lutin, J. J. Cibulka, and G. W. Malaney (of Vanderbilt
University), Proceedings of the Twentieth;Industrial Waste
Conference, 1965, Engineering Bulletin ofi Purdue University,
pp. 131-145.
"Phenol Plant Safeguards Against Pollution, " J. A. Turcotte and
V. T. Burns, Jr. (of Gibbs and Hill, Inc. ) and J.W. Schluter
(of Brookhaven National Laboratory), Water and Wastes Engineering,
June 1967, pp. 69-70.
"Phosphate-Plant Waste Looms as Hydrofluoric-Acid Source, "
Chemical Engineering, May 4, 1970, pp. 46-48.
"Pollution Problem Caused by Elemental Phosphorus in Aqueous
Effluents Was Eliminated by Reusing Treated Waste in the Process, "
J. C. Barber (of Tennessee Valley Authority), Chemical Engineering
Progress, Vol. 65, No. 6, June 1969, pp. 70-73.
"Preventive Measures Get Results in a. Chemical Processing
Waste Abatement Program, " W. L. Leucht, P. T. McNally and
F. B. Kaylor (of Allied Chemical Corp. ) and I. Grossman (of New
York State Department of Health), Water Pollution Control Federation
Journal, Vol. 34, No. 10, October 1962, pp. 999-1009.
"Screening for Chemical Process Hazards, " L. Silver (of Merck,
Sharp, and Dohme Research Laboratories, Division of Merck & Co. ,
Inc. ), Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 63, No. 8, August
1967, pp. 43-49.
"The Treatment of Fluoride Wastes, " W. Zabban (of The Chester
Engineers) and H.W. Jewett (of Corning Glass Works), Water
and Sewage Works, November 1967, pp. 415-419.
"Treating Parathion Wastes", C. N. Stutz (of Monsanto Co. ),
Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 62, No. 10, October 1966,
pp. 82-85.
"Treatment of Parathion Wastes and Other Organics, " G. Coley
and C. N. Stutz (of Monsanto Chemical Co. ), Water Pollution
Control Federation Journal, Vol. 38, No. 8, August 1966,
pp. 1345-1349.
-18-
-------
"Treatment of Tetraethyl Lead Manufacturing Wastes, " M. Nozaki
and H. Hatotani (of Japan Organo Co.; Ltd., Japan), Water
Research, Vol. 1, 1967, pp. 167-177]
"Waste Disposal at a Phosphoric Acid and Ammonium Phosphate
Fertilizer Plant, " W. E. Jones and R. L. Olmsted (of Northwest
Cooperative Mills), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Industrial
Waste Conference, 1962, Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University,
pp. 148-202.
"Water Reclamation with Activated Carbon, " J. C. Cooper and
D. G. Hager (of Pittsburgh Activated Carbon Co. ), Chemical
Engineering Progress, Vol. 62, No. 10, October 1966, pp. 85-90.
MAGAZINES
American Paint Journal, April 21, 1958.
REPORTS
A 1967 Survey of the Members of the Manufacturing Chemists
Association, Manufacturing Chemists Association, 1968.
A. V. Phosphoric Acid, Volume 1, Part 2, K. K. Huffstuter, Slack,
Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1968.
Air Pollution Aspects of Emission Sources: Nitric Acid Manufac-
turing (A Bibliography with Abstracts), Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Pollution Control Office, Pub. AP-93, May 1971.
An Action Plan for Controlling Hazardous Chemicals in the
Environment, D. L. Worf, R. B. Medz, ORD Consumer Protection
and Environmental Health Service, 1968.
Atmospheric Emissions from Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing Processes,
Manufacturing Chemists' Association and Public Health Service,
for the U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National
Air Pollution Control Administration, 1965.
-19-
-------
Chemistry and Technology of Fertilizers,. A. V. Slack (of
Tennessee Valley Authority), Interscienc4 Publishers (a
division of John Wiley and Sons), 1967. •'
Cleaning Our Environment, The ChemicaljiBasis for Action,
American Chemical Society, Subcommitteie on Environmental
Improvement, Committee on Chemistry ahd Public Affairs,
1969.
Current Industrial Reports, Inorganic Chemicals, U; S. Department
of Commerce, 1969. " '
Evaluation of the Hazard of Bulk Water Transportation of Industrial
Chemicals -.A Tentative Guide, the Committee on Hazardous ;
Materials Advisory'to the U.S. Coast Guard, National Academy of
Sciences, National Research Council, 1970. . ,
Handbook for Sulfuric Acid Piping Systems,' "The Dow Chemical Co.,
1971V- -': .- .'...•;.. •,>:•••••••.•/ , •••-_-..-•• !N' - - - -•
:.:• ••;. .-•.-•; .\.vii. — ^ur'.:.•;-'-'rvr,o,'.V ' J*>.
Hazard Survey of the Chemical and Allied Industries, American
Insurance,Association, Division of Technical Services Engineering
and Safety Department, Technical Survey No. 3, 1968.
Industrial Oily Waste Control, W.H. Bar'cus (of Sun Oil Co.),
Ji S; Baum (of Cities Service Oil), C. F. Gurnham and Dr. H. C.
Bramer (of Gurnham, Bramer and Associates, Inc.), Dr. A. J. ,
Freedman and R. S. Robertson (of Nalco GhenJ*-^"** ^: A .-**.^-sMre*
Greater Chicago)
Corp. ). JOK.-•'^^lifflB"P- Swain. Jr. (of Swain
Institute and American Society
of Lubricatiortnganeers, rc 1969.
-JV*J. - - • • » _ _ . ^.
Industrial Waste Survey of Inorganic Chemicals, Alkalines and
Chlorine, General Technologies Corp., for the Environmental
Protection Agency, May 28, 1971.
Industrial Waste Study of the Asbestos Industry, Associated Water
and Air Resources Engineers, Inc., for the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 1971.
-20-
-------
Industrial Waste Study of the Plastic jviaterials and Synthetics
Industry, N. Barson and J. W. Gilpin (of Celanese Research Co.,
for the Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.
National Industrial Solid Waste Management Study of the Industrial
Chemical Industry, The Research Corporation of New England,
for the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, January 1971.
New Market for Tomorrow's Sulphur, The Sulphur Institute.
Recovery of Qxidizer from Rocket Propellants, U.S. 3,451,789,
To F. Graf To Thiokal Chemical Corp., 1969.
Safety in Handling Hazardous Chemicals, Matheson Coleman & Bell,
1969.
Study Report - Industrial Waste Studies Program; Group 6:
Fertilizers, Wellman Lord, Inc., for the Environmental Protection
Agency, July 1971.
Synthetic Organic Chemicals, U. S. Tariff Commission Report,
Pub. 412, 1969.
Synthetic Organic Chemicals - United States Production and Sales,
1968, U. S. Tariff Commission, U. S. Government Printing Office,
Pub. 327, 1970.
The Cost of Clean Water, Volume III: Industrial Waste Profile
No. 10 - Plastics Materials and Resins, Illinois Institute of
Technology Research Institute, for to U. S. Department of Interior,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, October 12, 1967.
The Economics of Clean Water, Volume III: Inorganic Chemicals
Industry Profile, U. S. Department of Interior, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, March 1970.
The Manufacturing Chemists' Association - What Is It, What It
Does, Manufacturing Chemists' Association, August 1965.
Toward a Clean Environment, Manufacturing Chemists Association.
1967.
-21-
-------
BOOKS
Reigel's Industrial Chemistry, ed. by J. A. Kent, Reinhold
Publishing Co.
-22-
-------
SIC 2834 - PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS
REPORTS
National Industrial Solid Waste Management - The Drug Industry,
D. M. Shilesky, K.W. Krause, and R. J. Sullivan, Litton Systems, Inc.
for the Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Wastes Management
Office, 1971.
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association Year Book 1969-1970,
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, 1970.
BOOKS
The Merck Index of Chemicals and Drugs, P. G. Stecher,
Dr. M. J. Finkel, Dr. O. H. Siegmund, and B. M. Szafkanski,
Merck and Co., Inc., Seventh Edition, 1960.
-23-
-------
SIC 2879 - AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES, j AND OTHER
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS. NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED
ARTICLES ;
"Biological Treatment of Organic Phosphbrus Pesticide Waste-
Waters, " C. Lue-Hing (of Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson and
Associates, Inc. ) and S. D. Brady (of Chemagro Corp. ), Proceedings
of the Twenty-Third Industrial Waste Conference, 1968,
Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University, pp. 1166-1177.
"Biological Treatment of Pesticide Waste Water Containing Collodial
Sulphur, " P. Fitter and J. Chudoba (of the Institute of Chemical
Technology, Czechoslovakia), Chemistry and Industry, December 28,
1968, pp. 1846-1848.
"Farm Resources, Income, and Expenses, 1966, " Agricultural
Statistics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service, 1966, pp. 494-497.
"Pesticides Bill Hit as Wiping Out Gains, " Elsie Carper,
The Washington Post, Thursday, October 14, 1971, p. A8.
"Safety Aspects in the Design of an Organic Insecticide Plant, "
K.M. Cukwen (for Albright & Wilson (Mfg. ) Ltd., England),
Chemistry and Industry. August 23, 1958, pp. 1096-1101.
"Treatment of Effluents from the Manufacture of Weedkillers and
Pesticides, " A. E. Lambden and Dr. D. H. Sharp (of Fisons Pest
Control Ltd., England]), Manufacturing Chemist, May 1960, pp. 198-201.
REPORTS
Description and Location(s) of Pesticides, Herbicides, and Related
Hazardous Substances on Department of Defense Properties,
Compilation of Tables.
Tentative Guidelines for the Safe Handling and Disposal of Used
Pesticide Containers in California, Dr. L. F. Saylor, Dr. S. M. Heslep,
R. F. Peters, P. A. Rogers, J. Cornelius, Dr. J.B. Bailey and
Dr. T.H. Milby, California State Department of Public Health in
cooperation with the California State Department of Agriculture and the
Agricultural Extension Service of the University of California, June 1970
-24-
-------
SIC 2892 - EXPLOSIVS
ARTICLES
"Hazards of Potentially Explosive Materials, " W. G. Sykes
(of Arthur D. Little, Inc. ), Chemical Engineering Progress,
Vol. 62, No. 12, December 1966, pp. 49-53.
REPORTS
Comparison of Plant Water Quality to Proposed Water Quality
Standard, H. A. Jacob, Jr., Hercules, Inc., July 22, 1971.
Control of Pollution at Army Ammunition Plants, U. S. Army
MUCOM, paper presented at Conference on Identification of R&D
Needs in Pollution Control, Dover, New Jersey, November, 1970.
Detailed Statements Concerning Deep Water Dumping of Ammunitions
Pursuant to Section 102(2)C of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, U. S. Navy.
Detailed Statement Concerning Local Deep Water Disposal of
Conventional Ammunition Pursuant to Section 102(2)C of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, U. S. Navy.
Engineering Design Handbook - Explosives Series - Properties
of Explosives of Military Interest, Headquarters, U. S. Army
Materiel Command, Pub. AMCP 706-177, January 1971.
Environmental Statement for Maritime Administration Hulks
Numbered Deep Water Dumps Submitted Pursuant to Section
102(2)C of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, U. S. Navy.
Environmental Statement for Small Scale Deep Water Dumps
Submitted Pursuant to Section 102(2)C of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, U.S. Navy.
-25-
-------
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Service. He'adquarters, U. S. Depart-
ment of the Army, Field Manual 9-14, April 1971.
Fire and Explosion Hazards Evaluation, Hazards Research Corp. ,
Vol. 1, No. 1, October 1970.
Handling Hazardous Materials, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Technical Survey, Pub. NASA-SP-5032, Washington,
D. C., 1965.
Hazardous Chemicals Handling and Disposal, Institute of Advanced
Sanitation Research, Noyes Data Corp., New Jersey, 1970.
Industrial Wastes: Their Disposal and Treatment, ed. by Willem
Rudolfs (of American Chemical Society Monograph), Reinhold
Publishing, New York, 1953.
Pollution Abatement Engineering Program for Munition Plant
Modernization, Second Briefing for Senior Scientist Steering
Group (SSSG), U. S. Army Research Office (ARO), September
14-15, 1971, Ammunition Engineering Directorate, Picatinny
Arsenal, 1971.
Properties of Explosives of Military Interest, U. S. Army
Materiel Command, AMCP 706-177, Washington, D. C., 1967.
Safety and Environmental Considerations in Ammunition Disposal,
presented at Armed Services Explosives Safety Board Seminar,
J.R. Roach, ORD04M/BX1, August 31, 1971.
Technical and Administrative Problems of Nitrogen Oxide Control
Faced by MUCOM, R. O. Matthern, U. S.- Army MUCOM, Picatinny
Arsenal, Dover, N. J.
Technical and Administrative Problems of Water Pollution Control
Faced by MUCOM, R. O. Matthern and H. S. Stethers, paper
presented at Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality
Office, September 1971.
Water Pollution Problems Arising from TNT Manufacture, A
Survey. D. H. Rosenblatt, G. E. Lauterbach, and G. T. Davis,
Edgewood Arsenal, Special Pub. EASP 100-94, March 1971.
-26-
-------
SIC 29 - PETROLEUM REFINING AND;RELATED INDUSTRIES
ARTICLES
"A Disposal Well for Spent Sulphuric Acid from Alkylating Iso-
Butylenes, " H. R. Holland (of Imperial Oil Enterprises, Ltd. )
and F. R. Clark (of Calgary Refinery), Proceedings of the Nineteenth
Industrial Waste Conference, 1964, Engineering Bulletin of Purdue
University, pp. 195-199.
"A Technique for Evaluating the Biological Treatability of Industrial
Wastes, " J. C. Lamb, W. C. Westgarth, J. L. Rogers, and A. P.
Vernimmen', presented at the Thirteenth Southern Municipal and
Industrial Waste Conference at Duke University, April 16-17, 1964,
Water Pollution Control Federation Journal, Vol. 36, No. 10,
October 1964.
"Compact Activated-Sludge Treatment of Combined Petrochemical-
Municipal Waste, " G. W. Kumke and R.A. Conway (of Union
Carbide Corp.) and Dr. J. P. Creagh (of South Charleston Waste
Treatment Works), presented at the Twenty-Third Purdue Industrial
Waste Conference, 1968, Water and Wastes Engineering/Industrial,
pp. C-l to C-6.
"Effluent Pretreatment and Biological Effluent Treatment in the
Oil Industry, " H. Fassbender (of BP Benzin und Petroleum
Aktiengesellschaft, Germany), presented to the Industrial Water
and Effluent Group of the Society of Chemical Industry, London,
February 23, 1967, Chemistry and Industry, September 16, 1967,
pp. 1539-1546.
"Environmental Management at a Major Petrochemical Facility,"
R. N. Rickles (of Resource Engineering Associates, Inc.),
Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Industrial Waste Conference 1968,
Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University, pp. 1074-1088.
"How Monsanto Handles its Petrochemical Wastes, " R. D. Sadow
(of Monsanto Chemical Co. ), Wastes Engineering, December 1963,
pp. 640-644.
-27-
-------
"Minimizing Wastes in the Petrochemical industry, " S. K. Mencher
(ofM.W. Kellogg Co.), Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 63,
No. 10, October 1967, p. 80. ?
"Oil Refinery Effluent Treatment in Ponds," T. C. Dorris,
D. Patterson and B. J. Copeland, presented at the Thirty-Fifth
Annual Meeting of the Water Pollution Control Federation in
Toronto, Ontario, October 7-11, 1962, Water Pollution Control
Federation Journal, Vol. 35, No. 7, July 1963, pp. 932-939.
"Petrochemical Wastes Effects on Water, " E. F. Gloyna and
J.F. Malina, Jr., Water and Solid Waste, Ref. No. 1963,
pp. R-262 to R-285.
"Petroleum Processing Wastes, " reviewed by F. Mulik, Water
Pollution Control Federation Journal, 1967 Literature Review,
Vol. 40, No. 6, June 1968, pp. 1179-1180.
"The First Large Scale Industrial Waste Treatment Plant on the
Missouri River, " P.W. Stroud, L. V. Sorg, and J. C. Lamkin
(of American Oil Co.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Industrial
Waste Conference 1963, Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University,
pp. 460-475.
"Waste Treatment at a Large Petrochemical Plant, " R. D. Sadow
(of Monsanto Co. ), presented at the Thirty-Eighth Annual
Conference of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Atlantic
City, New Jersey, October 10-14, 1965, Water Pollution Control
Federation Journal. March 1966, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 428-441.
REPORTS
Disposal of Polymer Solid Wastes by Primary Polymer Producers
and Plastics Fabricators, C.W. Marynowski, Stanford Research
Institute, 1970.
1967 Domestic Refinery Effluent Profile, Committee for Air and
Water Conservation, American Petroleum Institute, Crossley,
S-D Surveys, Inc., September 1968.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act - Oil Pollution Act, U. S.
Department of Interior, 1966.
-28-
-------
Final Report of the Task Force on Usld Oil Disposal, American
Petroleum Institute, Pub. 4036.
Fluid Bed Incineration of Petroleum Refinery Wastes, American
Oil Co., Manden Refinery, Project 12j050 EKT, for the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office Grant WPRD
215-01-68), March 1971.
Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes, Volume IV - Sampling
and Analysis of Waste Water. American Petroleum Institute, 1957.
Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes, Volume VI - Solid Wastes,
American Petroleum Institute, First Edition, 1963.
Oil Versus Other Hazardous Substances, C. H. Thompson
(of the Environmental Protection Agency), presented at the American
Petroleum Institute—Environmental Protection Agency—U.S.
Coast Guard Conference on Oil Pollution, March 23, 1971.
Petrochemical Effluents Treatment Practices - Summary,
Dr. E. F. Gloyna and Dr. D. L. Ford, Engineering-Science, Inc.,
Project 12020, for U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, Pub. PB-192-310, February 1970.
Petroleum Refining Effluent Guidelines for Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs, R. F. Weston,
Environmental Scientists and Engineers, September 1, 1971.
Polymeric Materials for Treatment and Recovery of Petrochemical
Wastes, Gulf South Research Institute, for the Environmental
Protection Agency, Water Quality Office (Grant 12020 DQC),
March 1971.
Report on Air and Water Conservation Expenditures of the
Petroleum Industry in the United States, Crossley, S-D Surveys,
Inc., August 1968.
The Characteristics and Pollutional Problems Associated with
Petrochemical Wastes - Summary Report, Dr. E. F. Gloyna and
Dr. D. L. Ford, Engineering Science, Inc. /Texas, Project 12020,
for the Environmental Protection Agency, February 1970.
-29-
-------
The Control of Solvent Vapor Emissions, J. D. Lauber, New
York State Department of Health, Pub. 69-J42, January 1, 1969.
The Cost of Clean Water, Volume III; Industrial Waste Profile
No. 5 - Petroleum Refining, U.S. Department of Interior, Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, November 1967.
-30-
-------
SIC 30 - RUBBER AND MISCELLANEOUS^PLASTICS PRODUCTS
REPORTS
Rubber Reuse and Solid Waste Management, Part I - Solid Waste
Management in the Fabricated Rubber Products Industry, 1968,
R. J. Pettigrew, F.H. Roninger (of Uniroyal, Inc.), for the
Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.
-31-
-------
SIC 311 - LEATHER TANNING AND ^FINISHING
ARTICLES i
—————— ,
"Disposal of Tannery Wastes, " R. R. Parke|r (of Reid Crowther and
Partners, Ltd., Canada), Proceedings of ihe Twenty-Second
Industrial Waste Conference, 1967, Engineering Bulletin of Purdue
University, pp. 36-43.
"Survey of Waste Management Practices in the Tanning Industry, "
D. J. Eye, Proceedings of the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting,
Tanners' Council of America, October 1968.
"Tannery Waste Treatment, Barrie, Ontario, " M. Yatable (of Gore
& Storrie, Ltd.), Industrial Worker, July/August 1971, pp. IW/14
to IW/16.
"The Application of Biological Processes to the Treatment of Liquid
Tannery Effluent," G. H. Green, Waste Treatment - Proceedings
of the Second Symposium on the Treatment of Wastewaters,
Pergamon Press, 1960, pp. 397-410.
"Treatment of Chrome-Tanning Wastes for Acceptance by an
Activated Sludge Plant," F. J. Wims (of Collis Leather Co.,
Ltd., Canada), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Industrial Waste
Conference. 1963, Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University,
pp. 534-549.
REPORTS
Anaerobic-Aerobic Lagoon Treatment for Vegetable Tanning Wastes.
C. E. Parker, University of Virginia, Project 12120 DIK, for the
U. S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration
(Grant WPD-199-01-67), December 1970.
Effluent Requirements for the Leather Tanning and Finishing
Industry, Stanley Consultants, Inc., September 1971.
-32-
-------
The Cost of Clean Water, Volume III; I Industrial Waste Profile
No. 7 - Leather Tanning and Finishing, U. S. Department of Interior,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Pub. IWP-7,
September 1967.
;&
Treatment of Sole Leather Vegetable Tannery Wastes. Dr. J. D. Eye,
University of Cincinnati, Project 12120, for the U.S. Department of
Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration (Grant WPD-185),
September 1970.
-33-
-------
SIC 33 - PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES
ARTICLES
"Bethlehem Steel's Burns Harbor Wastewater Treatment Plant,"
Water and Sewage Works, December 1966, pp. 468-470.
"Comparative Study of Recovery of Zinc and Nickel by Ion Exchange
Media and Chemical Precipitation, " D. Kantawala and H. D. Tomlinson
(of Washington University, St. Louis), Water and Sewage Works,
Ref. No. 1964, pp. R-280 to R-286.
"Complete Waste Treatment System Designed for New Foundry, "
A. J. Bader (of Caterpillar Tractor Co. ), Plant Engineering,
April 18, 1968, pp. 118-120.
"Deep-Well Disposal of Steel-Mill Wastes, " C. D. Hartman (of
National Steel Corp. ), presented at the Thirty-Ninth Annual
Conference of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Kansas
City, Missouri, September 25-30, 1966, Water Pollution
Control Federation Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1, January 1968,
pp. 95-100.
"Deep-Well Waste Disposal at Midwest Steel, " C. D. Hartman (of
National Steel Corp. ), Iron and Steel Engineer, December 1966,
pp. 118-121.
"Disposal of Metallurgical Wastes, " F. H. Day (of The Anaconda Co. ),
Mining Congress Journal, November 1961, pp. 52-56.
"Fluid Bed Regenerates Hydrochloric Pickle Liquor," Chemical
Engineering, August 29, 1966, pp. 32-33.
"Handling and Treating Petrochemical Plant Wastes: A Case
History," E.S. Shannon (of Dow Bay City Plants), Water and
Sewage Works, Ref. No. 1964, pp. R-292 to R-298.
"Hydrochloric Waste Pickle Liquor Disposal - A New Process,"
F. G. Krikau (of Interlake Steel Corp. ), Iron and Steel Engineer,
January 1969, pp. 71-74.
-34-
-------
"Industrial Waste Control - Mill Scalei " D. Y. Wallace (of the
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. ), Iron! and Steel Engineer, July
1960, pp. 75-77.
"Industrial Waste Treatment - Steel Plants," M. Morgan (of U.S.
Steel Corp. ), Iron and Steel Engineer, July 1960, pp. 67-74.
"Liquor Regeneration Slashes Cost of Steel Pickling," J. A. Buckley,
Chemical Engineering, January 2, 1967, pp. 56-58.
"Metal Finishing Waste Disposal," M. Ceresa and Dr. L. E. Lancy
(of Lancy Laboratories, Inc. ), Metal Finishing, April 1968,
pp. 56-62.
"Polyelectrolytes in Industrial Waste Treatment, " R. B. Schaffer
(of Dow Chemical Co. ), Water and Sewage Works, Ref. No. 1964,
pp. R-300 to R-305.
"Recovery and Production of Alumina from Waste Solutions by
Solvent Extraction, " D. R. George, K. E. Tame, S. R. Crane, and
K. B. Higbie (of the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines)
Journal of Metals, September 1968, pp. 59-63.
"Recycled Water Systems for Steel Mills, " G. A. Bowman (of Dravo-
Doyle Co. ) and R. B. Houston (of Dravo Corp. ), Iron and Steel
Engineer, November 1966, pp. 139-148.
"Solvent Extraction of Phenolic Compounds from Weak Ammonia
Liquor, " A. C. Elliott and A. J. Lafreniere (of The Steel Co. of
Canada, Ltd.), Water and Sewage Works, Ref. No. 1964,
pp. R-325 to R-332.
"Stabilization Lagoons Successfully Treat Steel Mill Wastes, "
D. F. Cairns (of Granite City Steel Company), presented at the
Thirty-Eighth Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, Atlantic City, New Jersey, October 1965, Water
Pollution Control Federation Journal, Vol. 38, No. 10, October
1966, pp. 1645-1955.
"Steel Mill Treats Waste Acids, " Paul Harsha (of Dow Chemical
Co. ), Water and Sewage Works, Ref. No. 1963, pp. R-286 to R-288.
-35-
-------
"Steel Pickling and Pollution, " D. KrofcHak (of KSF Chemical
Processes, Ltd., Canada), WIRE, October 1966, pp. 1603-1608.
"Treatment of Wastes from the Steel Industry, " reviewed by S. E.
Smith, Water Pollution Control Federation Journal, 1967
Literature Review, Vol. 40, No. 6, June 1968, pp. 1173-1174.
"Waste Disposal Well Completion and Maintenance, " W. H. Baker
(of Halli Burton Co.), Water and Sewage Works, Ref. No. 1964,
pp. R-287 to R-291.
"Waste Pickle Liquor Disposal, " G. A. Howell (of U.S. Steel
Corp.), presented at the 1957 Annual Meeting, Central States
Sewage and Industrial Wastes Association, June 26-28, 1957,
Sewage and Industrial Wastes, November 1957, pp. 1278-1281.
"Waste Treatment and Metal Recovery in Copper and Copper
Alloy Pickling Plant, " Dr. L. E. Lancy and R. Pinner (of Lancy
Laboratories, Inc.), Metallurgia, March 1966, pp. 119-122.
"Wire Mill Liquid Waste Disposal, " J. W. DePoy (of EF&I Steel
Corp.), WIRE. October 1966, pp. 1614-1619.
REPORTS
Air Pollution Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry, J. I.
Schueneman, M. D. High and W. E. Bye, U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Environ-
mental Health Service Series No. 999.
C-E Products for the Primary Metals Industries, C-E Industrial
Boiler Operations, SP-1063 0507008.
Industry Profile Study on Blast Furnace and Basic Steel Products,
NUS Corp., for the Environmental Protection Agency, June 1971.
Limestone Treatment of Rinse Waters from Hydrochloric Acid
Pickling of Steel, Armco Steel Corp., Project 12010 DUL., for the
Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office, February
1971.
-36-
-------
The Cost of Clean Water, Volume III:
Industrial Waste Profile
No. 1 - Blast Furnaces and Steel Mill.s, U. S. Department of
Interior, Federal Water Pollution Coritrol Administration,
Pub. IWP-1. Septermber 1967.
Treatment of Waste Water-- Waste Oil Mixture^. Armco Steel
Corp., Project 12010 EXV, for the U.S. Department of Interior,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (Grant WPRD-
169-01-68), May 1970.
-37-
-------
SIC 333 - PRIMARY SMELTING AND REFINING QF NONFERROUS METALS
ARTICLES
"Neutralization of Acid Mine Drainage, " D. W. Hill. Water Pollution
Control Federation Journal, Vol. 41, No. 10, October 1969,
pp. 1702-1715.
"Occurrence of Beryllium as a Trace Element in Environmental
Materials, " W. R. Meehan and L. E. Smythe (of the Australian
Atomic Energy Commission), Environmental Science and Technology,
Vol. 1, No. 10, October 1967, pp. 839-844.
REPORTS
Industrial Waste Survey of the Aluminum Industry, Gurham &
Associates, Inc., for the Environmental Protection Agency,
August 1971.
Mineral Industry Solid Wastes and Our Environment, U. S.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Staff Report.
Other Metals, Socorro, New Mexico Office of Mineral Resources,
Field Office Report, 1969.
-38-
-------
SIC 347 - COATING. ENGRAVING. AN6 ALLIED SERVICES
ARTICLES
"Air Force Industrial Waste Treatment and Disposal, " Lt. Col. F. A.
Sanders (of the U. S. Air Force, Regional Civil Engineer Office),
Proceedings of the Fifteenth Industrial Waste Conference, 1960,
Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University, pp. 302-307.
"Biological Treatability of Various Air Force Industrial Wastes, "
Lt. J.A. Mueller and Col. W.W. Melvin, Jr. (of the U.S. Air
Force, Regional Environmental Health Laboratory), Proceedings
of the Twenty-Third Industrial Waste Conference, 1968, Engineering
Bulletin of Purdue University, pp. 398-427.
"Electrolysis Speeds Up Waste Treatment," Environmental Science
and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 3, March 1970, p. 201.
"General Problems of the Metal Plating Industry, " reviewed by
W.N. Grune, Water Pollution Control Federation Journal, 1967
Literature Review. Vol. 40, No. 6, June 1968, pp. 1180-1198.
"Industrial Waste Treatment at Trans World Airlines Overhaul
Base, " G. C. Higgins (of Burns and McDonnell Engineering Co. ),
Proceedings of the Industrial Waste Conference. Engineering
Bulletin of Purdue University, pp. 194-202.
"Metal Finishing Waste Disposal - Part 1, " M. Ceresa and Dr. L. E.
Lancy (of Lancy Laboratories, Inc. ), Metal Finishing, Vol. 66,
No. 4, April, pp. 56-62.
"Metal Finishing Waste Disposal - Part 2," M. Ceresa and
Dr. L. E. Lancy (of Lancy Laboratories, Inc. ), Metal Finishing,
Vol. 66, No. 5, May, pp. 60-65.
"Metal Finishing Waste Disposal - Part 3," M. Ceresa and
Dr. L. E. Lancy (of Lancy Laboratories, Inc. ), Metal Finishing,
Vol. 66, No. 6, June, pp. 112-118.
"Metals Focus Shifts to Cadmium," Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 5, No. 9, September 1971, pp. 754-755.
-39-
-------
"Nuclear Garbage Disposal: A Buried Problem" Thomas O'Toole,
The Washington Post, Sunday, September 19, 1971, p. D5.
"Operating Costs of Waste Treatment in General Motors, " R. J. Brink
(of Buick Motor Division, General Motors Corp. ), Proceedings of
the Nineteenth Industrial Waste Conference^ 1964, Engineering
Bulletin of Purdue University, pp. 12-144.
"Plating Waste - Continuous or Batch Treatment, " J. S. Delos
(of General Motors Corp. ), Proceedings of the Industrial Waste.
Conference, Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University, pp. 138-144.
"Slug of Chromic Acid Passes Through a Municipal Treatment Plant, "
J. N. English, E. F. Barth, B. V. Salotto, and M. B. Ettinger (of Taft
Sanitary Engineering Center), Proceedings of the Nineteenth
Industrial Waste Conference, 1964, Engineering Bulletin of
Purdue University, pp. 493-507.
"The Lancy Integrated System for Treatment of Cyanide and
Chromium Wastes in Electroplating Plants, " N. Schreur (of
Shakespeare Co. ), Proceedings of the Industrial Waste Conference.
Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University, pp. 310-316.
"Treatment of Photographic Laboratory Wastes at Norton Air Force
Base, California," P. V. Hehnessy, D. G. Rosenberg, andR.G.
Zehnpfennig (of Montgomery Research, Inc. ), Proceedings of the
Industrial Waste Conference, Engineering Bulletin of Purdue
University, pp. 740-751.
"Water Pollutant or Reusable Resource?" Environmental Science
and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 5, May 1970, pp. 380-382.
REPORTS
A State-of-the-Art Review of Metal Finishing Waste Treatment,
Battelle Memorial Institute, Project 12010 EIE 11/68, for the
Environmental Protection Agency (Grant WPRD 201-01-68),
November 1968.
-40-
-------
Recovery of Metals from Electroplating Wastes by the Waste-
Plus-Waste Method, L. C. George and A. A. Cochran, Technical
Progress Report 27, August 1970.
Symposium on the Surface Treatment ol Metals, Twenty-Second
Annual Convention of.the American Society for Metals, October
21-25, 1940, Cleveland, Ohio, c. 1941.
The Electrolytic and Chemical Polishing of Metals in Research
and Industry, Dr. W. J. McGitecart, Pergamon Press, 1959.
ABSTRACTS
Complete Study of A. F. Geneated Industrial Wastes. G. Reid
(of the University of Oklahoma Research Institute), April 1, 1963
to May 31, 1964.
BOOKS
Theories and Practices of Industrial Waste Treatment, N. L. Nemeron,
Addison Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.
-41-
-------
RADIOACTIVE WASTES - U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
ARTICLES
"Development of a Process for Incorporation of Radioactive Waste
Solutions and Slurries in Emulsified Asphalt, " H. W. Godbee,
J.H. Goode, andR.E. Blanco (of the Chemical Technology Division,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory), Environmental Science and Tech-
nology, Vol. 2, No. 11, November 1968, pp. 1034-1040.
"Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes from Pilot Plants, "
M.W. Boback, J. O. Davis, K.N. Ross, and J. B. Stevenson (of
National Lead Co. of Ohio), Chemical Engineering Progress. Vol. 67,
No. 4, April 1971, pp. 81-86.
"Disposing of Nuclear Plant Solid Wastes, " P. T. Tuite (of Hittman
Nuclear and Development Corp. ), Power, November 1970, reprint.
"Ground Rules Laid for Burying Radioactive Wastes, " G. W. Siebert
(of the Western Electric Engineering Research Center), Journal of
Environmental Health, Vol. 32, No. 6, May/June 1970, pp. 656-662.
"Nuclear Power and the Environment - A Perspective, " remarks by
Dr. G. T. Seaborg, Chairman, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission,
presented at a Conference on Nuclear Power, Burlington, Virginia,
September 11, 1969.
"Solid Waste Disposal," (A Report on Solid Waste Disposal Operation
Carried Out by the European Nuclear Energy in the Atlantic), Nuclear
Engineering, October 1968, pp. 845-847.
"Storage of Radioactive Materials" and "Disposal of Radioactive
Materials," DSAM 4145.8, AR 700-64, NAVSUPPUB 5012, AFM
67-8, MCO P4400. 105.
"The Nuclear Industry and Air Pollution, " A. Rivera-Cordero (of
Drexel University), Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 4,
No. 5, May 1970, pp. 392-395.
"Thermal Pollution in Uncharted Wastes, " Environmental Science
and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 12, December 1971.
-42-
-------
REPORTS
A Survey of Alpha Waste Generation arid Disposal as Solids in the
U. S. Nuclear Fuel Industry, Pub. BNWL-B-34, December 1970.
i
A Survey of Spent Fuel Shipments in the 1970's, A. E. Aikens, Jr.
(of the Division of Materials Licensing^ Irradiated Fuels Branch,
Chief), CAPINTEC, Inc., April 26, 1967.
A Survey of Spent Fuel Shipments in the 1970's, A. E. Aikens, Jr.,
PRS Systems, Inc., January 1970.
Current Status and Future Technical and Economic Potential of
Light Water Reactors, Wash-1082.
Data for Preliminary Demonstration Phase of the 'Environmental
Quality Information and Planning System' (EQUIPS), Pub. BNWL-B-
141, December 1971.
Design and Analysis, Midwest Fuel Recovery Plant, General
Electric Co., for the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Docket 50
(in U. S. AEC Document Room).
Environmental Monitoring and Disposal of Radioactive Wastes from
U.S. Naval Nuclear-Powered Ships and Their Support Facilities.
M. E. Miles, J. J. Mangeno, and R. D. Burke, Naval Ship Systems
Command, Nuclear Power Directorate, Report NT-71-1, February 1971.
Environmental Statement Radioactive Waste Repository, Lyons,
Kansas, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, National Technical
Information Service, June 1971.
Land Burial of Solid Radioactive Wastes: A Study of Commercial
Operations and Facilities, Wash-1143.
Phosphate Glass Solidification Performance During Final Radioactive
Tests in Waste Solidification Engineering Prototypes (WSEP),
J. L. McElroy et al., Pub. BNWL 1541, January 1971.
Pollution Control in the Atomic Energy Industry, Part II - Solidification
of Highly Radioactive Liquid Wastes - The Status of Technology in the
U. S. A., K. J. Schneider (of the Pacific Northwest Laboratory),
American Institute of Chemical Engineers, for the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission, 1969.
-43-
-------
Pollution Control In the Atomic Energy Industry, Part III -
Disposal of Liquid Radioactive Wastes to) Coastal Waters by
the Atomic Energy Industry - A Previewjof the Future of
Pollution Control, W. L. Templeton (of the Pacific Northwest
Laboratory), American Institute of Cheniical Engineers, for the
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1969.
Pollution Control in the Atomic Energy Industry, Part IV -
Treatment of Radioactive Wastes by Ion Exhange, B. W. Mercer
(of the Pacific Northwest Laboratory), American Institute of
Chemical Engineers, for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1969.
Pollution Control in the Atomic Energy Industry, Part I - The
Sorption of Radioactive Wastes on Soil, R. C. Routson (of the
Pacific Northwest Laboratory), American Institute of Chemical
Engineers, for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1969.
Pot Solidification Performance During Final Radioactive Tests
in WSEP, J. L. McElroy et al., BNWL 1628, January 1972.
Proposal for a Study of Radioactive Waste Management Practices,
Hittman Associates, Inc., Pub. HA-773P, September 22, 1971.
Radioactivity from Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Power Plants,
J. E. Martin et al., U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, United
Nations Headquarters, SM-146/19, August 10, 1970.
Radiological Surveillance Studies at a Boiling Water Nuclear
Power Reactor, B. Kahn et al., Radiological Engineering
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Pub. PB-191-091, BRH/DER 70-1,
March 1970.
Report on the May 11, 1969, Fire at the Rocky Flats Plant Near
Boulder, Colorado, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Pub. M-257,
November 18, 1969.
Report on the Nuclear Industry - 1970, U. S. Atomic Energy
Commission, for Atomic Industrial Forum's Annual Conference,
Washington, B.C., November 18, 1970.
Role of Nuclear Power in the United States, T. J. Thompson, U. S.
Atomic Energy Commission, United Nations Headquarters, IAEA-
SM-146/4, August 10. 1970.
-44-
-------
Safety Series No. 1, Notes on Cert4in Aspects of the Regulations,
International Atomic Energy Agency;, Vienna, 1961.
Siting of Fuel Reprocessing Plants ind Waste Management Facilities,
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
July 1970.
Spray Solidification Performance During Final Radioactive Test
in WSEP, W. R. Bond et al., BNWL 1583, June 1971.
Statement on the Sources of Radioactive Material in Effluents
from Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors and State of
Technology of Waste Treatment Equipment to Minimize Releases,
H.R. Denton, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, January 10, 1972.
Statistical Data on the Uranium Industry, U. S. Atomic Energy
Commission, Grand Junction Office, January 1, 1971.
Thermal Pollution - 1968 (Part 3, Hearings Before the Subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public
Works), U. S. Senate, Ninetieth Congress, Second Session,
Appendix 1, U.S. Government Printing Office, Pub. 93-370, 1968.
U. S. A. Standard Proposed Definition of Radioactive Waste
Categories, American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
June 7, 1967.
U. S. Regulations for the Control of Release of Radioactivity to
the Environment in Effluents for Nuclear Facilities, L. Rogers,
C. C. Gramertsfelder, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission,
United Nations Headquarters, IAEA-SM-146/8, August 10, 1970.
BOOKS
Management of Nuclear Materials, ed. by R. F. Lumb (of Western
New York Nuclear Research Center), D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1960.
Reactor Handbook, Volume IV, Engineering, ed. by S. Me Lain and
J. H. Martens (of Argonne National Laboratory), Interscience
Publishers, 1964.
-45-
-------
WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ARTICLES
"DOD Hazardous Materials Transported by Railroad 1968-1969
(1st Quarter), " U.S. Department of Defense, 1969.
"Instructions Regarding Disposal of Ammunition, Explosives
and Chemicals by Dumping at Sea, " Chief of Naval Operations,
OPNAVINST 8026. 1, April 12, 1963.
REPORTS
An Introduction to the Defense Supply Agency, Defense Supply
Agency, January 1971.
Classes of Surplus Personal Property, Defense Supply Agency,
August 1970.
Phase I Final Report on Naval Ship Waste Disposal Study,
Booz, Allen Applied Research, Inc., for the U. S. Coast Guard,
January 20, 1969.
-46-
-------
1
2. DISPOSAL PRACTICES AND TECHNIQUES, AND TYPES
OF POLLUTION
Twenty-three major sections were selected within this category.
For the most part, these sections represent standard disposal practices
and/or techniques (e.g., fluidized-bed, ion exchange), and specific
types of pollution (e. g. , air pollution, solid waste). In addition,
material considered essential to the study of disposal and pollution "
were included in this category (e.g., math modeling and cost techniques,
Federal regulations).
As in Category 1, all documents are listed alphabetically by
title according to the type of material: article, magazine, report, and
book.
-47-
-------
AIR POLLUTION
ARTICLES
"Air," Pollution Equipment News, April 1969.
"Air Pollution and the Automotive Industry, " Dr. F. W. Bowditch
(of Automobile Manufacturers Association), Professional Engineer,
February 1969, pp. 36-39.
"Air Pollution Control Activities Are Noted for 23 Industry Areas, "
A. Schildhammer, Air Engineering, June 1967, pp. 28-35.
"Air Pollution Control Meteorological Service - Description of
Service, " pp. 4-6.
"Controlling the Oxides of Sulfur, " R. P. Hangebrauck, P. W.
Spaite (of the National Center for Air Pollution Control), Air
Pollution Control Association Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1,
January 1968, pp. 5-8.
"Detroit Pushes Search for Answer to Problem of Pollution by
Autos. " C. B. Camp (of The Wall Street Journal, Staff Reporter),
The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, March 31, 1970.
"Diseased Estuaries. " The New Republic, March 1, 1969, p. 7.
"Does the Smaller City Have a Future?" Changing Times, The
Kiplinger Magazine, June 1970, pp. 25-28.
"Evaporative Coolers in Air Pollution Control Systems, "
S. A. Reigel and C. D. Doyle (of Standard Havens Systems, Inc. ),
Iron and Steel Engineer, January 1971, pp. 81-83.
"industry Action to Combat Pollution, " J. J. Hanks and H. D. Kube,
Harvard Business Review, September/October 1966, pp. 49-52.
"Nation's Cost/Benefit Ratio Weighs Heavily on Auto Emissions, "
P. S. Myers (of the Society of American Engineers, 1969 President),
Society of American Engineers Journal, Vol. 78, No. 3, March 1970,
pp. 20-27.
-48-
-------
"News Release on Besser-Wasteco Corp., " Porter Advertising
Agency, Inc.
"Noise, " Pollution Equipment News, ^February 1969.
"Ozone and Electric Air Cleaners, " -F. J. Versagi, Air Conditioning,
Heating and Refrigeration News, April 1970, pp. 3-11.
"Pollution, " B. B. Berger (of the University of Massachusetts,
Director of the Water Resources Research Center), The Americana
Annual, 1967, pp. 551-553.
"Priorities in Pollution: The SST and the Smogless Car, " J. Stein
(Washington Free Lance), The Washington Monthly, Vol. 1, No. 1,
February 1969, pp. 34-43.
"Process Chemistry and Kinetics," Air Engineering, April 1968,
pp. 23-27.
"Reactivity of Selected Limestones and Dolomites with Sulfur
Dioxide, "R. E. Harrington, R. H. Borgwardt, and A. E. Potter
(of the National Center for Air Pollution Control), American
Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, March/April 1968,
pp. 152-158.
"Sulfur Oxides Must Be Controlled, " J. T. Middleton (of the National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Commissioner), Environ-
mental Science and Technology, Vol. 4, February 1970, p. 89.
"Technical Information Resources in the Air Pollution Field, "
V. C. Searle (of the Consumer Protection and Environmental
Health Service), Air Pollution Control Association Journal,
Vol. 19, No. 3, March 1969, pp. 137-141.
"The Elusive Polluter, " J. Bockel, Science News, Vol. 96,
November 22, 1969, pp. 480-481.
"The Environment: ACS Report is Practical Anti-Pollution Guide, "
P. M. Boffey, Science, Vol. 165, pp. 1104-1107.
"The Massive Effort of the Motor Industry, The Petroleum Industry,
and Government to Control Automobile Emissions, " C. Cady (of
the Highway User, Managing Editor), Highway User, November 1967,
pp. 14-17.
-49-
-------
"Thermal Pollution and Aquatic Life, " J.. R. Clark, Scientific
American. Vol. 220, No. 3, March 1969J pp. 19-27.
"Vehicle Traverse Profiles, " Environmental Measurements, Inc.
Air Note, January 1970.
"Waste," Pollution Equipment News, December 1969.
s
"Waste," Pollution Equipment News, October 1969.
"Who's Kidding Who?" Motor Trend, June 1970,'pp. 22-24.
MAGAZINES
Science and Technology, "Pollution Control" Issue, International
Communications, Inc., No. 90, June 1969.
REPORTS
A Primer on Air Pollution, Mobil Oil Corporation, Second Edition,
1970.
A Progress Report on Inter-Industry Emission Control, Inter-
Industry Emission Control.
A Report on Commonwealth Edison Company's Air Pollution Control
Program to the City of Chicago's Department of Air Pollution Control,
Commonwealth Edison Co., January 17, 1967.
Air Pollution (A Survey of Existing Legislation), World Health
Organization, 1963.
Air Pollution Aspects of Aeroallergens (Pollens), Dr. H. Finkelstein,
Litton Systems, Inc. , for the U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Clearing-
house for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Pub. PB-188-076,
September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Aldehydes, Dr. Q. R. Stahl, Litton Systems,
Inc. , for the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Air Pollution Control Administration, National Technical
Information Service, Pub. PB-188-081, September 1969.
-50-
-------
Air Pollution Aspects of Ammonia, S.; Miner, Litton Systems, Inc. ,
for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National
Air Pollution Control Administration,; National Technical Information
Service, Pub. PB-188-082, September 1969.
'i
>•
Air Pollution Aspects of Arsenic and tts Compounds, R. J. Sullivan,
Litton Systems, Inc. , for the U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, National
Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-188-071, September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Asbestos. R. J. Sullivan and Y. C.
Athanassiadis, Litton Systems, Inc., for the U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, National Technical Information Service,
Pub. PB-188-080, September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Barium and Its Compounds, S. Miner,
Litton Systems, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, National
Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-188-083, September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Beryllium and Its Compounds, N. L. Durocher,
Litton Systems, Inc. , for the U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, National
Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-188-078, September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Biological Aerosols (Microorganisms),
Dr. H. Finkelstein, Litton Systems, Inc., for the U. S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, National Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-188-
084, September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Boron and Its Compounds, N. L. Durocher,
Litton Systems, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, National
Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-188-085, September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Cadmium and Its Compounds, Y. C.
Athanassiadis, Litton Systems, Inc., for the U. S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, National Technical Information Service,
Pub. PB-188-086, September 1969.
-51-
-------
Air Pollution Aspects of Chlorine Gas, lir. Q. R. Stahl, Litton
Systems, Inc., for the U.S. Department,of Health, Education, and
Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, National
Technical Information Service, Pub. PB^lQB-OSl, September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Chromium and Its Compounds, R. J.
Sullivan, Litton Systems, Inc. , for the U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration,
National Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-188-075,
September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Ethylene. Dr. Q. R. Stahl, Litton Systems,
Inc., for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Air Pollution Control Administration, National Technical
Information Service, Pub. PB-188-069, September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Hydrochloric Acid, Dr. Q. R. Stahl,
Litton Systems, Inc., for the U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, National
Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-188-067, September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Hydrogen Sulfide, S. Miner, Litton Systems,
Inc., for the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Air Pollution Control Administration, National Technical
Information Service, Pub. PB-188-068, September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Iron and Its Compounds, R. J. Sullivan,
Litton Systems, Inc., for the U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, National
Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-188-088, September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Manganese and Its Compounds, A. J.
Sullivan, Litton Systems, Inc. , for the U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration,
National Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-188-079,
September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Nickel and Its Compounds, R. J. Sullivan,
Litton Systems, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, National
Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-188-070, September 1969.
-52-
-------
Air Pollution Aspects of Odorous Cojnpounds, R. J. Sullivan,
Litton Systems, Inc. , for the U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, National Air Pollution tontrol Administration, National
Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-188-089, September 1969.
1
Air Pollution Aspects of Organic Carcinogens, Dr. D. A. Olsen and
J. L. Haynes, Litton Systems, Inc., for the U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, National Technical Information Service,
Pub. PB-188-090, September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Pesticides, Litton Systems, Inc., for the
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Air
Pollution Control Administration, National Technical Information
Service, Pub. PB-188-091, September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Phosphorus and Its Compounds, Y. C.
Athanassiadis, Litton Systems, Inc., for the U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, National Technical Information Service,
Pub. PB-188-073, September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Radioactive Substances, S. Miner, Litton
Systems, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, National
Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-188-092, September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Selenium and Its Compounds, Dr. Q. R. Stahl,
Litton Systems, Inc. , for the U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, National
Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-188-077, September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Vanadium and Its Compounds, Y. C.
Athanassiadis, Litton Systems, Inc., for the U. S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, National Technical Information Service,
Pub. PB-188-093, September 1969.
Air Pollution Aspects of Zinc and Its Compounds, Y. C. Athanassiadis,
Litton Systems, Inc., for the U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, National
Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-188-072, September 1969.
-53-
-------
Air Pollution Injury to Vegetation, I. J. Hindawi, for the U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, National Air Pollution Control Administration,
Pub. AP-71, 1970.
Air Pollution Literature List, The Engineering Index, 1966.
Air Pollution Literature List, The Engineering Index, 1967.
Air Pollution Literature List, The Engineering Index, 1968.
Air Quality Criteria for Sulfur Oxides, U. S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Pub. AP-50, January 1969.
Air Quality Criteria for Photochemical Oxidants, U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Pub. AP-63, March 1970.
Analysis and Modeling of Air Pollution Measurements,
A. Eschenroeder and J. R. Martinez, General Research Corp.
Analysis of Alternative Solutions to the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution
Problem Study Design Phase, Booz, Allen Applied Research, Inc. ,
for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, November 15, 1970.
Analysis of Alternative Solutions to the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution
Problem Study Design Phase, Booz, Allen Applied Research, Inc.,
for the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, January 15, 1971.
Atmospheric Diffusion of Beryllium (Project ADOBE), Major G. L.
Tucker, H. E. Malone, Captain R. W. Smith, U.S. Air Force,
Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory, Pub. AFRPL-TR-70-65,
Vol. I, July 1971.
Atmospheric Pollutants. World Health Organization, Pub. 271, 1964.
Atomization and Acceleration of Liquid in a Venturi Scrubber, A. J.
Engels and S. Calvert, Pennsylvania State University, for the U. S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service
(Special Fellowship Grant No. F3-AP-35-097).
-54-
-------
Bulletin of Air Pollution Training Cojirses, July 1970 through
June 1971, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Office of Manpower Development, July 1970.
Bulletin - Project 70; Clean Air, Standard Oil Company of
California, Pub. Vol. XLVII, No. 2, Spring 1970.
Clean Air Research and Inter-Industry Emission Control,
Inter-Industry Emission Control Program.
Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxide, and
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Mobile Sources, U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Pub. AP-66, March 1970.
Control Techniques for Sulfur Oxide Air Pollutants, U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Pub. AP-52, January 1969.
Controlling Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From Coal Burning by the Use
of Additives, G. W. Land (of Republic Coal and Coke Co.), E. W. Linna
(of the Chicago Department of Air Pollution Control), and W. T. Earley
(of the Chicago Department of Public Works), for the City of Chicago
Department of Air Pollution Control, Air Pollution Control Association,
Pub. 69-143.
Diffusion Forces and Participate Scrubber Efficiencies, L. E. Sparks
and M. J. Pilat, University of Washington, for the U. S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National
Air Pollution Control Administration (Training Grant AP-29),
Pub. 69-82.
Economic Factors in Recovery of Sulfur Dioxide from Power Plant
Stack Gas, A. V. Slack, G. G. McGlamery, and H. L. Falkenberry
(of the Tennessee Valley Authority), presented at the Sixty-Second
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association in New York,
New York, June 22-26, 1969, Pub. 69-142, 1969.
Engelhard PTX Exhaust Purifiers Bulletins, Exhaust Controls, Inc. ,
Pub. EM-6366, Rev 4/71, Pub. EM-8958, Pub. EM-8778, 1968-1971.
-55-
-------
Exciting New Pollution Control Systemd from Besser-Wasteco,
Besser-Wasteco Corp.
Final Report on Phase I Atmospheric RJeaction Studies in the Los
Angeles Basin, Volume I, Scott Research Laboratories, Inc. ,
Project 1116, for the U. S. Department,of Health, Education, and
Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, July 28, 1969.
Forecasting Air Pollution Potential, Advisory Service of the Weather
Bureau, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
Health Service, 1968.
Governmental Organization for an Air Resource Management and
Control System in the Penjerdel Region - A Research Inquiry in
Environmental Control Administration for the Regional Conference
of Elected Officials. C. P. Cella, Jr. , R. P. Lane, B. H. Renshaw, III,
R. Pfannenstiel, M. A. Satinsky, and M. W. Verano (of the FELS
Institute of Local and State Government, University of Pennsylvania),
F. P. Grad (of the Columbia University Law School), Dr. R. J. Hickey
and D. C. Wagner (of the University of Pennsylvania), Dr. A. Teller and
Dr. J. R. Norsworthy (of Temple University), Government Studies
Center, 1968.
K-B Dust and Fume Control Systems, The Kirk and Blum Manufacturing
Co., Catalog 5712.
National Air Pollution Control Administration Alkali Scrubbing Test
Facility Proposal, Bechtel Corp. , Pub. 6955.
National Inventory of Sources and Emissions Cadmium, Nickel, and
Asbestos, W. E. Davis & Associates, for the U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, National Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-192-
252, February 1970.
Operating Experience with Wet-Dolomite Scrubbing, J. F. McLaughlin
(of the Union Electric Co.) and J. Jonakin (of Combustion Engineering,
Inc. ) for the Air Pollution Control Association, Pub. 69-139, 1969.
Operating Plan - Fiscal Years 1969 and 1970 - Of the National Air
Pollution Control Administration, U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service,
CPEHS Tactical Plan Series, February 1969.
-56-
-------
Partlculate and Total Gaseous Hydrobarbon Emissions From a
Gas-Heated Veneer Dryer, R. T. Shlgehara (of the Institute for
Air Pollution Training) and Dr. R. W. Boubel (of the Oregon State
University), for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Pub. 69-163.
Present Applications of Mechanical Collectors to Boilers,
J. L. Burdock, UOP Air Correction Division, 1969.
Proceedings Digest, Sixty-Second Annual Meeting, Air Pollution
Control Association, New York, New York, June 22-26, 1969,
Air Pollution Control Association, 1969.
c
Proctor TRAPS System, Proctor and Schwartz, Inc.,
Bulletin 533 - 1/71, 1971.
Recognition of Air Pollution Injury to Vegetation: A Pictorial Atlas,
J. S. Jacobson (of Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research) and
A. C. Hill (of the University of Utah), for the Air Pollution Control
Association, Agricultural Committee, Pub. 1, TR-7, 1970.
Report for Consultation on the Metropolitan Cincinnati Interstate Air
Quality Control Region, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, January 1969.
Report to United States Rubber Company on Air Pollution at
Kankakee Unit - Joliet Arsenal, Foster D. Snell, Inc. , March 20, 1953.
Scrubbing Coal Dryer Exhaust Gases, F. Ekman, National Dust
Collector Corp., Pub. 69-85.
Some Aspects of Air Pollution: Odors, Visibility, and Art,
B. W. Peckham, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service, National Air Pollution Control Administration.
Storage and Retrieval of Air Quality Data. (SAROAD) System Descrip-
tion and Data Coding Manual, D. H. Fair, G. B. Morgan, and C. E.
Zimmer, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Air Quality and
Emission Data Program, Pub. APTD 68-8, August 1968.
-57-
-------
Studies on the Removal of Sulphur Dioxide From Hot Flue Gases as
a Measure to Prevent Air Pollution. IV: Recovery of Flue Gas
Sulphur as Ammonium Phosphate, R. kiyoura, M. Munidasa,
H. Hayashi, and C. Nakamoto, Tokyo Institute of Technology (Japan),
for the Air Pollution Control Association, Pub. 69-140, 1969.
Sulfur Oxide Removal From Power Plaint Stack Gas (Use of Lime-
stone in WetrScrubbing Process), Tennessee Valley Authority,
for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Conceptual Design
and Cost Study Series, Study No. 2. 1969.
The Dry-Limestone Process for Sulfur Dioxide Control: A Field
Study of the Role of Overburning, R. H. Borgwardt and T. A.
Kittleman, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service, Division of Process Control Engineering,
Pub. 69-141.
The Effect of Common Variables on Cyclone Performance, J. W.
Schindeler, Air Pollution Control Association, Pub. 69-162.
The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research
Fiscal Year 1970. U. S. Department of Commerce, Office of Federal
Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research,
1969.
The Mountain Iron Diffusion Program: Phase I South Vandenburg:
Volume I, W. T. Hinds and P. W. Nickola (of Battelle Memorial
Laboratory), National Technical Information Service, Pub. AD-721-
858, AFWTR-TR-67-1, BNWL-572, Vol. 1, UC-53, November 1967.
The Philosophy of Air Pollution Control.
Your Car and Clean Air, Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc.
ABSTRACTS
Air Pollution Abstracts, Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Programs, Vol. 2, No. 6, Pub. 5503-0017, June 1971.
National Air Pollution Control Administration Abstract Bulletin, Air
Pollution Technical Information Center, Office of Technical Information
and Publications, Vol. 1, No. 8, Abstracts 1779-2285.
-58-
-------
National Air Pollution Control Administration Abstract Bulletin,
Air Pollution Technical Information (tenter, Office of Technical
Information and Publications, Vol. 1, No. 9, Supplement 1,
Abstracts 3565-4548.
National Air Pollution Control Administration Abstract Bulletin,
Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Office of Technical
Information and Publications, Vol. 1, No. 9, Supplement 2,
Abstracts 4549-4917.
National Air Pollution Control Administration Abstract Bulletin,
Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Office of Technical
Information and Publications, Vol. 1, No. 9, Supplement 3,
Abstracts 4918-6272.
National Air Pollution Control Administration Abstract Bulletin,
Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Office of Technical
Information and Publications, Vol. 1, No. 9, Supplement 4,
Abstracts 6273-7327.
-59-
-------
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
ARTICLES
"Disposal Effects of Citrus By-Produces Wastes, " R. G. Ludwig
and R. V. Stone, Water and Sewage Works, November 1962,
pp. 410-415.
REPORTS
Conversion of Organic Solid Wastes Into Yeast . . . An Economic
Evaluation, F. H. Meller, Ionics, Inc., for the U. S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, 1969.
-60-
-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ARTICLES
"Proposed Rule Making - Permits fdr Discharges or Deposits
Into Navigable Waters, " U.S. Department of Defense, Army
Corps of Engineers, Pub. 33 CFR Part 209, Federal Register.
Vol. 36, No. 14, Thursday, January 21, 1971.
REPORTS
Errata/Permits for Work and Structures In, and For, Discharges
or Deposits Into Navigable Waters, U. S. Department of Defense,
Army Corps of Engineers, 1971 Preliminary Edition, 1971.
Permits for Work and Structures In, and For, Discharges or
Deposits Into Navigable Waters, U. S. Department of Defense,
Army Corps of Engineers, 1971 Preliminary Edition, 1971.
-61-
-------
DEEP WELL
ARTICLES
*
"Deep-Well Disposal of Industrial Wastes, " D. L. Warner
(of the Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center), Chemical
Engineering, January 4, 1965, pp. 73-78.
"Deep-Well Disposal of Problem Wastes, " Factory, Vol. 126,
No. 4, April 1968, pp. 148-150.
"Deep-Well Injection of Liquid Waste, " Review and Evaluation,
Pub. GPO 820-193-4, pp. 1-43.
"Subsurface Disposal of Industrial Wastes in the United States, "
E. C. Donaldson, for the U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau
of Mines, pp. 1-33.
REPORTS
Waste Disposal in Deep Wells, National Industrial Pollution
Control Council (NIPCC), Sub-Council Report, February 1971.
-62-
-------
ECONOMIC DATA
REPORTS
A Study of Pollution Control PracticeSjin Manufacturing Industries,
Part 1: Water Pollution Control, Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. ,
Pub. 71-1-11, June 1971.
A Study of Pollution Control Practices in Manufacturing Industries,
Part 2: Air Pollution Control, Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. ,
Pub. 71-1-11, June 1971.
A Study of Pollution Control Practices in Manufacturing Industries,
Part 3: Solid Waste Disposal, Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. ,
Pub. 71-1-11, June 1971.
Bulletin 26: Economics of Air and Water Pollution, W. R. Walker
Water Resources Research Center, for the U. S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, National Technical Information
Service, Pub. PB-195-424, 1969.
Dun's Market Identifiers, Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 1969.
Dun's Market Identifiers, Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 1971.
Economic Aspects of Ocean Activities, Volume III: Economic
Aspects of Solid Waste Disposal at Sea, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, National Technical Information Service,
Pub. PB-195-225, September 1970.
Multi-Client Study: The Industrial Market for Pollution Products,
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
Pollution Control - Putting It Back Together Becomes An Industry,
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., March 1971.
-63-
-------
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
ARTICLES
"Certain Bulk Dangerous Cargoes on Uhmanned Tank Barges, "
U. S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, Federal
Register. Vol. 35, No. 38, Part II, Wednesday, February 25,
1970.
REPORTS
A Bill to Amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
Senator Muskie, 92nd Congress, 1st Session, Pub. 92-414,
(Calendar, No. 411. S. 2770), October 28, 1971
Code of Federal Regulations - Title 49-Transportation Parts 0-190,
U. S. Department of Transportation, General Services Administration,
Office of the Federal Register, January 1, 1968.
Federal Hazardous Substances Act, U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Food and Drug Administration, June 1967.
H. R. 4148 - An Act to Amend the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as Amended, and for Other Purposes, 91st Congress,
1st Session, April 18, 1969.
Report of the Committee on Public Works United States Senate
Together with Supplemental Views to Accompany S. 2770,
92nd Congress, 1st Session, October 28, 1971.
Report of the Committee on Public Works, United States Senate to
Accompany S. 3201 - Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendment of 1968,
90th Congress, 2nd Session, Pub. 1447, (Calendar No. 1427),
July 22, 1968.
Rules of the Texas Water Quality Board, Texas Water Quality
Board, November 28, 1967.
S. 7 - A Bill to Amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
As Amended, and for Other Purposes, 91st Congress, 1st Session,
January 15, 1969.
-64-
-------
State of Wisconsin - State Laws, Policies and Programs Pertaining
to Water and Related Land Resources^ Water Subcommittee of the
National Resources Committee of State Agencies, September 1967.
Suggested State Water Pollution Contrjol Act, Revised, U. S.
Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, November 1965, Reprinted May 1966.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act, Title II of Public Law 89-272 -
89th Congress, S. 306 - October 30, 1965, U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, February
1966.
-65-
-------
FLUIDIZED-BED
ARTICLES
"Fluidized-Bed Processes - A Solution for Industrial Waste
Problems, " J. E. Hanway, Jr. (of Copeland Process Corp. ),
Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Industrial Waste Conference,
1967, Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University, pp. 183-193.
-66-
-------
GENERAL DISPOSAL TECHNIQUES
ARTICLES
"Bureau Attacks Nation's Solid Waste, " R. D. Vaughan (of the
U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Bureau of
Solid Waste Management, Director), Environmental Science and
Technology. Vol. 3, No. 8, August 1969, pp. 705-707.
"Conversion to Activated Sludge at Union Carbide's Institute
Plant, " G. W. Kumke, J. F. Hall, and R. W. Deben (of the
Union Carbide Corporation), Water Pollution Control Federation
Journal, Vol. 40, No. 8, Part 1, August 1968, pp. 1408-1422.
"Cyanide Control Experience - Indiana Stream Pollution Control
Board, " R, A. Woodley (of the Indiana State Board of Health),
Proceedings of the Nineteenth Industrial Waste Conference, 1964,
Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University, pp. 264-271.
"Deep-Sea Disposal of Liquid and Solid Wastes, " D. D. Smith
and R. P. Brown (of the Dillingham Environmental Co.), Industrial
Water Engineering, September 1970, pp. 20-24.
"Disposal of Solid and Semi-Solid Toxic Wastes, " J. L. Stringer
(of Hertfordshire County Health Inspector, England), Water
Pollution Control, Vol. 69, 1970, pp. 321-333.
"Disposing of Halogenated Hydrocarbon Waste, " J. H. S. Haggin,
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, pp. 10-12.
"Economic Aspects of Recovery of Minerals from Effluents, " .
Dr. I. W. Teworte, Chemistry and Industry, May 3, 1969,
pp. 565-574.
"Effects of a Mixture of Heavy Metals on Sewage Treatment
Processes, " E. F. Earth, B. V. Salotto, G. N. McDermott,
J. N. English, and M. B. Ettinger (of the Robert A. Taft Sanitary
Engineering Center), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Industrial
Waste Conference, 1963, Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University,
pp. 606-635.
-67-
-------
"industrial Hygiene News Report - Index; to Volume 13, " January
through December 1970.
"industrial Solid Wastes and Garbage Composting, " Reviewed by
L. W. Lefke, Water Pollution Control Federation Journal, 1967
Literature Review, Vol. 40, No. 6, June 1968. pp. 1163-1165.
"Industrial Water Reuse: Future Pollution Solution, " G. Rey,
W. J. Lacy, and A. Cywin (of the Environmental Protection Agency),
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 9, September
1971, pp. 760-765.
"New Conversion Plant, Sewer Separation System Boast 'Firsts', "
Water and Wastes Engineering, July 1971.
"Cm-Site Incineration of Special Industrial Wastes, " R.B. Engdahl
(of Battelle Memorial Institute), Principles and Practices of
Incineration, pp. 210-226.
"Process Waste Burner Destroys Liquid Organic Chemical Wastes
Safely, " R.E. Mills (of the Naugatuck Chemicals, Canada), Water
Sewage Works, July 1964, pp. 337-340.
"Recent Advance in Cyanide Waste Reduction Practice, " R. H. L.
Howe (of Eli Lilly & Co. ), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Industrial
Waste Conference, 1963, Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University,
pp. 690-705.
"Solid Waste Disposal in Chemical Plants, " R. J. Bender (of Power,
Consulting Editor), Power, March 1967, p. 65.
"Spray Irrigation of Organic Chemical Wastes, " R. A. Woodley (of
Commercial Solvents Corporation), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third
Industrial Waste Conference, 1968, Engineering Bulletin of Purdue
University, pp. 251-261.
"The Present and Future of Industrial Waste Treatment, " Dr. G. E.
Symos (a Consultant and Technical Editor, Larchmont, New York),
Proceedings of the Seventeenth Industrial Waste Conference, 1962,
Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University, pp. 717-732.
"The Use of Activated Charcoal in the Treatment of Trade Wastes, "
D.H. Sharp (of Fisons Ltd., England), British Chemical Engineering,
February 1961, pp. 107-110. ""*
"Toxic Wastes Degradation and Disposal, " Dr. R.H.L. Howe (of Eli
Lilly & Co.), Process, Biochemistry, AprHl 1969, pp. 25-28, 37.
-68-
-------
"Waste Farm Takes Care of Phenolib Waste Disposal, " S. B.
Hettig (of General Electric Co.), Chjbmical Engineering,
December 24, 1962, pp. 96-97.
REPORTS
Bulk Transport of Waste Slurries to Inland and Ocean Disposal Sites,
Volume I: The Waste Management Concept - Inland and Ocean
Disposal of Selected Wastes, Bechtel Corporation, for the U.S.
Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration, Pub. PB-189-757, September 1969.
Bulk Transport of Waste Slurries to Inland and Ocean Disposal Sites,
Volume II: Criteria for Waste Management, P. E. Snoek, Bechtel
Corporation, for the U. S. Department of Interior, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, Pub. PB-189-758, September 1969.
Bulk Transport of Waste Slurries to Inland and Ocean Disposal Sites,
Volume III: Technical Aspects of Pipelining of Waste Materials,
J. P. Kenny, Bechtel Corporation, for the U.S. Department of
Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
Pub. PB-189-759, September 1969.
Bulk Transport of Waste Slurries to Inland and Ocean Disposal Sites -
Summary Report, Bechtel Corporation, for the U.S. Department of
Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
Pub. PB-189-756, September 1969.
C-E Products for Municipal Service, C-E Industrial Boiler Opera-
tions, Pub. SP-1064 OSO 7008.
Combustion Engineering, Inc. , Progress Number Three, Combustion
Engineering, Inc. , 1970.
Control of Water Pollution (A Survey of Existing Legislation), World
Health Organization, 1967.
Cost of Wastewater Treatment Processes, D. DiGregorio (of the
Robert A. Taft Water Research Center), Clearinghouse for Federal
Scientific and Technical Information, Pub. PB-187-760, December 1968.
Disposal of Wastes from Water Treatment Plants, American Water
Works Association, Program 12120 ERG, Project WP 1535-01-69,
for the U. S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, Pub. PB-186-157, August 1969.
-69-
-------
Electrophoretic Clarification of Water, .E. A. Hiler and W. M. Lyle,
of Texas A&M University, Project A-009-TEX, for the U.S.
Department of Interior, Office of Water Resources Research,
National Technical Information Service,; Pub. PB-194-566,
August 31, 1970.
\
t
Floor-to-Roof Corrosion Protection (and) The Corrosion Consultant,
Ceilcote Company, Vol. VI, No. 1, Bulletin 1-2, May 1971.
Industrial Process Design for Water Pollution Control, Volume 3,
Proceedings of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers Water
Committee Workshop, San Francisco, California, March 31 -
April 2, 1970.
Instream Aeration of Polluted Rivers, W. Whipple, Jr. ,
J. V. Hunter, B. Davidson, F. Dittman, and S. Yu (of Rutgers
University), National Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-192-
637, August 1969.
International Research Group on Refuse Disposal (IRGRD), U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Office of Solid Wastes, Pub. 1-12, November 1956 - September 1961.
Laboratory Waste Disposal Manual, Manufacturing Chemists
Association, May 1970.
Nalgene Industrial Division (Standard Molded Tanks Plus Custom
Molding), NalgeCo., 1971.
Ocean Disposal of Barge-Delivered Liquid and Solid Wastes from
U. S. Coastal Cities. D. D. Smith and R. P. Brown, Dillingham
Corporation, Applied Oceanography Division, for the Environmental
Protection Agency, Solid Waste Management Office, Pub. SW-19c,
1971.
Process Design Manual for Carbon Adsorption, Swindell-Dressier
Co., Program 17020 GNR, for the Environmental Protection Agency -
Technology Transfer, October 1971.
Process Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal, Black & Veatch
Consulting Engineers, Program 17010 GNP, for th4 Environmental
Protection Agency, October 1971.
-70-
-------
Process Design Manual for Upgrading!Existing Wastewater Treat-
ment Plants, Roy F. Weston, Inc., Program 17090 GNQ, for the
Environmental Protection Agency, October 1971.
Purification of Sewage Waters Carrying Toxic Chemicals, B. Y.
Libman et al. (of the USSR), National (Technical Information
Service, Pub. JPRS 44,488, February 26, 1968.
Recovery. Separation, and Identification of Phenolic Compounds
from Polluted Waters. S. D. Faust, H. Stutz, and O. M. Aly
(of Rutgers University), and P. W. Anderson (of the U. S.
Geological Survey), for the U. S. Department of Interior, Office of
Water Resources Research, National Technical Information Service,
Pub. PB-198-030, January 1971.
State-of-the-Art Review on Product Recovery, Resource Engineering
Associates, National Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-192-
634, November 1969.
Storage of Wastes from Watercraft and Disposal at Shore Facilities,
General Dynamics, Program 15020DHB03/70, for the Environmental
Protection Agency, Water Quality Office, April 1970.
Subsurface Disposal, Subsurface Disposal Corporation, 1972.
Survey of Hazardous Waste Disposal in California, California
Department of Public Health, 1971.
Technical Survey - A World Report on Advances in Technology,
Gaylor Technical Survey Corporation, Vol. 27, No. 3, January 16,
1971.
The Cost of Clean Water, Summary Volume, U. S. Department of
Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
January 10, 1968.
Theories of Practices of IAD Waste Treatment, Burford and Masselli.
Ultimate Disposal of Phosphate from Waste Water by Recovery as
Fertilizer, M. G. Dunseth, M. L. Salutsky, K. M. Ries, and J. J.
Shapiro, Dearborn Chemical Division; Project 17070 ESJ, for the
U.S. Department of Interior, Federal! Water Pollution Control
Administration, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1970.
-71-
-------
Vane-Flo Solids Handling Centrifugal PjUmps, Marlow Pumps ITT,
VF-625,
£
Water and Waste Treatment Buyers Guide, Permutit Sybron
Corporation, Bulletin 5391.
Water Pollution Control. World Health Organization, Technical
Report Series No. 318, 1966.
BOOKS
Industrial Pollution Control Handbook, H. F. Lund (of Leadership
Plus, Inc., President), McGraw-Hill Book Co. , 1971.
Industrial Waste: Their Disposal and Treatment. W. Rudolfs
(of ACS Monograph), Reinhold Publishing Co. , 1953.
-72-
-------
HAZARDOUS
ARTICLES ;
"Safe Highway Transportation of Bulk Liquids, " L. A. Botkin
(of Fruehauf Corp), Society of Automotive Engineers, No. 700872.
REPORTS
Control of Spillage of Hazardous Polluting Substances, G. W.
Dawson, A.J. Shuckrow, and W. H. Swift, Pacific Northwest
Laboratories, for the U.S. Department of Interior, Federal
Water Quality Administration, November 1, 1970.
Hazardous Material Spills Research Newsletter, Edison Water
Quality Laboratory, for the Environmental Protection Agency,
Water Quality Office, Vol. I, May 1971.
Spill Prevention Techniques for Hazardous Polluting Substances,
Oil and Hazardous Materials Program Series, J.L. Goodier,
J.I. Stevens, S.V. Margolin, W.V. Keary, andJ.R. McMahan
Arthur D. Little, Inc., for the Environmental Protection
Agency, February 1971.
The West Falmouth Oil Spill, M. Blumer, J. Sass, H.L. Sanders,
J. F. Grassle, and G. R. Hampson (of Woods Hold Oceanographic
Institution), and G. Souza (of Falmouth Shellfish Warden), National
Technical Information Service, Pub. AD-713-947, Ref. No. 70-44,
September 1970.
-73-
-------
HEALTH HAZARDS
ARTICLES
"infectious Hepatitis Epidemic at Posen, Michigan, " J.E. Vogt
(of Michigan State Department of Health, Director of the Division
of Engineering), American Water Works Association Journal,
October 1961, pp. 1238-1242.
"Physiologic and Health Aspects of Water Quality - Task Group
Report," H.O. Hartung, H.A. Faber, H.E. Hudson, P.W. Kabler,
W. W. Sanderson, D. Williams, andR.L. Woodward (of Task
Group 2760P, St. Louis County Water Co. ), American Water Works
Association Journal, November 1961, pp. 1354-1360.
REPORTS
Accident Facts, National Safety Council, Pub. 021.69, 1969 Edition.
Accident Facts, National Safety Council, Pub. 021. 70, 1970 Edition.
Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, National
Safety Council, Sixth Edition, 1969.
American National Standards Applicable to Occupational Safety
and Health, Safety of Household and Industrial Products, Highway
and Traffic Safety, Recreational Safety - Publication List.
American National Standards Institute, February 1971.
1969 Analysis of Accident Reports Involving Fire, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, 1970.
Analysis and Summary of Accident Investigations 1969, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety,
November 30, 1970.
Design of an Overview System for Evaluating the Public Health
Hazards of Chemicals in the Environment, Volume I: Test-Case
Studies, G.A. Lutz, S.B. Gross, J.B. Boatman, P.J. Moore,
R. L. Darby, W.H. Veazie, and F.A. Butrica, Battelle Memorial
Institute, for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Public Health Service, National Technical Information
Service, Pub. PB-194-398, July 1967.
-74-
-------
Design of an Overview System for Evaluating the Public Health
Hazards of Chemicals in the Environment, Volume II: The Overview
System. G.A. Lutz, S.B. Gross, J.B. Boatman, P.J. Moore,
R. L. Darby, W. H. Veazie, and F. A. JButrica, Battelle Memorial
Institute, for the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Public Health Services, National Technical Information
Service, PB-194-398, July 1967.
Ecological Effects of Weather Modification: A Problem Analysis,
C. F. Cooper and W. C. Jolly, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor),
for the U. S. Department of Interior, Office of Atmospheric Water
Resources, May 1969.
Environmental Lead and Public Health, R. E. Engel, D.I. Hammer,
R.J.M. Horton, N. M. Lane, andL.A. Plumlee, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Pollution Control Office, Pub. AP-90.
Morbidity and Mortality, U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, National Communicable Disease Center, Weekly
Report, Vol. 18, No. 35, Week Ending August 30, 1969.
Morbidity and Morality, U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, National Communicable Disease Center, Weekly
Report, Vol. 18, No. 37, Week Ending September 13, 1969.
Occupational Safety and Health Standards, National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health, 1971.
Special Course Announcement - Occupational Health Hazards for
Trade Union Representatives, The City University of New York,
Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, April 19-23, 1971.
United States Metropolitan Mortaility 1959-1961, E.A. Duffy and
Dr. R. E. Carroll, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, National Center for Air Pollution Control, Health Effects
Research Program, Pub. 999-AP-39, 1967.
World Health Organization Publications - Catalogue 1947-1971,
World Health Organization (Switzerland), 1971.
-75-
-------
HOSPITAL WASTES
ARTICLES
"Management of Solid Wastes From Hospitals - Problems and
Technology, " R. D. Vaughan, U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Solid Wastes Programs, Chief, pp. 41-46.
-76-
-------
IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ARTICLES
"List of Toxic Substances, " Occupational Safety and Health
Reporter, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1971.
REPORTS
A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact, L.B. Leopold,
F.E. Clarke, B. B. Hanshaw, and J. R. Balsley, U.S. Department
of Interior, Geological Survey, Pub. 645, 1971.
A Study of Transportation of Hazardous Material, Highway Research
Board and the Committee on Hazardous Materials, National Academy
of Sciences/National Research Council, National Technical Information
Service, Pub. AD-692-182, 1969.
An Appraisal of the Problem of the Handling, Transportation, and
Disposal of Toxic and Other Hazardous Materials, H. D. Messer,
L. Crevoiserat, L. Richardson, A. Christodoulou, J. Hain, and
L. Bush, Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc., January 30, 1970.
Chemical Safety References, National Safety Council, 1968.
Consolidated Hazardous Item List, U. S. Department of Defense,
Navy Fleet Material Support Office, Pub. 4500, COG 1 Stock
No. 0588-005-000, October 1, 1969.
Control of Hazardous Polluting Substances, Volume I: Report to
the President, U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard,
October 20, 1970.
Criteria for Selection of Elements and Compounds to be Designated
as Hazardous Polluting Substances, C.H. Thompson, Environmental
Protection Agency, Division of Oil and Hazardous Materials,
October 22, 1971.
Designation of Hazardous Substances, Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, Environmental Protection Agency, Pub. 18 CFR, Part 618,
May 14, 1971.
-77-
-------
Distribution of Selected Metals in BottomjSediments, B.J. Mathis
and T. F. Cummings (of Bradley University), Project A-034-I11,
National Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-199-713,
March 1971.
National Inventory of Sources and Emissions Cadmium, Nickel,
and Asbestos - Cadmium Section I, W. E^ Davis and Associates,
National Technical Information Service, Pub. PB -192-250,
February 1970.
Predicting Future Growth of Organic Pollution in Metropolitan
Area Rivers, M. Marcus and W. Whipple, Jr. (of Rutgers
University, New Jersey Water Resources Research Institute),
Project B-002-N. J. , Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and
Technical Information, Pub. PB-191-128, February 1970.
BOOKS
Dangerous Chemicals Code, Los Angeles Fire Department,
Parker & Son, Inc. , 1951.
Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, N. I. Sax (of the
New York State Health Department Radiological Sciences
Laboratory, Director), et al., Reinhold Book Corp, Third
Edition, 1968.
Research Chemicals Catalog, Dfaltz & Bauer, Inc.
-78-
-------
INCINERATION
ARTICLES
"incineration of Process Wastes, " J. I. Frankel, Chemical
Engineering, August 29, 1966, pp. 91-96.
REPORTS
Air Pollution Aspects of Emission Sources: Municipal
Incineration - A Bibliography with Abstracts, Environmental
Protection Agency, Pub. AP-92, May 1971.
An Accounting System for Incinerator Operations, E.R. Zausner,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
Health Service, Pub. 2032, Report SW-17 ts, 1970.
C-E Boilers for Catalytic Regenerator Waste Gas. C-E Combustion
Engineering, Inc., Pub. CD-I, P-452-7-58-3500, 1958.
C-E Combustopak Waste Disposal System, C-E Combustion
Engineering, Inc., SP-1047 (0406905).
C-E Refuse Incinerator Systems, C-E Industrial Boiler Operations,
SP-1090 (0507103).
Combustall Waste Incinerator by Air Preheater, The Air Preheater
Co., Inc., Pub. WA-45-685A.
COR-PAK Direct-Flame Fume Incineration With Heat Recovery,
The Air Preheater Co. , Inc. , Pub. WA-36-669, 1966.
Direct Gas Flame Oxidation of Hydrocarbons for Smoke, Gaseous
Hydrocarbons and Odor Control by Thermal Incineration. D. E. Waid
(of Maxon Premix Burner Co., Inc. ), presented at the Sixty-Second
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Pub. 69-45,
June 22-26, 1969.
Evaluation of the Melt-Zit High-Temperature Incinerator Operation
Test Report, E.R. Kaiser, U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, (Grant DOI-UI-00076), August 1968.
-79-
-------
Feasibility Analysis of Incinerator Systems for Restoration of Oil
Contaminated Beaches, Envirogenics Co., Project 15080DXE, for
Environmental Protection Agency, Water Duality Office, November
1970.
Flue Gas Desulfurization in a Limestone ifouidized Bed, R. K.
Bertrand and J. T. Sears, presented at the Sixty-Second Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Pub. 69-47,
June 22-26, 1967.
Incineration Bibliography, Combustion Engineering, Inc.,
Pub. VS-1024 (0016803).
Incineration of Industrial Liquid Waste, E.S. Monroe, Jr.,
E. I. duPont de Nemeurs and Co., Pub. 70-109.
Incinerator Guidelines 1969, J. DeMarco, D. J. Keller, J.
J. Leckman and J. L. Newton, U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Pub. 2012, 1969.
Oxy-Catalyst Pre-Engineered Oxidation Units for Control of
Gaseous Air Pollutants, Oxy-Catalyst, Inc.
The Good Earth, Maxon Corp., Bulletin PC-1000, September 1970.
-80-
-------
ION EXCHANGE
REPORTS
Electrodialysis in Advanced Waste Treatment, J.D. Smith and
J.L. Eisenmann, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center,
for the U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, Pub. WP-20-AWTR-18, February 1967.
Feasibility of .Hydrolysis of Sludge Using Low Pressure Steam
With SC»2 as a Hydrolytic Adjust and Utilization of the Resulting
Hydrolysate, Foster D. Snell, Inc., for the U.S. Department of
Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
December 1969.
Parametric Economic and Engineering Evaluation Study of the
Electrodialysis Process for Water Desalination, C. M. Wong,
W. F. Savage, andK.C. Channabasappa (of the U. S. Department
of Interior, Office of Saline Water), A.P. Christodoulou,
G.R. Olsson, and H.J. Monnik (of Booz, Allen Applied Research,
Inc. ), for the U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Saline Water,
Pub. 488.
1968 Saline Water Conversion Report, U.S. Department of Interior,
Office of Saline Water, 1968.
Summary Report - The Advanced Waste Treatment Research
Program - June 1960-December 1961. U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Research Branch, Division of Water
Supply and Pollution Control, Pub. SEC TR W62-9, May 1962.
-81-
-------
LAGOON ING
ARTICLES
"Combined Industrial and Domestic Waste Treatment in Waste
Stabilization Lagoons, " O. O. Olson, W. Van Heuvelen and J. W.
Vennes (of North Dakota State Department of Health), Water
Pollution Control Federation Journal. February 1967, pp. 214-222.
"Experimental Operation of Industrial Waste Stabilization Ponds, "
G.H. Dunstan (of Washington University), andL.L. Smith (of
State Department of Health, Salt City), Public Works, April 1960,
pp. 93-95.
"Stabilization Ponds for Treatment of Industrial Wastes, " pp. 1-7.
-82-
-------
LITERATURE LISTS - GENERAL
REPORTS i
Abstracts of Proceedings - Hazardous! Polluting Substances
Symposium, September 14-16. 1970 - Annex I to Study On
Control of Hazardous Polluting Substances, U^S. Department
of Transportation, Coast Guard, 19.70.
Annual Literature Review, Water Pollution Control Federation
Journal, June 1970.
Applied Science Technology Index, March-August 1971.
NASA Literature Search Number - Hazardous Waste Disposal,
Pub. 16721, October 20, 1971.
NASA Literature Search Number - Part II (Limited Distribution
References) Hazardous Waste Disposal, Pub. 16721, October 20,
1971.
Selected United States Government Publications, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Pub. 18, Septembers, 1971.
Solid Waste/Disease Relationships - A Literature Survey, Dr. T.G.
Hanks, Aerojet-General Corp. , for the U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Pub. 999-UIH-6,
1967.
Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory - Volume One:
Classified List of Periodicals, Ulrich's Abstracting and Indexing
Services, pp. 1-34.
Water: Purification and Decontamination - A DDC Bibliography,
(July 1952-August 1969), U. S. Department of Defense, Defense
Documentation Center, National Technical Information Service,
Pub. AD-725-610, June 197.1.
-83-
-------
MATH MODELLING AND COST TECHNIQUES
REPORTS
Fellowship and Research Opportunities In;the Mathematical
Sciences 1971-1972, National Research Council, Division of
Mathematical Sciences, September 1971.
Mathematical Analysis Of Solid Waste Collection, D. H. Marks
and J.C. Liebman, Johns Hopkins University, for the U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bureau of Solid
Waste Management (Grant EC-00309), Report SW-5rg,
Pub. 2104, 1970.
Mathematical Modeling of Solid Waste Collection Policies,
Volumes 1 and 2, M. M. Truitt, J.C. Liebman, andC.W
Kruse, Johns Hopkins University, for the U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Bureau of Solid Waste Management
(Grant UI-00539), Report SW-1 rg, Pub. 2030, 1970.
Use of Mathematical Models In Water Quality Control Studies,
A. S. Goodman and R. J. Tucker, Northeastern University,
Program 16090, for the U.S. Department of Interior, Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, (Grant WP-01090),
National Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-188-494,
July 1967.
-84-
-------
OXIDATION REDUCTION
ARTICLES
"Destructive Oxidation of Sodium Dibutylanphthalene-Sulfonate
At Elevated Temperatures and Pressures, " V.P. Sokolpv,
Pub. UDC 628.543, Journal of Applied Chemistry of USSR,
Vol. 39 No. 9, September 1966, pp. 1931-1934.
REPORTS
An Investigation of Light-Catalyzed Chlorine Oxidation for
Treatment of Wastewater, A.F. Meiners, E.A. Lawler, M.E.
Whitehead, and J. I. Morrison. Robert A. Taft Water Research
Center, for the U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, Report TWPC-3, December
1968.
Ozone Treatment of Secondary Effluents from Wastewater
Treatment Plants, Dr. T.A. Huibers, R. McNabney, and A. Halfon,
Robert A. Taft Water Research Center, for the U.S. Department of
Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Report
TWRC-4, April 9, 1969.
Partial Oxidation of Solid Organic Wastes, W. W. Shuster,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, for the U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare/ Bureau of Solid Waste Manage-
ment, Grant EC-00263, Pub. 52133, Report SW-7 rg, 1970.
-85-
-------
a
PESTICIDE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
REPORTS
Ground Disposal of Pesticides: The Problem and Criteria for
Guidelines, Working Group on Pesticides, National Technical
Information Service, Pub. PB-197-144, Report WGP-DR-1,
March 1970.
Summary of Interim Guidelines for Disposal of Surplus or Waste
Pesticides and Pesticides Containers, Working Group on Pesticides,
Report WGP-DS-1, December 1970.
The Handling and Disposal of "Empty" Agricultural Pesticide
Containers in California, J. Cornelius, P. E. (of California
State Department of Public Health), presented to California's
County Agricultural Commissioners, Sacramento, California,
December 9, 1969.
-86-
-------
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
ARTICLES
"Land Disposal of Industrial Wastes, " R. H. Scott (of the State
of Wisconsin), pp. 261-277.
"Land Disposal of Sewage and Industrial Wastes, " R. Stone (of
the Los Angeles Sanitary Engineers), Sewage and Industrial
Wastes, Vol. 25, No. 4, April 1953, pp. 408-418.
"Underground Disposal of Process Waste Water, " L.K. Cecil
(of Infilco, Inc. ), Industrial and Engineering, April 1950, pp. 594-
599.
REPORTS
Composting Dewatered Sewage Sludge, G.L. Shell and J.L. Boyd,
EMCO Corp., for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Public Health Service, Pub. 1936, Report SW-12c, 1967.
-87-
-------
SOLID WASTE - GENERAL
ARTICLES
"industrial Solid Waste Production and Disposal in California, "
J. Cornelius, California Vector Views. Vol. 16, No. 5, May 1969,
PP. 35-56.
"Let DARE Make Your Solid-Waste Decisions, " A. K. Klee (of the
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bureau of
Solid Waste Management), The American City, February 1970.
"Reclaiming Municipal Garbage,11 Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 5, No. 10, October 1971, pp. 998-1002.
"Reuse of Solid Wastes: A Major Solution to a Major National
Problem, " R. O. Vaughan (of the U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Director),
Waste Age, April, 1970, pp. 10, 14-15.
"Solid Waste Transfer and Disposal for Rural Areas, " D. R. Andres
(of the California Bureau of Vector Control and Solid Waste Manage-
ment), and F. W. Cope (of the Humboldt County Department of Public
Works), California Vector News, Vol. 17, No. 7, July 1970,
pp. 67-78.
"The Solid Waste Field Has Special Problems, " P. A. Witt (of the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers), Chemical Engineering
Progress, Vol. 67, No. 9, September 1971.
REPORTS
A Systems Study of Solid Waste Management in the Fresno Area - Final
Report on A Solid Waste Management Demonstration, Aerojet-General
Corp. and Engineering-Science, Inc., for the U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Bureau of Solid Waste Management,
Pub. 1959, Report SW-5d, 1969.
-88-
-------
An Accounting System for Sanitary Landfill Operations, E. R.
Zausner, U.S. Department of Health,-Education and Welfare,
Public Health Service, Bureau of Solifl Waste Management, Pub. 2007,
Report SW-15ts, 1969. '
An Accounting System for Solid Waste; Collection, E. R. Zausner,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Pub. 2033, Report
SW-27ts, 1970.
An Interim Report - 1968 National Survey of Community Solid Waste
Practices, R. J. Black, A. J. Muhich, A. J. Klee, H. L. Hiekman, jr.,
andR. D. Vaughn, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, 1968.
A Review of Industrial Solid Wastes, R. L. Cummins, U. S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, 1970.
A Study of Solid Waste Collection Systems Comparing One-Man With
Multi-Man Crews, Ralph Stone and Company, Inc., for the U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Pub. 1892, Report SW-9c, 1969.
Background Papers on Coastal Wastes Management, Volume I,
National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences,
National Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-198-032, 1969.
California Solid Waste Planning Study, California Department of
Public Health, 1969.
Closing Open Dumps, D. R. Brunner, S. J. Hubbard, D. J. Keller,
and J. L. Newton, Environmental Protection Agency, Report SW-61ts,
1971.
Comprehensive Study of Solid Waste Disposal in Cascade County,
Montana, Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, Inc., for the U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Bureau of Solid Waste Management
(Grant l-DOI-UI-00095-01), Pub. 2002, Report SW-6d, 1970.
Comprehensive Studies of Solid Waste Management, First and Second
Annual Reports, C. G. Golueke and P. H. McGauhey, University of
California, for the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service (Grant EC-0026 ), Pub. 2039, Report SW-3rg, 1970.
-89-
-------
Concept and Deaign of the Joint U.S. Publid Health Service.
Tennessee Valley Authority Composting Prbject. Johnson City.
Tennessee. J. S. Wiley (Tennessee Office bf Solid Wastes), and
F. E. Gartrell and H. G. Smith (of the Tennessee Valley Authority),
for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Environ-
mental Control Administration, 1968.
Developing a State Solid Waste Management Plan, R. O. Toftner,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Pub. 2031, Report SW-42ts,
1970.
Grants for Solid Waste Disposal Projects, U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Federal Register,
Vol. 31, No. 61, Part III, Wednesday, March 30, 1966.
Industrial Wastes, W. Rudolphs, Library of Engineering Classics.
Intergovernmental Approaches to Solid Waste Management, R. O. Toftner
and R. M. Clark, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste Manage-
ment Office, Report SW-47ts, 1971.
Kenilworth Model Sanitary Landfill - Interim Report On A Solid Waste
Demonstration Project (December 1967 - January 1969), District of
Columbia, Department of Sanitary Engineering, for the U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bureau of Solid Waste
Management (Grant l-DOI-UI-00143), 1969.
Master Plan for Solid Waste Collection and Disposal - Tri-Parish
Metropolitan Area of New Orleans, Albert Switzer & Associates, Inc.
and Greenleaf/Telesca, for the U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Bureau of Solid Waste Management (Grant DO1-UI-00063),
Pub. 1932, Report SW-4d, 1969.
Municipal Waste Facilities in the United States - Statistical Summary -
1963 Inventory, K. H. Jenkins and J. L. Lewis, U.S. Department of
Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration, Data and Information
Services Section, Pub. CWT-6.
National Industrial Solid Waste Management Study, Industrial Chemical
Society, for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Corp. of
New England, January 1971.
New Water Quality Report, Environmental Protection Agency,
Announcement 15, February 8, 1971.
-90-
-------
New Water Quality Report, Environmental Protection Agency,
Announcement 16, February 15, 1971.
New Water Quality Report, Environniental Protection Agency,
Announcement 17, March 8, 1971.
New Water Quality Report, Environmental Protection Agency,
Announcement 19, April 9, 1971.
New Water Quality Report, Environmental Protection Agency,
Announcement 21, May 28, 1971.
Observations of Continental European Solid Waste Management Practices,
M. E. Jensen, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, 1969.
Policies for Solid Waste Management, Ad Hoc Committee on Solid
Waste Management of the Division of Engineering Committees on
Pollution Abatement and Control, for the U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Report SW-llc, 1970.
Pollution Control and Management, Charles River Associates, Inc.,
National Technical Information Service, October 1969.
Process Design Manual for Suspended Solids Removal, Burns and Roe,
Inc., Project 17030GNO, for the Environmental Protection Agency,
October 1971.
Proposals for a Refuse Disposal System in Oakland County, Michigan,
Final Report on A Solid Waste Demonstration Grant Project, Jones &
Henry Engineers Limited, for the U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Bureau of Solid Waste Management (Grant
DOI-UI-00068), Pub. 1960, Report SW-7d, 1970.
Recovery and Utilization of Municipal Solid Waste, N. L. Drobny,
H. E. Hull and R. F. Testin, Battelle Memorial Institute, for the
Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste Management Office,
Report SW-lOc, 1971.
Refuse Collection and Disposal, An Annotated Bibliography, 1960-
1961, R. J. Black and P. L. Davis, Bureau of Disease Prevention
and Environmental Control, Cincinnati, for the U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Pub. 91,
Supplement E.
-91-
-------
Sanitary Landfill Facts, T. J. Sorg and Hi L. Hickman, Jr., U. S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Pub. 1792, Report SW-4ts, Second Editioil, 1970.
Selected Problems of Hazardous Waste Management in California,
F. R. Dansby et al. ,(of the Governor's Task Force on Solid
Waste Management, California), National Technical Information
Service, Pub. PB-192-026, January 1970.'
Solid Waste/Disease Relationships - A Literature Survey,
Dr. T. G. Hanks, Aerojet-General Corp. for the U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Report SW-lc, 999-UIH-6, 1967.
Solid Waste Practices in the United States Air Force, Maj. T. Rothman,
P. E.,and Lt. J. J. Beres, U.S. Air Force, Air Force Weapons
Laboratory, Report AFWL-TR-71-119, October 1971.
Solid Waste Processing - A State-of-the-Art Report on Unit Operations
and Processes, R. B. Engdahl, Battelle Memorial Institute, for the
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, Pub. 1856, Report SW-40, 1969.
Solid Waste Study for Metropolitan Atlanta, Atlanta Region Metro-
politan Planning Commission, Project GA P-144, June 1970.
Solid Waste Management: A List of Available Literature, U. S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
December 1969.
Solid Waste Management: A List of Available Literature, U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
June 1970.
Solid Waste Management: A List of Available Literature, T. B. Bayless,
E. H. Cox, M. S. Hackettt and B. A. Johnson, U. S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Report SW-58. 8,
September 1970.
Solid Waste Management: A List of Available Literature, Environmental
Protection Agency, Report SW-58. 9, January 1971.
Solid Waste Management: A List of Available Literature, Environmental
Protection Agency, Report SW-58. 10, April 1971.
-92-
-------
Solid Waste Management: A List of ;A variable Literature, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Report SW-58.11, July 1971.
Solid Waste Management: Abstracts and Excerpts from the Litera-
ture. Volumes 1 and 2, C. G. Golueke and Staff of the College of
Engineering, University of California, for the U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service (Grant
EC-00260), Pub. 2038, Report SW-2rg, -1970.
Solid Waste Management and the Packaging Industry, R. D. Vaughan,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Director, 1969.
Solid Waste Management Plan - Oregon Status Report 1969, Oregon
State Board of Health, for the Environmental Protection Agency,
Public Health Service, Pub. 2115, 1971.
Solid Wastes: A List of Available Literature, U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, October-
December 1968, with January-April 1969 Supplement.
Solid Wastes Demonstration Grant Abstracts. C. E. Sponagle,
Cincinnati Sanitary Engineer, Director, for the U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Environmental Control Admin-
istration, 1968.
Solid Wastes Demonstration Grant Abstracts - Grants Awarded
January 1-June 30, 1969, C. E. Sponagle (Sanitary Engineer Director)
for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bureau
of Solid Waste Management, 1969.
Study of the Health Effects of Air Pollution Related to Solid Wastes,
B. Linsky, Final Report, 1969.
Sub-Council Reports - February 1971, National Industrial Pollution
Control Council
Acid Mine Drainage
Air Pollution by Sulfur Oxides
Animal Slaughtering and Processing
Animal Wastes
The Chemical Industry and Pollution Control
Council Report
Deep Ocean Dumping of Bailed Refuse
Detergents
-93-
-------
The Engineer's Responsibility in Environmental Pollution Control
Fertilizers and Agricultural Chemical^
Mathematical Models for Air Pollution^Control Policy Decision-
Making
Mercury
Paper
Plastics in Solid Waste
Pollution Problems in Selected Food Industries
Regionally Consolidated Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Rubber
The Use and Disposal of Electrical Insulating Liquids
Waste Disposal in Deep Wells
Wastewater Reclamation
Wood Products
Summaries - Solid Wastes Demonstration Grant Projects, 1968,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, Solid Waste Program, Pub. 1821, 1968.
Summaries - Solid Wastes Demonstration Grant Projects, 1969,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Pub. 1821, 1969.
Summaries of Solid Wastes Program Contracts - June 1, 1965 to
June 30, 1968, C. A. demons and R. J. Black, U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Bureau of
Solid Waste Management, Pub. 1897, 1969.
Summaries of Solid Wastes Research and Training Grants - 1968,
L. W. Lefke, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service, Solid Wastes Program, Pub. 1596, 1968.
Systems Analysis of Regional Solid Waste Handling, N. Morse and
E. W. Roth, Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc., for the U. S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bureau of Solid
Waste Management, 1970.
Technical-Economic Study of Solid Waste Disposal Needs and
Practices, Volumes I, II, and IV, Combustion Engineering, Inc.,
for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
Health Service, Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical
Information, Pub. 1886, Pub. PB-187-712, Report SW-7c, 1969.
-94-
-------
The Federal Solid Waste Demonstration Program, D. M. Keagy
(of Region DC Solid Wastes Programi Chief), for the U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1968.
The National Solid Wastes Survey - An Interim Report, R. J. Black,
A. J. Muhich, A. J. KLee, H. L. Hlckman, Jr., and R. D. Vaughan,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bureau of Solid
Waste Management, Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Tech-
nical Information, Pub. PB-187-296, 1968.
The Role of Packaging in Solid Waste Management - 1966 to 1976,
A Darney and W. E. Franklin (of the Midwest Research Institute),
for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
Health Service, Pub. 1855, 1969.
Wastes Management Concepts for the Coastal Zone, Requirements
for Research and Investigation, National Academy of Sciences and
National Academy of Engineering, Pub. ISBN 0-309-01855-2, 1970-
BOOKS
Solid Wastes (An Environmental Science and Technology Reprint
Book), American Chemical Society, 1970.
-95-
-------
TOXICITY
ARTICLES
"A Factory Inspector's Views on Chemidal Plant Design for
Personal Safety Against Toxic Hazards, " S. G. Luxon, Chemistry
and Industry, May 20, 1967, pp. 816-818.
"A Polychlorinated Biphenyl (Aroclor 1254)In the Water, Sediment,
and Biota of Escambia Bay, Florida,1' T. W. Duke, J. I. Lowe,
and A. J. Wilson, Jr. (of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
Gulf Breeze, Florida), Bulletin of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1970.
"A Quantitative Method for Assessing the Toxic Effects of Some
Water Soluble Substances, Based on Changes in Periphyton Com-
munity Structure," M. Dickman (of the University of Ottawa),
Water Research, Vol. 3, 1969, pp. 963-972.
"A Suggested Measure of Toxicity Due to Metals in Industrial
Effluents, Sewage and River Water, " R. Lamb (of the Simon-
Carves Ltd. , of England), Air and Water Pollution, Vol. 8, 1964,
pp. 243-249.
"Acute Toxicity of Some Important Petrochemicals to Fish, "
A. H. Pickering and C. Henderson (of the Robert A. Taft Sanitary
Engineering Center), Water Pollution Control Federation Journal,
Vol. 38, No. 9, September 1966, pp. 1419-1429.
"Antimony and Its Compounds, " National Safety Council, Stock
123-04-408, Data Sheet 408.
"Availability of Sediment-Sorbid Materials to Marine Biota, "
T. W. Duke, E. R. Ibert, and K. M. Rae (of the Texas A&M
University), Proceedings of the First National Symposium on
Radioecology. 1961, pp. 171-174.
"Rioassays Determine Pesticide Toxicity to Aquatic Invertebrates, "
A. R. Gaufin, L. Jensen, and T. Nelson (of the University of Utah),
Water and Sewage Works. 1962, pp. R-227-R-231.
-96-
-------
"Chemical Interactions of Wastewater in a Soil Environment, "
B. F. Hajek (of Battelle Memorial Institute), Water Pollution
Control Federation Journal, Vol. 4l, No. 10, October 1969,
pp. 1775-1786. ;
j
"Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Livers of Fishes From the
Northeastern Pacific Ocean," T. W. Duke and A. J. Wilson, Jr.
(of the Gulf Breeze Laboratory), Pesticides Monitoring Journal,
Vol. 5, No. 2, September 1971, pp. 228-232.
"Chronic Exposure of Blue Crabs, Callinectes Sapidus, To Sub-
lethal Concentrations of DDT. " J. I. Lowe (of the U. S. Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries Biological Laboratory), Ecology, Vol. 46,
No. 6, Autumn 1965, pp. 899-900.
"Chronic Exposure of Oysters to DDT, Toxaphene and Parathion, "
J. I. Lowe, P. D. Wilson, A. J. Rick and A. J. Wilson, Jr.
(of the Gulf. Breeze Laboratory), Proceedings of the National Shellfisher
Association, Vol. 61, June 1961, pp. 71-79.
"Chronic Toxicity, Uptake, and Retention of Aroclor® 1254 In Two
Estuarine Fishes, " D. J. Hansen, P. R. Parrish, J. I. Lowe,
A. J. Wilson, Jr. and P. D. Wilson (of the Gulf Breeze Laboratory),
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 6,
No. 2, 1971, pp. 113-119.
"Controlling Health Hazards in Pilot Plant Operations, "A. R. Jones
and D. J. Hopkins (of Esso Research and Engineering), Chemical
Engineering Progress, Vol 67, No. 12, December 1966, pp. 59-67.
"Development of Water Quality Criteria for Aquatic Life, "
C. M. Tarzwell (of the Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center),
Water Pollution Control Federation Journal, Vol. 34, No. 11,
November 1962, pp. 1178-1185.
"Effect of Suspended Solids, Organic Matter and Toxic Materials
On Aquatic Life in Rivers, " Dr. R. Patrick (of the Academy
of Natural Sciences), Water and Sewage Works, February 1968,
pp. 89-92.
"Effects of Copper-Zinc Mining Pollution On a Spawning Migration
of Atlantic Salmon, " R. L. Saunders and J. B. Sprague (of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada), Water Research, Vol. 1,
1967, pp. 419-432.
-97-
-------
"Effects of Pollutants on Marine Organises: Improving Methodology
of Evaluation - A Review of the Literature, " M. Waldichuk (of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada), Water Pollution Control
Federation Journal, Vol. 41, No. 9, September 1969, pp. 1586-1601.
"Estuarine Pesticide Research - Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, "
T. W. Duke (of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Gulf Breeze,
Florida), Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute,
Twenty-Second Annual Session, November 1969, pp. 146-153.
"Field Toxicity Studies and Juvenile Salmon Distribution in Port
Angeles Harbor, Washington, " C. D. Ziebell, R. E. Pine, A. D. Mills,
and R. K. Cunningham (of the Washington Water Pollution Control
Commission), Water Pollution Control Federation Journal, Vol. 42,
No. 2, Part 1, February 1970, pp. 229-236.
"Fluid-Carbon Columns for Sorption of Persistent Organic Pollutants, "
W. J. Weber, Jr. (of the University of Michigan), Water Pollution
Control Federation Journal, Vol. 38, No. 3, March 1966, pp. 331-332.
"How Much Pollution Can Fish Tolerate?" W. L. Nelson (a Technical
Editor and Petroleum Consultant), The Oil and Gas Journal, November 30,
1959, p. 72
"influence of Chronic Exposure to Anionic Detergents on Toxicity of
Pesticides to Goldfish, " P. R. Dugan (of the Ohio State University),
Water Pollution Control Federation Journal, January 1967, pp. 63-71.
"List of Toxic Substances, " The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. ,
Occupational Safety and Health Reporter, Reference File, 1971.
"Localization of DDT In the Body Organs of Pink and White Shrimp, "
D. R. Nimmo, A. J. Wilson, Jr., and R. K. Blackman (of the Bureau
of Commercial Fisheries Center for Estuarine and Menhaden Research),
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 5, No. 4,
1970, pp. 333-341.
"Measurements of Organic Contaminants in the Nation's Rivers, "
F. M. Middleton and J. J. Lichtenberg (of the Robert A. Taft Sanitary
Engineering Center), Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 52,
No. 6, June 1960, pp. 99A-102A.
"New Techniques for The Evaluation of Organic Pollutants, "
D. W. Ryckman, N. C. Burbank, Jr., arid E. Edgerley, Jr. (of
the Washington University), American Wa.ter Works Association
Journal, August 1964, pp. 975-983.
-98-
-------
"Organochlorine Pesticides in Fur Sfeals, " R. E. Anas (of the Marine
Mammal Biological Laboratory - Seattle), and A. J. Wilson, Jr.
(of the Biological Field Station, Gulf|Breeze, Florida), Pesticides
Monitoring Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4, March 1970, pp. 198-200.
"Persistence Of Four Herbicides in Pond Water, "A. R. Grzenda,
H. P. Nicholson and W. S. Cox (of the U. S. Department of Interior,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Southeast Water
Laboratory), American Water Works Association Journal, March 1966,
pp. 326-332.
"Poisoning with DDT: Effect on Reproductive Performance of
Artemia, " D. S. Grosch (of the North Carolina State University),
Science, Vol. 155, February 3, 1967, pp. 592-593.
"Polychlorinated Biphenyl Absorbed From Sediments by Fiber Crabs
and Pink Shrimp, " D. R. Nimmo, P. D. Wilson, R. R. Blackman,
and A. J. Wilson, Jr. (of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency),
NATURE, Vol. 231, No. 5297, May 7, 1971, pp. 50-52.
"Possible Toxic Effects of Photographic Laboratory Wastes Dis-
charged to Surface Water, " R. G. Zehnpfenning (of the Montgomery
Research, Inc.) Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 115, No. 3,
March 1968, pp. 136-138.
"Proposed Toxicity Screening Procedure for Use in Protecting
Drinking-Water Quality, " M. B. Ettinger (of the Robert A. Taft
Sanitary Engineering Center), American Water Works Association
Journal, Vol. 52, No. 6, June 1960, pp. 689-694.
"Relative Resistance of Fish Species to Petroleum Refinery Wastes,"
N. H. Douglas and W. H. Irwin (of the Oklahoma State University),
Water and Sewage Works, October 31, 1963, pp. R-246-R-261.
"Significance of Chemical Limits in USPHS Drinking-Water Standards,"
G. B. Welsh (of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service), and J. F. Thomas (of the University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley), American Water Works Association Journal, Vol. 52,
No. 3, March 1960, pp. 289-300.
"Significance of DDT Residues From the Estuary Near Pensacola,
Florida, " D. J. Hansen and A. J. Wilson, Jr. (of the Bureau of Com-
mercial Fisheries Center for Estuarine and Menhaden Research),
Pesticides Monitoring Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, September 1970,
pp. 51-56.
"Significance of Pesticides in Water Supplies, " R. L. Woodward,
American Water Works Association Journal, November 1960, pp. 1367-137
-99-
-------
"Significant Physiological Characteristics of Organic Pollutants, "
O. J. Sproul (of the University of Maine*), and D. W. Ryckman (of
Washington University), Water Pollutiofa Control Federation Journal,
Vol. 35, No. 9, September 1963, pp. 1136-1145.
"Some Effects of Detergents in the Marine Environment, "
Dr. E. J. Perkins (of the University of Strathclyde, England),
Chemistry and Industry., January 3, 1970, pp. 14-22.
"Studies On the Toxicity and Decomposition of Fluosilicic Acid, "
R. S. Ingols (of the Georgia Institute of Technology), American
Water Works Association Journal, July 1960, pp. 927-929.
"The Acute Toxicity of Some Heavy Metals to Different Species of
Warm Water Fishes, " A. H. Pickering (of the Robert A. Taft
Sanitary Engineering Center), and C. Henderson (of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service), Air and Water Pollution, Vol. 10, No. 6-7,
June-July 1966, pp. 453-463.
"The Effect of Temperature on the Acute Toxicity of Phenol to
Rainbow Trout in Hard Water,11 V. M. Brown and D. H. M. Jordan
(of the Water Pollution Research Laboratory, England), and B. A. Tiller
(of the University of Bath, England), Water Research, Vol. 1,
No. 8-9, August-September 1967, pp. 587-594.
"The 'Red' Herrings of Placentia Bay, " Fishing News International,
November 1970, pp. 28-33.
"Threshold Limit Values, " American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, 1966.
"Toxic Effects of Odorous Trace Organics, " J. W. Smith and
S. G. Grigoropoulos (of the University of Missouri, Rolla), American
Water Works Association Journal, August 1968, pp. 969-979.
"Toxic Inorganic Materials and Their Emergency Detection By the
Polarographic Method, " H. G. Offner and E. F. Witucki, American
Water Works Association Journal, August 1968, pp. 947-952.
"Toxicity Changes of Stored Oil Refinery Effluents, " W. R. Gould
and T. C. Dorris (of Oklahoma State University), Water Pollution
Control Federation Journal, Vol. 33, No; 10, October 1961, pp.
1107-1111.
-100-
-------
"Toxicity Evaluation of a Technique ,for Introducing Diedrin Into
Water" G. C. Chadwick and U. Kilgemagi, Water Pollution Control
Federation Journal, January 1968, $p. 76-82.
"Toxicity Measurements In Activated Sludge, " L. Hartman and
G. Laubenberger (of the Laboratoryjof Bioengineering, Technical
University, West Germany), Journat of the Sanitary Engineering
Division - Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
April 1968, Paper 5894, pp. 247-256.
"Toxicity of Elemental Phosphorous,11 B. G. Isom (of the Tennessee
Department of Public Health), Water Pollution Control Federation
Journal, Vol. 33, No. 12, December 1960, pp. 1312-1316.
"Toxicity of Nitrogen Dioxide,1' Stanford Research Institute Journal,
No. 11, September 1966.
"Toxicity of Petrochemicals in the Aquatic Environment, "
J. F. Malina, Jr. (of the University of Texas), Water and Sewage
Works, October 1964, pp. 456-460.
"Toxicologic Evaluation of Gibberellic Acid, " H. M. Peck,
S. E. McKinney, A. Tytell, and B. B. Byham (of Merck, Sharpe &
Dohme Research Laboratory), Science, Vol. 126, November 22, 1957,
pp. 1064-1065.
"Toxins in Plant Disease: Structure and Mode of Action, "
L. D. Owens (of the U.S. Soils Laboratory), Science, Vol. 165,
July 4, 1969, pp. 18-25.
"Uptake and Effects of Dichlobenil In a Small Pond, " G. E. Walsh,
C. W. Miller, and P. T. Heitmuller (of the Gulf Breeze Laboratory),
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 6,
No. 3, 1971, pp. 279-288.
REPORTS
Control of Domestic Rats and Mice - Training Guide, Rodent Control
Series, B. F. Bjornson, H. D. Pratt, and K. S. Littig, U. S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service, Pub. 563,
1970.
-101-
-------
Diborane Handbook, M. T. Constantine", K. T. Youel and J. Q. Weber
(of the Rocketdyne Research Division),: for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, National Technical Information Service,
Pub. N70-78384. j
>
i
Estimating Population Exposure to Selected Metals - Manganese,
W. K. Poole and Q. R. Johnston, of Research Triangle Institute,
Project AU-229, for the National Institute of Health, National
Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-195-834, October 1969.
Estimating Population Exposure to Selected Metals - Titanium,
W. K. Poole and D. R. Johnston, of Research Triangle Institute,
Project AU-229, for the National Institute of Health, National
Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-195-819, March 1969.
1969 Fjsh Kills Caused by Pollution, U. S. Department of Interior,
Federal Water Quality Administration, Report 0-410-884, Report
CWA-7, 1970.
Hexavelent Chromium: Toxicological Effects and Means for Removal
From Aqueous Solution, C. M. Shepard and R. L. Jones, U.S. Navy
Naval Research Laboratory, National Technical Information Service,
Pub. AD-717-348, January 4, 1971.
Progress Report of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Center
for Estuarine and Menhaden Research, Pesticide Field Station
Gulf Breeze, Florida, T. R. Rice (Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
Center for Estuarine and Menhaden Research, Director), and C. W. Duke
(Pesticide Field Station, Station Chief), U. S. Department of Interior
Circular 335, August 1970.
Statement by Mr. Charles L. Poor Before the Subcommittee on
International Organizations and Movements - Foreign Affairs
Committee, C. L. Poor (Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army,
Research and Development), Ninety-First Congress, First Session.
Stream Pollution in the "New Lead Belt" of Southeast Missouri,
B. G. Wixson and H. W. Chen, University of Missouri, Rolla, Project
A-021-MO, for the U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Water
Resources Research, National Technical Information Service,
Pub. PB-195-285, August 1970.
-102-
-------
'-i
Toxic Hazards Research Unit Annual Technical Report: '1967,
E. J. Fair-child, II, Aerojet-General Corp., for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration/U. S. Air Force, National
Technical Information Center, Pub. .AD-834-723, December 1967.
Toxic Hazards Research Unit Annual Technical Report: 1970,
J. D. MacEwen and E. H. Vernot, SysteMed Corp., for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration/U. S. Air Force,
National Technical Information Service, Pub. AD-714-694, August
1970.
Toxic Substances, Council On Environmental Quality, April 1971.
BOOKS
Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, M. N. Gleason
Dr. R. E. Gosselin, Dr. H. C. Hodge, Dr. R. P. Smith,
The Williams and Wilkins Co., Third Edition, 1969.
Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products Acute Posioning,
M. N. Gleason and Dr. H. C. Hodge (of the University of Rochester)
and Dr. R. E. Gosselin and Dr. R. P. Smith (of Dartmouth
Medical School), The Williams and Wilkins Co., 1969.
Handbook of Emergency Toxicology - A Guide for the Identification
Diagnosis, and Treatment of Poisoning, Dr. S. Kaye and
Charles C. Thomas, Third Edition, 1970.
Handbook of Toxicology - Volume I: Acute Toxicities of Solids,
Liquids and Gases to Laboratory Animals, ed. by W. S. Spector,
W. B. Saunders Company, 1956.
Handbook of Toxicology - Volume III; Insecticides, A. Compendium,
W. O. Negherbon, W. B. Saunders Company, 1956.
Handbook of Toxicology - Volume IV: Tranquilizers, M. Gordon,
R. F. J. McCandless, S. W. Lipsman, R. M. Grebe, W. B. Saunders
Company, 1959.
Toxicity of Industrial Metals, Dr. E. Browning (Advisor on Toxicology
to the Courtauld Organization), Butterworth and Co. Ltd., Second
Edition, 1969.
-103-
-------
0
Toxicology of Drugs ajoid Chemicals,. Of. W. .B. Deichmann,
Dr. H. W. Gerarde, Academic Press;x1969*
. • : , - • • . - /' ' • • •
Veterinary Toxicology; R. D. Radeleff and D. V. M. (of the
Toxicological Investigations Laboratory), Lea & Febiger, 1964.
-104-
-------
UTILITIES
ARTICLES
"Electric Power From Nuclear Fission, " M. Benedict,
Technology Review, October /November 1971.
"Energy, The Economy And The Environment, " B.C. White,
Technology Review, October/November 1971.
"Geothermal - Earth's Primordial Energy, " R.G. Bowan,
E.A. Groh, Technology Review, October/November 1971.
"Human Energy Production As A Process In The Biosphere, "
S.F. Singer, Scientific American, September 1970.
"Must Fossil Fuels Pollute?, " H. Perry, H. Berkson, Technology
Review, December 1971.
REPORTS
Design of an Overview System for Evaluating the Public Health
Hazards of Chemicals in the Environment, Volume II: The Overview
System, G.A. Lutz, S.B. Gross, J.B. Boatman, P.J. Moore,
R. L. Darby, W. H. Veazie, andF.A. Butrico, Battelle Memorial
Institute, for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Public Health Service, National Technical Information
Service, July 18, 1967.
Industrial Waste Studies: Steam Generating Plants, E. Aynsley and
M. R. Jackson, Freeman Laboratories, Inc., Project 70-1005, for
the Environmental Protection Agency, May 1971.
New Techniques for Energy Conversion, S.N. Levine, Dover
Publications.
BOOKS
Resources In America's Future, Landsbury, Fischman, and Fisher,
The Johns Hopkins Press.
-105-
-------
if-
i
3. SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCE MATERIAL
Several books selected for this study contained information
relevant to many subjects within the previous two categories. For
this reason, they are considered to supplement previous information
and are therefore included in this category. An example would be the
Census of Manufactures books which tabulate information concerning
all industries by SIC code. Books such as these are found in this
supplementary category. All books are listed alphabetically by title.
-106-
-------
SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCE MATERIAL
MAGAZINES
0 Chemical Engineering (Pollution Issue), McGraw-Hill, Inc. ,
September 9, 1968.
Nation's Cities (Pollution Issue), National League of Cities,
September 1969.
Technology Review - Energy Technology to the Year 2000, edited
at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northern Research and
Engineering Corp., October/November 1971.
BOOKS
1963 Census of Manufactures: Location of Manufacturing Plants
By Industry, County and Employment Size, Part 6: Stone, Clay,
and Glass Products; Miscellaneous Manufacturers; Ordnance and
Accessories. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Report MC 63(s)-3.6, June 1966.
1963 Census of Manufactures: Location of Manufacturing Plants
by Industry, County, and Employment Size. Part 7: West South
Central Division, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Report MC 63(s)-4. 7, August 1966.
1967 Census of Manufactures - Volume I; Summary and Subject
Statistics, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
January 1971.
1967 Census of Manufactures - Volume II: Industry Statistics,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, January 1971.
1967 Census of Manufactures - Volume III: Area Statistics,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, January 1971.
1967 Census of Manufactures - Water Use in Manufacturing, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Pub. MC67(l)-7,
April 1971.
-107-
-------
Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University - Proceedings of the
Twenty-First Industrial Waste Conference. May 3-5, 1966,
Part Two, sponsored by Purdue University and Indiana State
Board of Health, Pub. 121, Vol. L, No. 2, March 1966.
o
Environmental Quality - The Second Annual Report of the Council
On Environmental Quality, August 1971, Executive Office of the
President, Council On Environmental Quality, August 1971.
Environmental Reporter, Volume: Federal Laws, The Bureau of
National Affairs, Inc., 1970.
Environmental Reporter, Volumes 1 and 2: State Air Laws, The
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1970.
Environmental Reporter, Volumes 1 and 2: State Water Laws,
The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1970.
Environmental Reporter, Volume: State Solid Waste-Land Use,
The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. , 1970.
Environmental Reporter, Volume: Monographs, The Bureau of
National Affairs, Inc., 1970.
Environmental Reporter, Volume: Decisions, The Bureau of
National Affairs, Lie., 1970.
Federal Water Resources Research Program for Fiscal Year 1970,
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology,
Federal Council for Science and Technology, December 1969.
Geographical Location Codes, General Services Administration,
Office of Finance, Federal Supply Service, October 1966.
Index of 1962-1964 Research Grant Publications and Reports,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Research and
Training Grant Program.
\
Projects of the Industrial Pollution Control Branch, W. J. Lacy,
U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, Division Chief of Applied Science and Technology,
National Technical Information Service, Pub. PB-189-766,
January 1970.
-108-
-------
Projects of the Industrial Pollution Control Branch, A. Cywin,
U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration,
Division Director of Applied Science and Technology, Pub. 1200--07/70,
July 1970.
Resources for the Future Annual Report for the Year Ending
September 30, 1964, Resources for the Future, Inc., December
1964.
Resources for the Future Annual Report for the Year Ending
September 30, 1965, Resources for the Future, Inc., December
1965.
Resources In America's Future - Patterns of Requirements and
Availabilities, 1960-2000, H.H. Landsberg, L. L. Fischman, and
J.L. Fisher (of Resources for the Future, Inc. ), The Johns
Hopkins Press, 1963.
Standard Industrial Classification Manual, Executive Office of the
President, Bureau of the Budget, Office of Statistical Standards,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.
Summaries of USAEC Environmental Research and Development,
Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Biology and Medicine,
Division of Technical Information Extension, September 1970.
1970 Technical Highlights of the National Bureau of Standards
(Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1970), U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Bureau of Standards, Pub. 340, February 1971.
-109-
------- | | |