United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600/9-80-01 1
March 1980
Research and Development
&EPA
Treatment of
Hazardous Waste
Proceedings of the
Sixth Annual
Research Symposium
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/9-80-011
March 1980
TREATMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Research Symposium
at Chicago, Illinois, March 17-20, 1980
Cosponsored by Southwest Research Institute and
the Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edited by:
David Shultz
Coordinated by:
David Black
Southwest Research Institute
San Antonio, Texas 78284
Grant No. R807121
Project Officer
Robert E. Landreth
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
These proceedings have been reviewed by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and ap-
proved for publication. Approval does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
n
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and governmental concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled
land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of the environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is the first necessary step in problem solution;
it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and
improved technology and systems to prevent, treat, and manage wastewater and
the solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal and community
sources; to preserve and treat public drinking water supplies; and to minimize
the adverse economic, social, health and aesthetic effects of pollution. This
publication is one of the products of that research -- a vital communications
link between the researcher and the user community.
These proceedings present the results of completed and on-going research
projects concerning the treatment of hazardous wastes.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory
m
-------
PREFACE
These proceedings are intended to disseminate up-to-date information on
extramural research projects dealing with the treatment of hazardous wastes.
These projects are funded by the Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
(SHWRD) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio. Selected papers from work of other
organizations were included in the Symposium to identify closely related work
not included in the SHWRD program.
The papers in these proceedings are arranged as they were presented at
the Symposium. Each of the ten sessions includes papers dealing with major
areas of interest for those involved in hazardous waste treatment technology.
The papers are printed here basically as received from the authors.
They do not necessarily reflect the policies and opinions of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency or Southwest Research Institute. Hopefully, these
proceedings will prove useful and beneficial to the scientific community as
a current reference on the treatment of hazardous wastes.
IV
-------
ABSTRACT
The Sixth Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division Research Symposium
on treatment and disposal of hazardous waste was held at the Conrad Hilton
Hotel, Chicago, during March 17 - 20, 1980. The purpose of the symposium
was two-fold: (1) to provide a forum for a state-of-the-art review and
discussion of on-going and recently completed research projects dealing with
the management of hazardous wastes and (2) to bring together people con-
cerned with hazardous waste management who can benefit from an exchange of
ideas and information.
Bound in two volumes, Treatment and Disposal, the proceedings of the
symposium are published to provide a copy of all papers in the order pre-
sented. In this document, the Treatment volume, the following five tech-
nical areas are covered:
(1) Waste Sampling .and Characterization
(2) Waste Treatment and Control
(3) Pesticide Treatment and Control
(4) Thermal Destruction Techniques
(5) Economics
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Disclaimer ii
Foreword iii
Preface iv
Abstract v
Contents vii
SESSION I: WASTE SAMPLING AND CHARACTERIZATION
Current Research on Hazardous Waste Assessment and Control
Albert J. Klee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1
Quantification of Municipal Disposal Methods for Industrially
Generated Hazardous Wastes
Hugh 0. Noordwyk, Acurex Corporation 8
SESSION II: WASTE TREATMENT AND CONTROL
Encapsulation of 55-Gal Drums Holding Hazardous Wastes
H.R. Lubowitz, R.W. Telles, S.L. Unger
TRW Systems Group
C.W. Wiles, U.S. Environmental Agency . 43
Hazardous Waste Concentration Technologies
Alan J. Shuckrow, Andrew P. Pajak, C.J. Touhill
Touhill, Shuckrow and Associates, Inc 50
Inorganic Hazardous Waste Treatment
Warren J. Lyman, Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Gayaneh Contos, Versar, Inc 62
The Reaction of PCP's with Sodium, Oxygen, and Polyethylene Glyco'.o
Louis L. Pytlewski, Kenneth Krevitz, Arthur B. Smith, Edward J. Thorne
Chemistry and Biosciences Lab
Franklin Research Center
Frank J. laconianni, Chemistry Department
Drexel University 72
vii
-------
Emerging Technologies for the Destruction of Hazardous Wastes
Molten Salt Combustion
Barbara H. Edwards, John N. Paul 1 in
Ebon Research Systems 77
SESSION III: PESTICIDE TREATMENT AND CONTROL
Holding and Evaporation of Pesticide Wastes
Charles V. Hall, Department of Horticulture
Iowa State University ,.,.,.,.« 86
Design of Evaporative Pits for Waste Pesticide Solution Disposal
Richard P. Egg, Donald L. Reddell
Texas A&M University .88
Detoxification of Captan-Treated Seed Corn
Joel R. Coats, Paul A. Dahm,
Department of Entomology
Iowa State University 94
Study of Current Label Statements on Pesticide Disposal and Storage
Janet Brambley, Dimi trios Kollias
Systems Research Company 101
SESSION IV: THERMAL DESTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
Windmills, Incinerators and Siting
Frank C. Whitmore, Versar Inc.
Richard A. Carnes, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 112
High Temperature Decomposition of Organic Hazardous Waste
D.S. Duyall, W.A. Rubey, J.A. Mescher
University of Dayton Research Institute 121
SESSION V: ECONOMICS
Socioeconomic Analysis of Hazardous Waste Management Alternatives
Graham C. Taylor
Industrial Economics Division
University of Denver Research Institute . 132
The Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis for Hazardous Waste Management
Robert C. Anderson, Roger C. Dower
Environmental Law Institute 149
Economic Comparative Cost Analysis of Hazardous Waste Treatment and
Disposal
Warren G. Hansen, SCS Engineers
Howard L. Rishel, SCS Engineers .162
vi ii
-------
CURRENT RESEARCH ON HAZARDOUS WASTE
ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL
Albert J. Klee
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
ABSTRACT
One of the basic objectives of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(RCRA) is the regulatory control of hazardous waste from generation through disposal. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been charged with implementing the RCRA regula-
tions pertaining to hazardous waste treatment and control. To provide the support neces-
sary for fair and appropriate regulations requires a vigorous research program. It is the
charge of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division (SHWRD), Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, to carry out research involving hazardous waste
assessment and control.
The SHWRD hazardous waste assessment and control program consists of research that
can be categorized into four distinct areas. Environmental impact assessments evaluate
the effects of treatment/disposal operations on the environment. Treatment technology
development investigates methods that appear promising for the detoxification of hazardous
wastes. Techno-economic assessment studies investigate the feasibility, in terms of cost
and technology, of both existing and promising treatment processes. Pesticide disposal
research looks at the technology, feasibility, and environmental impact of methods for the
safe disposal of waste and excess pesticides. Presently the SHWRD has several active re-
search projects in each of the four subcategories. The purpose of this paper is to present
a synopsis of the individual research projects that form the hazardous waste assessment
and control program.
INTRODUCTION
Approximately 35,000,000 tons of haz-
ardous waste were generated in the United
States during 1976 and the rate of genera-
tion grows yearly. It has been estimated
that 90 percent of the hazardous waste
disposal in this country is inadequate to
prevent contamination of surrounding en-
vironmental media such as groundwater,
surface water and air. The introduction of
hazardous substances into the environment
via their disposal can create serious pub-
lic health problems as evidenced by the
situation at Love Canal in New York. As
chemical technology increasingly creates
new substances, many of which are toxic,
there is the assurance that hazardous wastes
will continue to be generated in increasing
amounts.
The Solid and Hazardous Waste Research
Division (SHWRD) is currently active in re-
search for the assessment and control of
hazardous waste. The principal objective
of this research program is to produce
economical and environmentally acceptable
technologies for the treatment/disposal of
unwanted hazardous wastes. To best accom-
plish this, the SHWRD performs four sub-
categories of research pertaining to hazard-
ous waste assessment and control. These
categories are (1) environmental impact of
hazardous waste, (2) development of effec-
tive treatment technologies, (3) techno-
economic assessment of hazardous waste con-
trol technology, and (4) effective pesti-
cide disposal. What follows is a narration
of specific research projects being per?"
formed according to the subcategories of
the hazardous waste assessment and control
1
-------
program.
ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The treatment of hazardous wastes
would be useless if the treatment process
merely shifted the environmental problem
from one media to another. It is essential
to demonstrate that a particular treatment
process successfully reduces or eliminates
the deleterious effects of the hazardous
waste on the environment. To this end, the
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
(SHWRD) conducts studies that determine, in
measurable, objective terms, the intermedia
effects (effects on air, land, and water) of
hazardous waste treatment and control oper-
ations.
The importance of good air quality is
well recognized. Increased human health
problems, as well as property damage such
as accelerated corrosion of paint and coat-
ings have been correlated with declining
air quality. Several hazardous waste treat-
ment processes and operations have the
potential to severely impact ambient air
quality at and surrounding the site of oper-
ation. Landfill operations, handling and
transfer stations, chemical/physical treat-
ment facilities and storage stations all
encompass processes that must be regarded
as potentially hazardous to air quality.
To determine the actual impact of these fa^
cilities on air quality, the SHWRD is con-
ducting a study to measure, analyze, and
report on the levels and types of air
pollutants in and around a series of select-
ed hazardous waste management facilities in
the United States (1). Approximately ten
facilities representing a variety of dif-
ferent operations and geographical loca-
tions, will be analyzed. Four of these
facilities will be selected for intense
monitoring. Tests shall include grab and
continuous monitoring for gas, vapor, dust,
and other pollutants which will then be
analyzed for type and quantity in the lab-
oratory. Air monitoring locations will be
arranged at key site locations around the
plants, in accordance with specific terrain,
population, weather, and prevailing wind
conditions. The results of the study will
be presented in a final report for guidance
in future air quality legislation or regu-
lation enactment.
An assessment of the environmental im-
pact of reconditioning pesticide and organ-
ic chemical containing barrels and drums
is being initiated by the SHWRD (2). The
rinsing and detoxification procedures re-
quired to recondition barrels and drums
create a rinsate that may be toxic, depend-
ing upon the contaminants in the barrel.
The disposal of this rinsate creates the
opportunity for introduction of hazardous
substances to the air, land, and water.
The purpose of this study is twofold. The
primary purpose is to determine the nature
and extent of multimedia pollution caused
by barrel and drum reconditioning. This is
being accomplished through a multimedia
sampling and analysis procedure at the site
of selected reconditioners. A second ob-
jective is to determine the efficacy of the
existing reconditioning processes for de-
struction/detoxification of pesticides,
organics, and other constitutents contained
in the drums.
Much work remains to be done in the
areas of hazardous waste characterization
and quantification, and characterization of
treatment/disposal methods for these wastes.
Certain waste streams often require indi-
vidualized treatment schemes to achieve
maximum detoxification. Knowledge of the
contents and magnitude of various waste
streams allows research monies to be direct-
ed toward solving the problems created by
the more ubiquitous streams. Without such
quantitative information, efficient alloca-
tion of funds to develop appropriate treat-
ment schemes may not occur.
In an effort to determine which haz-
ardous waste streams merit priority atten-
tion, either on the basis of quantity gen-
erated or need for adequate treatment/dis-
posal technology, the SHWRD is conducting a
study to estimate the magnitude of various
hazardous industrial waste streams and the
quantities of hazardous waste undergoing
particular methods of disposal (3). Esti-
mates obtained in this study are derived
from existing data contained in state,
local, and regional government hazardous
waste surveys as well as existing federal
reports. The information generated from
this study should provide a secure founda-
tion upon which the hazardous waste assess-
ment and control program may function.
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
The development of technologies for
treatment/detoxification is central to any
hazardous waste control program. It is
through treatment that a hazardous sub-
stance may be altered to render it innocu-
ous to human health and the environment.
-------
Treatment process may take several forms,
including biological, physical, chemical,
thermal, and isolation; they range from
those specific to one substance to processes
that are effective for a wide variety of
wastes. The SHWRD is presently active in
most treatment areas in an effort to mini-
mize the harmful effects of hazardous wastes
on the environment.
The continuing disposal of hazardous
wastes in landfills and surface impoundments
is rapidly depleting the number of suitable
sites for these facilities. Much of the
waste that is land disposed of could undergo
any of a variety of treatment/detoxification
techniques. Substituting treatment/ detoxi-
fication for land disposal could produce a
number of desirable effects including saving
valuable land space for waste requiring land
disposal, decreasing groundwater contamina-
tion at land disposal sites and increasing
the possibility for resource recovery. Re-
search to further develop existing physical/
chemical techniques, such as electrolysis or
fixation, for recovery,isolation, or neu-
tralization of inorganic chemical waste is
being pursued by the SHWRD (4). Emphasis
is being placed on the development of treat-
ment strategies that will benefit the small
manufacturer and those generators that will
be most impacted by federal waste pretreat-
ment regulations. This effort is also con-
centrating on developing treatment schemes
for those hazardous inorganic wastes most
frequently received at public treatment/dis-
posal facilities. The intensive investiga-
tion of technologies and publicly disposed
of inorganic wastes which characterize the
early stages of this work will give way to
a demonstration/verification of four treat-
ment schemes.
Another hazardous waste physical-chem-
ical treatment process that is being in-
vestigated is encapsulation (5). Two en-
capsulating techniques, Resin Fusion Process
(RFP) and Atmospheric Temperature Resin Cur-
ing Process (ATRCP), are being evaluated to
determine their effectiveness in preventing
the introduction of hazardous substances to
the environment. Encapsulates produced by
the RFP and ATRCP are characterized by
tough, flexible plastic jackets reinforced
by stiff, load bearing fiberglass casings.
The RFP employs thermosetting polyolefins,
with a fiberglass matrix for strength, sur-
rounded by 1/4" polyethylene (seamless).
Special fusing equipment is required for
thermo-setting, and container size is pre-
set by the size of this equipment. Encapsu-
lates produced by the RFP withstand physi-
cal and chemical stresses above projections
for landfill. The ATRCP employs brushing
(or eventually sprayirtg1.) resin upon fiber-
glass encasements. The fiberglass is cap-
able of being "laid" directly on the con-
tainer, and no thermal curing is necessary.
The ATRCP appears at this time to have dis-
tinct advantages over the RFP due to its
atmospheric temperature curing, which should
be beneficial in field operations or where
different sizes of containers exist. Like
the RFP, the ATRCP withstands physical and
chemical stresses above projection for
landfill. ATRCP, however, requires a higher
priced, specialized resin.
Cementitious encapsulation is also
being studied as part of the encapsulation
project. Cementitious materials are being
investigated as agents for encapsulating
small containers. The most effective con-
crete mix is one with a high degree of water
impermeability and low shrinkage potential.
Several projects investigating thermal
treatment/detoxification processes are at
varying stages of development. A novel
approach involving decomposition by micro-
wave plasma is being studied as a treatment
alternative for the complete and safe detoxi-
fication of numerous, highly toxic waste
streams which might defy other, more con-
ventional disposal means (6). EPA became
aware of this technology through a search
for new and novel techniques in 1974, learn-
ing that this method had achieved notable
success with nerve gas simulants.
Th.e hardware employed consists of a
quartz tube reactor chamber containing a
flow of oxygen carrier gas. The reactant
species, is. introduced to the chamber and is
activated with a microwave power source.
Pesticides, or other gaseous, liquid, or
solid hazardous materials are fed into the
reactor and can be totally decomposed in
this oxygen plasma due to intense electron
energy. The reaction is conducted at re-
duced pressures thus insuing leak-light
operation. Monitors are used to detect mi-
crowave leakage, with automatic shutdown
in the case of loss of vacuum, oxygen flow,
or the plasma state. Automatic GC measures
reaction products.
To date several compounds have been
detoxified in the unit which treats waste
a.t a rate of 5-7 Ib/hr. These include PCB,
PMA, Kepone, Malathion, and a carcinogenic
Navy red dye. The U.S. Army (Edgewood
-------
Arsenal) successfully utilized the EPA
5-7 Ib/hr unit for detoxification of small
quantities of DDT.
Currently in Phase III of the project,
the unit is being scaled up to handle 10-30
Ib/hr. Early in this phase, the quartz
packing overheated, forcing its removal from
the reactor. Substances are now introduced
in the gaseous phase to evaluate system per-
formance. Should these detoxification tests
prove successful, future efforts may address
the evaluation of methods for prevolatiliza-
tion of liquids and solids and/or solving
the packing overheating using different
packing materials or configurations.
A study involving thermal decomposition
is examining the thermal destruction char-
acteristics of a number of pesticides and
other organic hazardous wastes (7). This
research is being accomplished through the
use of a '"Thermal Degradation Analytical
System" (TDAS). The TDAS is a small labor-
atory system that, through the process of
thermal decomposition, yields sound repro-
ducible results on decomposition time and
temperature requirements. This system elim-
inates the need for costly and time consum-
ing pilot scale test burns.
Upon introduction to the TDAS, the
organic waste substance is immediately
volatilized. The substance is then subject-
ed to degradation/recombination reactions
at high temperatures (500-1,000°C). All
products of these reactions are analyzed by
GC-MS.. .This permits hazard characterization
of the products as well as determination of
the most optimal conditions for total des-
truction of a substance.
The results generated from the TDAS
study provide a data base for another on-
going-incineration study (8). A major proj-
ect currently underway is investigating
various aspects of incineration to evaluate
its effectiveness as a thermal disposal
technology. Incinerator design capabili-
ties,, efficiency of various air pollution
control devices, materials handling problems
and suggested alternate disposal solutions
to difficult waste streams such as organo-
metallic compounds are being determined in
this study. Several hazardous wastes are
undergoing tests for thermal destruction
efficiencies in an effort to determine de-
sign and handling considerations for a wide
variety of waste streams. Wastes being ex-
amined include PCB's from spent capacitors,
pentachlorophenol still bottoms, PBB con-
taminated wastes, still bottoms from chlo-
rinated pesticide manufacturing processes,
paint sludges, and others.
End use of the data generated for this
research effort will be to supply design
and implementation information to those
programs charged with permitting disposal
operations in order to accept or reject
certain wastes. By establishing lower lim-
its on operating conditions for incinera-
tion technology, certain design considera-
tions will be incorporated that will mini-
mize energy requirements and other design
problems. The lower limits will also per-
mit controlling agencies to establish opera-
ting conditions from a supporting data base
rather than requiring extremely severe con-
ditions due to an insufficient data base.
The SHWRD is initiating research on a
method for the degradation of toxic halo-
genated, organic substances (9). The as-
sortment of halogenated organics that have
been introduced to the environment are
among the most persistent substances known
to man. Past treatment methods, which were
of limited success, employed such extreme
(and expensive) conditions as greatly re-
duced reaction temperatures and air-free
reaction systems. The treatment scheme to
be investigated here will react halogenated
organics with molten sodium containing poly-
meric liquids, such as polyethylene glycols.
Bench scale studies performed previously by
the grantee using this scheme were effec-
tive in producing a complete, self-sustain-
ing degradation reaction. This study will
initially be concerned with discovering the
mechanism of the degradation reaction and
the most optimal operating parameters. Af-
ter these initial determinations, a scale-
up of the process for demonstration is
planned.
TECHNO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS
Though quite important, the develop-
ment of new hazardous waste treatment tech-
nologies is not sufficient to insure their
effective use. These new processes must be
proven technically and economically feasible
before widespread acceptance by hazardous
waste generators will occur. As part of
the hazardous waste assessment and control
program, the SHWRD conducts investigations
that assess the techno-economic feasibility
of new and emerging hazardous waste control
technologies.
-------
Hazardous waste streams often contain
small amounts of hazardous substances dis-M
solved or suspended in recoverable solvents
or water. The cost of treatment/disposal
for such a dilute waste is high relative to
the concentration of the hazardous compon-
ent. Separation and concentration of dilute
waste streams into hazardous and nonhazard-
ous components prior to treatment would re-
duce the quantity of waste to be treated
and, as a result, the cost of treatment.
Research is currently underway here to eval-
uate the technical feasibility of, modify,
or develop concentration processes that
will place hazardous substances in the
physical form most amenable to cost-effec-
tive ultimate disposal/detoxification (10).
This work should prove most beneficial for
those facilities, such as surface impound-
ments and severely contaminated lagoons,
where concentration of the hazardous com-
ponent is desirable for cost-effective
treatment/disposal.
Hazardous waste control is an ever-
evolving field. Waste streams containing
newly created chemicals or substances only
recently determined to be hazardous can be
unresponsive to traditional methods of
treatment/disposal. Because of this, it is
essential that an awareness of new treat-
ment technologies be maintained. In keep-
ing with this philosophy, a project is
beginning that will assess the technical
and economic feasibility of new and emerg-
ing hazardous waste control technologies
(11). A state-of-the-art data bank will be
developed covering all emerging or future
hazardous waste control technologies. In
addition, treatment techniques will be cor-
related wfth specific disposal problems and
pollutants. This project will provide
a directory of promising waste technologies
from which the future direction of hazard-
ous waste control can be determined.
The treatment and control of hazardous
wastes are not without costs. In addition
to the obvious costs to the generator for
treatment/disposal services, there are in-
direct costs assumed by those located in
close proximity to the treatment/disposal
site. Research is ongoing to determine
costs associated with hazardous waste
treatment/control technology (12). These
costs may be fully measurable whereby they
are referred to as direct market costs or
they may be less tangible and known as non-
market costs. An example of a direct mar-
ket cost would be a decline in value of
land adjacent to a waste facility. Illness-
es attributed to waste facilities are ex-
amples of "nonmarket" costs.
Emphasis here will be focused on the
less tangible and difficult to assess "non-
market" effects of hazardous waste. Parti-
cular attention will be focused on risk
management policies as perceived by select-
ed government agencies. The various meth-
odologies will be evaluated and related to
the problem of hazardous waste. An assess-
ment will be conducted of economic-based
strategies that might be employed to supple-
ment direct regulation of hazardous wastes,
and recommendation made for further study
of those options ranking high by the evalua-
tive criteria.
An effort that identifies cost-effec-
tive treatment/disposal technologies for
the management of hazardous wastes in the
electroplating and metal finishing, inorgan-
ic chemicals, and organic chemical and
pesticides industries is currently being
conducted (13). Technologies such as la-
gooning, concentration, flocculation, chem-
ical fixation, landspreading and encapsula-
tion are being evaluated according to cost-
effectiveness in complying with RCRA (Sub-
title C) requirements for treatment and
disposal of hazardous wastes. Emphasis is
being placed on the applicability of the
options and results to meet the needs of
managers of municipal hazardous wastes,*
PESTICIDE DISPOSAL
Pesticide containing wastes can enter
the environment in a variety of ways. The
application of excessive pesticides to
vegetation increases the probability that
fugitive amounts of pesticides will escape
into the air or soil. Contaminated rinsate
from pesticide containing barrels and drums,
if disposed of improperly, can contaminate
ground or surface waters. Because certain
pesticides have been demonstrated to he
hazardous or toxic, the SHWRD has been
charged with developing methods to insure
their safe treatment or disposal.
One common incidence of waste pesti-
cide generation arises from excess usage
by farmers and applicators. To properly
dispose of these wastes, SHWRD has under-
taken a project for the design, construc-
tion and evaluation of acceptable pesti-
cide disposal systems for agricultural
applicators, commercial applicators, and
-------
for research and development centers (14).
These disposal systems take the form of con-
crete pits, containing soil and limestone
layers which hold the pesticide formulation
until evaporation or microbial degradation
can occur. The degree to which environment-
ally hazardous compounds are broken down in
the pit determines the pit's overall effec-
tiveness.
The concrete constructed pits have
been chemically analyzed for several pesti-
cides and biologically for surviving micro-
organisms. The aqueous phases contained
less than 2 ppm of the chemicals while the
soil contained concentrations up to 300 ppm.
The pesticide degrading bacteria have been
identified as gram negative rods of the
genus pseudomonos. Both chemical and micro-
biological studies are in progress at this
time. Volatilization studies were perform-
ed to determine the extent of pesticide
vapors escaping to the atmosphere. While
volatilization does occur for selected high-
er vapor pressure pesticidal formulations,
the majority of degradation occurs in the
pit by microbes. Under controlled condi-
tions, volatilization does not pose a seri-
ous threat.
A project is currently underway to de-
sign roof and unroofed evaporative pits
suitable for treatment of excess pesticides
generated by aerial applicators (15). A
mathematical model describing the area and
volume requirements of evaporation ponds,
both roofed and unroofed, will be developed
and tested. Three basic methods for con-
trol of excess pesticides are being develop-
ed and evaluated. These are the closed
loop systems which collect and contain
waste pesticides for reuse on subsequent
applications, channel containment systems
which are land disposal systems consisting
of channel dykes, and evaporative pit sys-
tems. Evaporative pits appear to have the
most widespread practical application. The
determination of whether a roof increases
the effectiveness of a pit depends on the
climate of the area. For areas with high
evaporation and low precipitation, an un-
roofed pit is more suitable. For areas
having high precipitation and low evapora-
tion, a transparent roof that intercepts
precipitation but does not hinder sunlight
is ideal. As a result of this study, final
guidelines will be developed for designing
and operating evaporative pits to dispose
of waste pesticide solutions.
An interagency agreement between the
EPA and the U.S. Army Medical Bioengineer-
ing Research and Development Laboratory is
being used to evaluate the use of filtra-
tion/adsorption techniques and equipment
for treatment of pesticide wastewaters for
reuse or safe discharge to sewers by Army
installation pest control facilities (16).
A filtration/adsorption system is being
assembled from commercially available equip-
ment and/or equipment constructed in the
laboratory. It is being designed for batch
treatment operation using an activated car-
bon element and, if necessary, additional
elements employing other adsorbents (dia-
tomaceous earth, imbiber beads, amberlite
resin, etc.). It has the capacity to handle
up to 1000 gallons of wastewater per batch
treatment and should provide an effluent
water that is suitable for reuse in the fa-
cility or for discharge into a sanitary
sewer. The filtration system is compatible
with the present wastewater collection sys-
tem in the plans for the Ft. Eustis pest
control facility. It is anticipated that
this system will include a pump to move the
wastewater from the facility's waste collec-
tion tanks through the filtration equipment
into a second storage tank where the treated
water will be held until chemical analysis
has verified that it is safe for reuse or
disposal. An additional tank may be requir-
ed to store the treated water for reuse in
the facility.
Pesticide containers are required by
law to carry on the label instructions for
disposal and storage of excess pesticides
and containers. Reliability and intelligi-
bility of these statements has been ques-
tionable in the past. To determine the
effectiveness of label statements in pre-
venting the unnecessary introduction of
pesticides into the environment, the SHWRD
has initiated a project to develop data re-
quirements and testing protocols to better
evaluate existing disposal and storage rec-
ommendations (.171. After evaluation has
been accomplished, new and improved label
directions for proper storage and disposal
of excess pesticides and containers will be
developed.
CONCLUSION
Hazardous waste control is a rapidly
changing, expanding and uncertain field.
As this summary of SHWRD research projects
-------
has shown, the treatment and control of
hazardous waste is a complex discipline in-
volving economic and social as well as techn-
ological considerations. The nature of this
paper prohibits in-depth discussion of the
technical rationale and experimental results
of the individual projects. Those interest-
ed in obtaining more detailed information
are directed to the following reference
section which lists SHWRD contacts for each
project in the hazardous waste assessment
and control program.
REFERENCES
1. Air Pollution Sampling and Monitoring
at Hazardous Waste Facilities, Illinois
Institute of Technology Research In-
stitute, Project Officer, Donald A.
Oberacker.
2. Barrel and Drum Reconditioning Assess-
ment, RFP, Project Officer, Stephen C.
James.
3. Quantification of Industrially Gen-
erated Hazardous Waste Disposed of by
the Municipal Sector, Acurex, Project
Officer, Thomas L. Baugh.
4. Development and Verification of Tech-
niques to Control Inorganic Chemical
Waste Discharged to the Municipal Sec-
tor, Arthur D. Little, Project Officer,
Thomas L. Baugh.
5. Laboratory and Field Evaluation of
Processes and Materials for Encapsu-
lating Containers Holding Hazardous
Wastes, TRW, Project Officer, Carl ton
C. Wiles.
6. Detoxification of Hazardous Materials
by Low Temperature Microwave Plasma,
Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory,
Project Officer, Donald A. Oberacker.
7. Characterization of High Temperature
Decomposition Behavior of Pesticides
and other Organic Materials. Univer-
sity of Dayton Research Institute,
Project Officer, Richard A. Carnes.
8. Parametric Evaluations of a Field Scale
Hazardous Waste Incinerator, Versar,
Project Officer, Richard A. Carnes.
9. A Study of the Novel Reaction of Mol-
ten Sodium and Solvent with PCB's,
Franklin Institute, Project Officer,
Charles J. Rogers.
10. Evaluation of Concentration Techniques
for Compatibility with Ultimate Dis-
posal/Detoxification of Hazardous Mate-
rials, Touhill, Schuckrow and Associ-
ates, Project Officer, Stephen C. James.
11. Assessment of Emerging Hazardous Waste
Control Technologies, RFP, Project
Officer, Thomas L. Baugh.
12. Economic Analysis of Hazardous Waste
Treatment Control Technology, Environ-
mental Law Institute, Project Officer,
Oscar W. Albrecht.
13. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treat-
ment/Disposal Alternatives for Hazard-
ous Wastes, SCS Engineers, Project
Officer, Oscar W. Albrecht.
14. Develop/Evaluate Pesticide Pit Disposal
Techniques, Iowa State University,
Project Officer, Charles J. Rogers.
15. Development of Guidelines for Waste
Pesticide Control Systems for Aerial
Applicators, Texas A&M University/Texas
Department of Agriculture, Project
Officer, Charles J. Rogers.
16. Evaluation of Filtration/Adsorption
Techniques for the Treatment of Aqueous
Wastes from Army Pest Control Facili-
ties. Interagency Agreement-U.S. Army
Medical Bioengineering Research and
Development Laboratory, Project Officer,
Charles J. Rogers.
17. Testing Protocols and Data Requirements
for Statements on Pesticide Container
Labels, Systems Research Corporation,
Project Officer, Thomas L. Baugh.
-------
QUANTIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL DISPOSAL METHODS FOR
INDUSTRIALLY GENERATED HAZARDOUS WASTES
Hugh J. Van Noordwyk
Acurex Corporation
Mountain View, California 94042
ABSTRACT
.Many industrial wastes are sent to public disposal facilities which often actively
solicit such materials. One common technique is to use a favorable rate structure
coupled with an uncritical analysis of the potential environmental effects which the
wastes may have on ground water or land use options.
The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory (MERL) of the Office of Research
and Development of the Environmental Protection Agency has the charter to develop data
on public sector waste disposal requirements and perform research to develop needed
disposal technologies. There are no known compilations of the broadly based (i.e.,
nationwide) data pertaining to public sector disposal of industrial hazardous wastes.
These data are needed to accomplish effective research program planning. In a recent
study, Acurex Corporation attempted to compile and review for MERL all readily
available data on this topic within the level of effort permitted by time and budget
constraints.
The main purpose of this study was to quantify the amount of industrial hazardous
waste disposed of in public sector facilities. This analysis sought to quantify
industrial hazardous wastes by waste types, by waste disposal methods, and by the
generator's Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. Limited data was available
on these topics. After an extensive search for data, five SIC codes which included
major contributions of hazardous waste were successfully analyzed for their hazardous
waste contributions to the municipal sector.
INTRODUCTION
'"At present, .there are no nationwide
quantitative data compilations on
industrial by generated toxic and
hazardous wastes which undergo municipal
treatment and/or disposal. As part of
the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, the Solid and Hazardous Waste
Research Division must assess, develop,
and demonstrate technologies which can
render innocuous any toxic or hazardous
waste discharged to the municipal
sector. Developing specific technologies
which will have the greatest impact on
the"-treatment/disposal of hazardous waste
requires a knowledge of the character of
the waste. This paper presents the
findings of a recent study conducted in
this regard by Acurex Corporation.
Information contained in this paper, such
as specific wastes generated, the
industrial origin of these wastes, and
the current methods of disposal will
provide a portion of the data base
necessary for future research.
Objectives
The objectives of Acurex's study
were to quantify the amounts and specify
the types of hazardous waste generated by
various industries for those wastes
disposed of in public disposal facilities.
In addition, differences in the way in
which wastes from various industries are
treated and disposed of were examined.
-------
Scope of Work
The lack of broadly based (i.e.,
nationwide) data compilations on this
topic required extrapolation of existing
piecemeal data to achieve the objectives.
Therefore, Acurex's scope of work
contained the following tasks:
Collecting data; potential
sources of data were thought to
be compilations or surveys by
government agencies, expert
opinion, and crosscheck of data
from private sector generators
of wastes and from private
disposal sites
Assessing collected data and
developing an analytical model
for extrapolation of local data
to national scope
Using the analytical model to
perform the extrapolation and
provide answers to the questions:
— How much hazardous waste is
being generated nationally
by various industries?
— What part of industry-
generated hazardous waste is
disposed of in public
facilities?
— What differences exist in
the way hazardous wastes
from various industries are
treated and disposed of in
public disposal facilities?
In estimating nationwide patterns of
industrial waste disposal, the work
effort was to be prioritized by ranking
industries according to the nature of
their wastes, since achieving results for
all industries might not be possible.
Report Organization
Conclusions and recommendations
derived from our study are given in the
next section.
Then the approach originally chosen
to achieve the stated objectives is
reviewed. During the study, the approach
was modified because of conclusions
reached after assessing the data
initially collected. The reasons for
modifying the approach are described
along with the modified approach.
The data sources used are discussed;
data characteristics and their usefulness
are then described.
Finally, the model used and the
results achieved by the model are given.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn
from our study:
Industrial hazardous wastes
which are disposed of
municipally-present less acute
environmental and safety hazards
in their disposal than
industrial hazardous wastes
which are disposed of onsite or
in offsite private facilities.
However, in terms of possible
chronic environmental hazard,
the municipally disposed wastes
have a high hazard potential
because of their heavy metal
content and other persistant
toxic chemicals such as
halogenated organics.
Municipal disposal of industrial
hazardous waste handles just
over 9 percent of all such waste-
generated. Over 99 percent of
this portion ends up in
municipal facilities not
designed for its incorporation.
Long term environmental problems
can be expected from such
disposal methods.
Over 18 million megragrams (Mg)
of hazardous waste are generated
per year by the industries
studied. If recent estimates
which put national hazardous
waste generation between 28 and
36 million Mg per year are
correct, then at least half of
the country's hazardous waste
has been surveyed during our
study. If about 9 percent is
being disposed of in the
municipal sector, then between
2.5 and a little over 3 million
Mg per year are going to some
form of municipal disposal.
-------
Recommendations
Original Concept
Two recommendations were made as a
result of our study and are detailed in
the next two sections.
Data Base Improvement —
It would be useful for program
planning if the EPA could establish basic
information gathering requirements to
compile hazardous waste information on a
national basis. Such information
requirements should include common units
of measurement, common conversion
factors, and, for each SIC code waste
quantity, the distribution by waste type
and by disposal method. Such information
could be generated by survey or by
initiating a state manifest program for
hazardous wastes. Accuracy to within ~10
to 20 percent would provide better
planning data than currently available.
Further Useful Work --
Studies should be made of specific
industries' hazardous waste contributions
to municipal disposal systems. This
preliminary study could serve as an
indicator in prioritizing these studies.
Industries which contributed to municipal
systems almost 90 percent of the
hazardous wastes reviewed in this paper
were, in order of rank: petroleum
refining, inorganic chemicals, plastics
and synthetics, pesticides, and leather
tanning and finishing. Such studies
should also encompass those hazardous
wastes being disposed of in private
offsite facil ities.
Criteria could also be developed
which would allow municipal disposal
facilities to determine whether they
could handle particular hazardous wastes.
APPROACH
The original approach, the reasons
(based on an analysis of the data search
experience and the information collected)
why this approach was abandoned, and the
revised approach which was used are
briefly reviewed here.
Several states, notably California,
Texas, and Maryland, have been collecting
data for several years on the disposal of
industrial wastes. California and Texas
have been requiring waste disposal
manifests from waste generators,
transporters, and disposers. California
had computerized useful data. ' In 1977,
Texas officials had stated their plans to
Acurex staff to issue summary data in
1978. Maryland had performed a survey of
waste generation and disposal for about
one-third of the industrial firms in that
state and had issued a summary report, as
had several other states in which survey
data was collected.
These data might provide enough
credible information about wastes from
particular SIC codes to allow
extrapolation for those SIC codes for the
entire United States. Data gathered from
private industry generators and various
disposal sites would then provide spot
crosschecks on specific SIC waste
estimates.
Assessment of Initial Data
Collection Results
Acurex attempted to collect data
from the 48 contiguous states.
Thirty-one responded. These data were
generally inconsistent, both within
individual reports and between reports
from different states. In addition, the
data were extremely sketchy, incomplete,
and reported in a nonuniform fashion.
As an example, some reports gave
statewide totals for various kinds of
waste. Others gave statewide totals (for
all waste kinds) by SIC code. Very few
reports gave the crucial datum of type-of
waste-by-SIC code. (Several state
reports did. Unfortunately, those
reports were for states which generate
only minor fractions of national waste
totals, and we did not wish to base
extrapolations on such a limited base.)
There was apparently no concensus on
the meaning of hazardous waste. An
operational definition of this term has
been needed since its incorporation into
the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976. No operational definition
had been adopted by the completion of
this study; thus, it was not possible to
10
-------
test (operationally) or otherwise
establish that a given waste was or was
not hazardous. (As a result, this study
generally tried to include the
descriptors present in the data sources
which were used to draw our conclusions.)
Revised Approach
As stated above, data in the state
reports often were not detailed enough.
However, several state reports provided
data on the types of wastes, by SIC
code. Others gave data on the method of
disposal by SIC code.
The Office of Solid Waste had
previously created a sequence of
contractor reports. Each of these
assessment studies addressed the wastes
in a major industrial category. A review
of these reports indicated that they
contained credible nationwide totals for
quantities of industrial wastes, although
they rarely specified the method of
disposal by type of waste for the
industrial category addressed. Some of
these reports attempted to provide both
total waste and hazardous waste
quantities.
At this point, it became important
to examine whether a combination of these
data could be used to reach useful
conclusions.
Reaching conclusions appeared
probable for several SIC codes. These
SIC codes have two important
characteristics:
• According to the OSW contractor
reports, these industries are
believed to generate substantial
portions of the total quantity
of hazardous waste created each
year.
• These industries correlate
substantially with the proposed
listing of hazardous waste
streams (Federal Register,
December 18, 1978, pp.
58958-58959).
The approach chosen uses the OSW
assessment reports as an initial source
for the total (nationwide) quantity of
waste, subject to further crosschecking.
If quantitative estimates of disposal
methods or waste types were lacking in
these reports, then these kinds of data
were sought from the state reports.
State report estimates (particularly
those published most recently) were also
used to crosscheck quantity estimates.
Where these two data sources proved
inadequate, other data were sought.
Extrapolation appeared feasible for
data from SIC codes 28, 29, 30, 31, and
36. These SIC codes appeared to generate
about 47 percent of the total quantity of
hazardous wastes listed in the OSW
assessment reports. They also included a
major portion of the proposed listed
hazardous waste streams.
The last section of this paper
summarizes the data collected and the
results obtained using the revised
approach. The results achieve the stated
objectives.
DATA SOURCES
In the data acquisition phase of
this project, we called on various
potential governmental data sources to
request current information on quantities
and compositions of industry-generated
waste streams and their methods of
disposal. Pertinent data was also sought
from documents already catalogued in
Acurex library files. Additional EPA or
EPA contractor reports were sought as
were other contractor reports, journal
articles, and expertise from specific
individuals or private concerns. Table 1
lists many of the data sources and tells
where data were received.
Many states have conducted hazardous
waste studies. Since these efforts are
not coordinated nationally, the state
agency conducting the study may have been
any one of several, including:
Department of Public Works, Office of
Solid Waste, Solid Waste Management
Section, Department of Environmental
Quality, or Department of Water
Resources. Each has its particular
responsibilities, scope of authority, and
resources. The appropriate agency was
contacted in every state except Alaska
and Hawaii which only dispose of minimal
amounts of hazardous wastes.
For economic and liability
considerations, industrial companies
control and monitor their waste streams.
Information-seeking efforts were focused
11
-------
TABLE 1. HAZARDOUS WASTE DATA SOURCES
Source
Information provided
Trade/technical associations
National Solid Waste Management Association
National Center For Resource Recovery
Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
Water Pollution Control Federation
Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air
and Stream Improvement
Federal governmental agencies
U.S. EPA Hazardous Waste Management Division/OSW
U.S. EPA Regional Offices (all 10 offices)
U.S. EPA Effluent Guidelines Divislon/OWPS
Department of Commerce
Department of Energy
State governmental agencies
48 contiguous states
Disposal facilities or companies
Industrial Tank Company (two California locations)
Los Angeles County Landfill (California)
Ventura County Landfill (California)
San Diego County Landfill (California)
Rollins Disposal Services (Texas, New Jersey)
ENSCO Hazardous Waste Incinerator (Arkansas)
Industrial organizations
Aluminum Company of America
American Standard Inc.
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Boise Cascade Paper Group
Boysen Paint Co.
Brown Group Co.
Evans Products Co.
General Dynamics Corp.
General Electric Co.
Georgia Pacific Corp.
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.
W. R. Grace & Co.
Hewlett-Packard Co.
Johns-Manville Corp.
Johnson & Johnson
Kelly-Moore Paint Co., Inc.
Monsanto Co.
Ogden Manufacturing and Sales Inc.
Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.
Owens-Illinois Inc.
U.S. Gypsum Co.
U.S. Steel Corp.
Warner Lambert Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Union Carbide Corp.
Eastman Kodak Corp.
Yes,
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
by Region X
No
Yes
No
Yes, by 31 states
Qualitative
Qualitative
Qualitative
Qualitative
Qualitative
Qualitative
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
12
-------
on several of the "Fortune 500"
companies, since complete data from any
one of these would have potential value
for this study.
Trade associations were a potential
source of data from industry; in
compiling information volunteered by
their members, they provide the anonymity
desired by many individual companies.
Qualitative data were provided from
several associations; others referred us
to data already furnished to the OSW.
Managers of disposal services and
sites estimate amounts of wastes to fix
fees and may also request a description
of waste components. Such data are often
unverified but are useful for rough
estimates. As hazardous waste manifest
requirements become more widely required
and more uniform in content, these data
will be more useful, particularly if, as
in California, monthly and annual summary
data are compiled.
Acurex's in-house collection of EPA
and contractor documents was used.
Additional reports were acquired through
literature searches.
UTILITY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DATA
COLLECTED
Hazardous waste generation and
disposal data were received from
approximately 50 percent of the sources
listed in Table 1. Several hundred EPA
and contractor reports were also analyzed
after reviewing their abstracts. These
abstracts were obtained from the Solid
Waste Information Retrieval System
(SWIRS) computerized data base.
State Reports
Forty-eight state agencies with
waste disposal data were reached by
telephone. Information relating to waste
generation and waste disposal was
sought. Thirty-one state agencies
responded by sending complete or partial
reports, report summaries, tabulated
data, or computer printouts. Table 2
summarizes the types of information
received from state agencies.
The data provided by the state
agencies was only partly useful since
they did not use a uniform definition of
a hazardous waste or a consistent method
for obtaining or tabulating quantitative
waste generation and disposal information.
Since no uniform criteria existed to
define which solid wastes were hazardous,
wastes of similar characteristics were
reported as hazardous in some states
while in others they were not.
For example, New Jersey specifically
listed the wastes considered hazardous,
while Maryland used a set of criteria
based on bioconcentration, flammability,
toxicity, or corrosiveness to establish a
working definition of hazardous wastes.
Several states defined hazardous waste as
"...any waste, or combination of wastes,
of a solid, liquid, contained gaseous, or
semisolid form, which because of its
quantity, concentration, physical,
chemical, or infectious characteristics
may (a) cause, or significantly
contribute to an increase in mortality or
an increase in serious irreversible, or
incapacitating reversible, illness, or
(b) pose a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, disposed of, or
otherwise managed." Unfortunately, no
method was usually provided to test
whether a given waste was or was not
hazardous according to this definition.
According to this definition, different
wastes were considered hazardous by
various states.
The lack of uniformity with which
state agencies conducted their hazardous
waste surveys made it difficult to use
much of the data contained in the state
reports for the study.
The state agencies generally
obtained hazardous waste data through
questionnaires mailed to all known or to
some fraction of known waste generators.
Based on the initial responses received,
some agencies conducted actual plant
surveys. Others attempted to promote
additional responses by telephone or
undertook second mailings of the
questionnaire. In most states, waste
generators were not legally obligated to
respond to state surveys. Consequently,
many generators chose not to do so.
13
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF STATE REPORT DATA
EPA
region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Kill
IX
X
State
Maine
Rhode Island
Vermont
Connecticut
Massachusetts
New York
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryl and
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Kentucky
Mississippi
Georgia
Florida
So. Carolina
No. Carolina
Tennessee
Illinois
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Ohio
Michigan
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Louisiana
Iowa
Missouri
Kansas
Nebraska
Montana
No. Dakota
So. Dakota
• Wyoming
Utah
California
Nevada
Arizona
Hawaii
Washington
Idaho
Oregon
Alaska
Report
or data
available
Yes
Yesa
Yes
Yesa
Yes
Yes
Yesa
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes a
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes3
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not
contacted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not
contacted
Received
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Report
date
6/78
3/77
8/77
10/76
1974
10/78
5/77
11/76
1/78
8/75
11/77
9/78
1971
10/78
1977
3/78
11/78
4/77
3/77
12/76
12/77
1976,
1977
12/74
6/73
3/74
Waste quantity
data baseb
S/E
S
s
S/E
S/E
S
Estimate
S
S/E
Estimate
S/E
S
S
S
S/E
S
S/E
S/E
S
Not specified
Manifests
S
S
S/E
S
S
Manifest/S
S/E
S/E
S/E
Waste
Identified
by SICC
Yes - 2/12
Yes - 3/23
Yes - 4/15
Yes - 2/11
Yes - 3,4/16
Yes - 4/203
Yes - 2,3/23
No
Yes - 2/18
Yes - 2,3/19
Yes - 2/8
No
Yes - 2/13
Yes - 4/39
Yes - 2/12
No
Yes - 2,3,
4/32
No
No
No
Yes
Yes 2,3,
4/-50
Yes - 2/16
No
Yes - 2/14
Yes - 3/32
Yes - 2/15
Yes - 4/Many
Yes - 2/12
Yes - 3/42
Yes - 3/30
Yes - 2,3,
4/15
Disposal
quantitatively
ident1fiedd
Partial - SIC/CAT
Yes - SIC/CAT
Yes - SIC
Yes - CAT
No
No
No
Yes - CAT
Yes - CAT
No
Yes - SIC/CAT
Yes - CAT
No
Yes - SIC
Yes - CAT
No
Yes - CAT
No
Yes
Yes
Yes - CAT/SIC
No
Yes - CAT
No
Yes - CAT
Yes - CAT/SIC
Yes - CAT/SIC
Yes - CAT/SIC
No
No
No
Yes - SIC/CAT
Remarks
Status report received, survey not
complete
Draft copies of report components
have been received -- final report
not available. 1/75 preliminary
report received
Portions of preliminary draft
received
Report addressed solid wastes
generated, not hazardous waste
Very brief summary of results
received
Very limited data
Report presented limited
quantitative data
Survey recently started
Brief summary received; specific
survey data available on file
Two regional studies and computer
printouts of manifest data for
various parts of the state
Regional waste survey for Reno and
Las Vegas. No state wide data
1974/1975 reports received
Report primarily addressed solid
waste management with no hazardous
waste data given
jReport was being prepared or data were still being collected as of the end of 1978
DThe letter "S" signifies that hazardous waste data was developed by a survey of waste generators; "E" signifies
that survey data was extrapolated to represent state-wide totals
c"Yes" 1f quantified waste data were presented by SIC code; "X/XX" indicates the number of digits for each SIC category
and the total number of categories, respectively
""Yes" if waste disposal was addressed quantitatively; "SIC" signifies that waste disposal Information was presented for SIC
categories
"CAT" signifies that waste disposal information was presented for waste categories, (e.g., acids, bases, oils, solvents, etc.)
14
-------
The quantitative accuracy of the
data in these reports varies from state
to state depending how the survey was
conducted. Data obtained from actual
plant visits by state solid waste agency
personnel appears more reliable than data
obtained from questionnaires. Some state
agencies attempted to extrapolate the
data collected to estimate total
hazardous wastes generated statewide.
Other states made no efforts at
extrapolation. Many state reports do not
clearly identify the basis for the
reported data; they do not identify
whether the reported data represent only
respondent generators or whether they
represent all waste generators within the
state. Much effort was spent in
determining unreported facts such as
these.
Another shortcoming of the hazardous
waste generation and disposal data
provided by the state reports is that
waste quantities are not classified
uniformly from one state to another.
Many states categorize overall waste
quantities by SIC code while other
quantitatively classify waste quantities
by waste characteristics, (i.e.,
solvents, acids, bases, and oils).
Disposal information also was not
reported in a uniform manner. Of the 20
states which quantitatively identify
waste disposal by disposal method, the
majority only presented information which
identified the disposal method by waste
type. Table 3 reproduces an example from
the Minnesota report.
Disposal methods for specific waste
types were quantitively identified by SIC
categories in 10 of the 31 state
reports. Unfortunately, the waste
quantities generated by these states are
only a small fraction of the national
total. Adequate disposal data from the
largest waste generator states such as
Texas, Louisiana, Ohio, New York,
Illinois, and Pennsylvania, were not
available.
Only a small number of the state
reports which listed waste disposal data
by SIC generators further identified
wastes which end up in the municipal
sector. Disposal of wastes by landfill
or sewering was identified in some
reports. However, ownership of the
landfill or wastewater treatment plant
was usually not identified.
Published Data Sources
Approximately 450 literature
abstracts obtained through the SWIRS
computerized data base were reviewed.
Although many of these documents report
quantitative waste generation values, the
majority do not report the values in
detail nor do they address dispos.al
methods quantitatively on a regional or
national basis.
One important series of contractor-
prepared reports, sponsored by the EPA's
Office of Solid Waste, describes
hazardous waste practices in major SIC
categories. These 15 reports
characterize and quantify the
land-destined hazardous wastes generated
by selected industries and also attempt
to characterize treatment and disposal
technologies currently being practiced by
those industries. A tabulation of the 15
contractor reports is given in Table 4.
These assessments reported provide
useful hazardous waste generation and
disposal data. The reports assess
specific industries on a nationwide
basis. Some of the reports list the
significant production units within the
industry. Hazardous waste streams
generated by most of the industries are
characterized and quantified. Data was
obtained from literature sources and
actual plant surveys. In some cases, the
results use data from the sampling and
analysis of waste streams.
Disposal of hazardous wastes by each.
specific industry is generally addressed
in these reports by categorizing
practical treatment and disposal
technologies as: (1) those which are
currently and commonly practiced by the
majority of waste generators (level I
technology); (2) those which are the most
environmentally sound methods currently
employed (level II technology); and (3)
those which will provide adequate health
and environmental protection (level III
technology). Each level of treatment and
disposal technology is identified.
Either the number of generators using
15
-------
TABLE 3. WASTE TYPES (IN TONS) AND DISPOSAL METHODS5
o>
Disposal Method
Waste
NPDES Sanitary Land- Resource Trash Chemical
Municipal permit Incineration landfill spreading Lagooning recovery hauler treatment Other Totals
Oil
Solvents
Flaitmables
Oxidizers
Explosives
Irritants and
corrosives
Wastewater
sludges
Pesticides
Paints
Heavy metals
Other
poisons
Other
Totals
164.5
1.9
2.2
21.5
1.6
0.3
8.9
4.3
0.4
206
3.5
64.5
535.4
135.7
3
2
4
377
3.4
1125.0
259.1
81
456.8
4200
0.04
278.4
30.3
4.2
3827
9
2460
2.5
1803
131.5 18.9 . . . 56.0 725
1422.4 75.5 . . . 24.4 2145
...'... ... 247.5 4210
5
2
2.4 3.8 ... 46.3 2347
... 200 6861.6
0.04
787.5 94.4 1540
45.2 ... 58
33 ... 45
5275.3
6333
1807
2343.8 192.6
78.2
574.2 17938
a"The Impact of Hazardous Waste Generation in Minnesota," October 1977
-------
TABLE 4. OSW INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE ASSESSMENT REPORTS
Industry
Metals mining
Textiles
Inorganic chemical
Rubber and plastics
Pharmaceuticals
Paint and allied products
Organic chemicals, pesticides, explosives
Petroleum refining
Petroleum rerefining
Leather tanning and finishing
Metal smelting and refining
Electroplating and metal finishing
Special machinery manufacturing
Electronics components manufacturing
Storage and primary batteries
SIC
10
22
281
282, 30
283
285
286, 2879, 2892
2911
2992
3111
33
3471
355, 357
367
3691, 3692
Prepared by
Midwest Research Institute
Versar, Inc.
Versar, Inc.
Foster D. Snell, Inc.
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Uapora, Inc.
TRW Systems
Jacobs Engineering Co.
. . .
SCS Engineers, Inc.
Calspan Corp.
Battelle Columbus Labs
Wapora, Inc.
Wapora, Inc.
Versar, Inc.
Date
9/1976
6/1976
3/1975
3/1978
1976
9/1975
1/1976
6/1976
1977
11/1976
4/1977
9/1976
4/1977
1/1977
1/1975
EPA no.
SW 132c
SW 125c
SW 104c
SW 163C.1-4
SW 508
SW 119c
SW 118c
SW 129c
SW 144c
SW 131c
SW 145C.1-4
SW 136c
SW 141c
SW 140c
SW 102c
NTIS no.
PB 261 052
PB 258 953
PB 244 832
PB 282 070-073
PB 258 800
PB 251 669
PB 251 307
PB 259 097
PB 272 267
PB 261 018
PB 276 169-172
PB 264 349
PB 265 981
PB 265 532
PB 241 204
-------
each technology level or the quantity of
wastes disposed of by each method is
reported. The amounts disposed of in
municipally owned or operated sites could
generally not be determined from these
reports although some estimates were
given.
Industrial Data Sources
None of the 26 companies contacted
during this study had survey data in the
form of reports which could be made
available on short notice. Some
companies did attempt to estimate
quantities of waste generated by their
plants by SIC code. Nine firms
responded; the information obtained was
fragmentary. Two sources estimated the
percent of their wastes going to the
municipal sector. Their data were used
to crosscheck the state report data for
the SIC codes involved. No data on waste
stream compositions was provided.
Our opinion was that most of these
companies would be willing to provide
data. However, the time constraints of
this program proved incompatible with the
length of time required for decisions to
be reached and data to be assembled
within the corporate structures we
approached.
Other Sources
Office of Solid Waste —
The Hazardous Waste Management
Division of the Office of Solid Waste
provided a summary of hazardous waste
quantities generated by EPA region and
state. Unfortunately, these data could
not be correlated with either the
assessment reports or state data. (We
were told that this summary was prepared
from the assessment reports, but were
unsuccessful in correlating the OSW
summary quantity values with these
reports.)
Region X provided "An Evaluation of
the Status of Hazardous Waste Management
in Region X," December 1975. This report
described how certain wastes within
various SIC codes are disposed of in the
Pacific Northwest and was used as a
crosscheck.
Trade/Technical Associations —
The Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies furnished a report,
"Field Report on Current Practices and
Problems on Sludge Management," June
1976. These data were not specific
enough to be used in this study. Other
trade associations had already furnished
data to the OSW; we were referred to
these reports and compilations.
Summary
As discussed earlier, the decision
was reached during the data collection
phase to use the assessment report data
for waste quantity information, and the
state reports and other data sources for
waste type and waste disposal method
information. After the data collection
phase, we reviewed the available
information, and decided whether enough
information had been collected to
determine useful estimates for the whole
United States.
This question was answered
affirmatively for portions of five SIC
codes. In the next section, the data and
estimates reached for these SIC codes are
reviewed.
NATIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE AMOUNT
QUANTIFICATION
To quantify national amounts of
industrial hazardous wastes by waste
types and their disposal methods for
various SIC codes, a specific methodology
was used. This section describes that
methodology, and the results of its use.
Methodology
The methodology employed was stated
briefly in an earlier section of this
paper. A more detailed explanation
follows.
EPA hazardous waste assessment
reports were analyzed to determine the
information contained on hazardous waste
quantities, waste types, and disposal
methods for the particular SIC code(s)
addressed by these reports. Projected
national amounts of hazardous or
potentially hazardous waste for these
different SIC codes for 1977 were assumed
valid since the reports' most current
18
-------
surveyed national figures were for 1972,
1973, 1974, or 1975.
After tabulating these data by waste
types and their disposal methods for
specific SIC codes, comparisons were made
to state hazardous waste studies data.
Hazardous waste treatment information and
other pertinent comments were annotated
during this tabulation.
Data from state studies were used to
modify the information in the assessment
report if the state data were
particularly comprehensive, of high
quality, or could be used to fill in
gaps. These facets were partly assessed
in discussing with state agency staff
members how each report was prepared. In
addition, we compared specific SIC code
characteristics in a particular state to
the national characteristics of that
code. This comparison included
percentage of populations represented
by the SIC code, distribution of
manufacturing activities by SIC code
subdivisions, and any other beneficial
information. This was not an easy task
because of the variability in state
report formats. Only a few states
provided data which allowed thorough
comparison.
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Codes Addressed
The data were assessed for
usefulness in determining national
amounts of industrial hazardous waste by
waste types and their disposal methods.
This determination was only possible for
those SIC codes addressed by the
hazardous waste assessment reports
because of the inconsistancy of the state
studies and other data sources.
SIC Codes Potentially of Interest —
The SIC codes of interest initially
included all manufacturing SIC codes in
which significant quantities of
industrial hazardous waste were thought
to be generated. This set included codes
26 through 39, except for code 32.
Following data analysis for quality
and utility, enough data existed for only
the SIC codes which had EPA assessment
reports. These reports addressed SIC
codes 22, 28 through 31, 33, and 34
through 36.
Criteria for Choosing —
The principal criterion for choosing
candidate SIC codes for further
quantification was the availability of
data that could be used to determine the
national quantity of hazardous waste by
waste types and disposal methods.
The importance of the SIC code in
amounts or severity of industrial
hazardous waste was not the determining
factor in this choice. However, OSW's
proposed list of hazardous waste streams
included streams from six of the nine SIC
codes addressed by the assessment reports.
Results of Applying Choice Criterion —
After this review, the following
codes were chosen for quantification of
their industrial hazardous wastes by
waste types and disposal methods:
SIC code number
28
29
30
31
36
Name
Chemicals and allied
products
Petroleum refining and
related industries
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastic products
Leather and leather
products
Electrical and
electronic machinery,
equipment and supplies
Actually, only those portions of
these two digit SIC codes, which were
addressed by the assessment reports, were
included in this study. Based on the
available data, we estimate that these
SIC code segments generate the bulk
(approximately 90 percent) of their
code's hazardous waste, these SIC code
segments are listed in Table 5.
The SIC code segments listed in
Table 5 included 94 of the 95 industrial
processes named as those which generate
hazardous wastes in EPA's proposed rules
for defining and classifying hazardous
wastes in the December 18, 1978 Federal
Register.
19
-------
TABLE 5. SIC CODE SEGMENTS ADDRESSED BY EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE
ASSESSMENT REPORTS WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN OUR STUDY
SIC code segment number Name
281 Industrial inorganic chemicals
282 Plastics materials and synthetic resins,
synthetic rubber, synthetic and other
manmade fibers, except glass
283 Drugs
285 Paints, varnishes, lacquers, enamels,
and allied products
286 Industrial organic chemicals
2879 Pesticides and agricultural chemicals, NEC3
2892 Explosives
291 Petroleum refining
2992 Lubricating oils and grease
301 Tires and inner tubes
302 Rubber and plastics footwear
303 Reclaimed rubber
304 Rubber and plastics hose and belting
306 Fabricated rubber products, NEC
311 Leather tanning and finishing
367 Electronic components and accessories
3691 Storage batteries
3692 Primary batteries, dry and wet
aNot elsewhere classified
20
-------
Example of a National Industrial
Hazardous Waste Amount Quantification:
Batteries Industry. SIC 3691/3692
Hazardous waste types, amounts, and
their methods of disposal were obtained
from the appropriate assessment report;
in this case it was: "Assessment of
Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Storage and Primary Batteries
Industries," Versar, Inc., January 1975,
Report No. PB 241 204. Information
available 1n this assessment report
included the quantity of each waste type
and general information on disposal
methods for the entire batteries
industry. Total hazardous waste stream
quantities (on a wet basis) were given
for each waste type for 1973, 1977, and
1983. Hazardous constituents were also
given on a dry basis for the same years.
The extrapolations for 1977 were chosen,
as they were for all other SIC codes in
our study, because they most closely
approximated current waste generation
quantities.
The state hazardous waste reports
were then consulted. The distribution of
disposal methods (i.e., onsite and public
versus private) was determined from these
reports. Any changes in disposal methods
between 1973 and 1977 were also assessed
and used to modify disposal methods
distribution estimates. State report
data used included data from Arizona,
Maine, Nebraska, Oregon, Vermont, and
Florida. The EPA Region X report was
also used. Tables 22 and 23 summarize
our results for "Industrial Hazardous
Waste Quantities by Disposal Method" and
"Waste Types and Typical Hazardous Waste
Constituents by Process," respectively
for the batteries industry.
Summary of National Industrial Hazardous
Waste Amount Quantification
The results of our study are given
in the following sections by SIC code.
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, SIC 281 --
Table 6 gives the subcategory
distribution of 1977 hazardous waste
totals for SIC 281. It also shows the
amount of hazardous constituents of these
wastes (on a dry basis) in each
subcategory and gives total SIC 281
hazardous waste and hazardous
constituents quantities.
The distribution of disposal methods
are given in Table 7. The preponderance
of hazardous waste from SIC 281 is
disposed of onsite, primarily in ponds or
general purpose landfills. Private
offsite disposal accounts for 10 to 20
percent of the total; public offsite
disposal accounts for about 11 percent or
427,000 Mg, mostly to general purpose
landfills.
Plastics and Synthetics, SIC 282 —
Industrial hazardous waste
quantities classified by disposal method
are given in Table 8 for SIC 282. The
bulk of wastewater sludges which go to
unknown disposal facilities may well end
up in municipal landfills, but this is
not certain.
Hazardous constituents in the wastes
of this industry include organics (toxics
and flammables) and some heavy metals.
Pharmaceuticals, SIC 283 —
As shown in Table 9, this industry
incinerates the majority of its waste;
the remainder is either treated and
disposed of or recovered. A very small
amount (<90 Mg/year) of mixed solvent is
disposed of in municipal sewers.
Paints and Coatings, SIC 285 —
It was not possible to determine
specific disposal methods used for each
waste type for this industry. Table 10
shows the number of plants which used
particular disposal options in 1972 for
specific waste types.
The bulk of raw material packaging
wastes and dust from air pollution
control equipment is disposed of in
routine periodic pickups. These routine
pickups are the same ones in which
ordinary trash such as paper would be
removed for disposal, commonly to
municipal landfills. Therefore, the
assumption is that half ends up in a
public facility and half in a private
facility. Wastewater sludge and spills
and spoiled batches are probably picked
up by contract haulers and disposed of in
private sites. Waste organic cleaning
solvent is either recovered or
incinerated onsite or offsite.
21
-------
TABLE 6. SIC 281 -- INDUSTRIAL INORGANIC CHEMICALS
Subcategory distribution of Industrial hazardous waste
Subcategory
Name
Hazardous waste -- 1977
Mg/year, wet basis (dry basis)
3,270,000 (2,030,000)
2812 Alkalies and chlorine 109,000 (56,000)
Hazardous constituents (Kg, dry basis)
Asbestos 3,800
Chlorinated hydrocarbons 1,200
Lead 900
Mercury 120
Sodium/calcium sludge 1.500
Total -7,500
2813 Industrial gases Negligible
2816 Inorganic pigments 507,000 (229,000)
Hazardous constituents (Mg, dry basis)
Antimony compounds 14
Arsenic compounds 0.3
Cadmium compounds 60
Chromium and Us compounds 3,560
Cyanide compounds 150
Lead compounds 1,700
Mercury compounds 0.3
Z1nc compounds 330.6
Total -5,800
2819 Inorganic chemicals, NEC, Industry
Hazardous constituents (Mg, dry basis)
Arsenic
Chromium
Fluoride
Nickel
Phosphorus
Total
Total SIC 281 industrial hazardous waste
Wet basis -- 3,884,890 Mg
Dry basis — 2,317,470 Mg
Total SIC 281 Industrial hazardous waste
Hazardous constituents (Mg dry basis)
Antimony compounds 14
Arsenic and its compounds 6
Asbestos 3,800
Cadmium compounds 60
Chlorinated hydrocarbons 1,200
Chromium and its compounds 3,560
Cynide compounds 150
Fluoride 50,500
Lead and its compounds 2,600
Mercury and Us compounds 120
Nickel 1
Phosphorus 5,300
Sodium/calcium sludge 1,500
Z1nc compounds 330
Total -69,100
'Reference 1
22
-------
TABLE 7. SIC 281 -- INDUSTRIAL INORGANIC CHEMICALS3
Distribution of industrial hazardous disposal methods
Percentage of distribution
Onsite
Offsite
Disposal method
Private Public
Pond storage/disposal
Burn ing/incineration
High-temperature processing
Municipal sewers
Burial
Specialized disposal sites
General purpose landfills
General purpose landfills
approved for hazardous
wastes
Approved landfills for
large volume hazardous waste
General purpose secured
landfill
Deep well injection
Ocean barging
20-29
1-2
2-4
45
0.1
3
5
11
<5
Totals
Mg/Year, 1977
(Wet basis)
69-79 10-20
2,680,000- 388,000-
3,070,000 777,000
11
427,000
Total industrial inorganic chemicals industry hazardous waste:
3,885,000 Mg/year, 1977 (wet basis)
References 1, 14, 16, 18, and 20
23
-------
TABLE 8. SIC 282 — PLASTICS AND SYNTHETICS3
Industrial hazardous waste quantities by disposal methods
Waste type
Liquid phenolics
Phenolic sludges
Ami no resins
Still bottoms
Catalyst wastes
Wastewater sludges
Totals
Total hazardous waste
Mg/year, 1977 (wet basis)
322,000
44,000
20,700
54,200
5,360
284,000
-730,000
Disposal methods
Mg/year, 1977 (wet basis)
Offsite
Ons ite Unknown
Private Public
161,000b 161,000b ... ...
44,000d ... ... ...
. . . 20.70QC ... ...
27,100e 27,100e Minor . . .
quantities
5,360b ... ... ...
... ... ... 284,000f
-237,500 208,800 Minor 284,000
quantities
References 2, 14, and 17
bDrummed and stored
^Incinerated
dDrunmed or lagooned
^Incinerated; since the distribution was not given, parity was assumed
'Small amount to landfills of unknown locations; the remainder to unknown disposal methods
-------
TABLE 9. SIC 283 -- PHARMACEUTICALS0
Industrial hazardous waste quantities by disposal methodb
Waste type
Mixed solvents
Nonhalogenated solvents
Halogenated solvents
Organic chemical residue
High inert content
wastes containing:
• Flaimables only
• Heavy metals or
corrosives
Heavy metal waste
Aqueous mixed solvents
Aqueous alcohol
Antiviral vaccines
Other blologlcals
(toxolds, serum)
Returned goods and
contaminated or decomposed
active ingredients
Totals
Total hazardous waste
Mg/year, 1977 (wet basis)
15,400
26,900
3,900
15,000
1,900
1,900
3,300
2,800
700
350
230
600
73,300
Ons ite
Incineration
6,240
10,740
870
6,120
490
. . .
970
280
115
60
26.000
Disposal methods
Mg/year, 1977 (wet basis)
Offstte (private)
Otherc Incineration Landfill Recovery"1
. . . 9,160 ... ...
. . . 16,200 ... ...
. . . 3,000 ... ...
1.5306 5,800 1,800 . . .
... 460 950 ...
... ... 1,900 . . .
... ... 2,600 670
90f 1,700 ... ...
... 400. ... ...
1159 120 . . . • ...
230f . .
1209 ... 420 ...
2,100 36,800 7,700 670
^References 3, 14, and 17
"Does not Include deep well disposal of certain liquid hazardous wastes. This type of disposal occurs
almost exclusively onsite. Common constituents or such waste include acetates, ammonia, bromides, chlorides,
alcohols, esters, ethers, ketones, and other organics.
"•Disposal method explained below in footnotes for each entry in table.
"The recovery considered here is heavy metal recovery from waste since solvent recovery 1s a very common onsite practice at
pharmaceutical plants and extremely difficult to quantify.
<:0iluted and sent to onsite biological wastewater treatment facility.
'Treatment in onsite biological wastewater treatment facility or sewered to municipal system
9Autoe laved onsite and disposed of offsite in either a municipal or private landfill
"Material is crushed and slurried with water, and the resultant slurry is sent to an onsite biological
wastewater treatment facility.
25
-------
TABLE 10. SIC 285 - PAINTS AND COATINGS3
Industrial hazardous waste quantities by disposal method
Disposal methods
No. of plants, 1972 (basis: 1,544 plants)
Waste type
Raw material packaging wastes0
Wastewater sludge
Spills and spoiled batches
Waste organic cleaning solvent
Dust from air pollution control
equipment
Total
Total hazardous waste
Mg/year, 1977 (wet basis)
2,000
2,300d
11,800
94,800
1,800
112,700
Ons ite
Incineration Landfill^
5 70
... 50
... 70
5 50
... 50
Off site
Incineration Landfillb
50 1,470
. . . 1,070
. . . 1,470
20 950
... 950
^Reference 4
bThe term landfill may include open dumps, sanitary landfills, secured landfills, etc.
cPlant total for disposal methods adds to more than the total number of plants since some plants use
two or more disposal methods
^This value is from: "Waterborne Wastes of the Paint and Inorganic Pigments Industries,"
Southern Research Institute, EPA-670/2-74-030, March 1974
-------
Hazardous constituents in paints and
coatings include organics (toxics and
flammables) and heavy metals.
Organic Chemicals, SIC 2861, 2865, 2869
(except 28694) —
Consistent information was
unavailable on the types of waste in this
industry. Each state report had its own
listing of waste types. The assessment
report did not specify waste types other
than to mention several in its text.
Consequently, no quantification by waste
type was possible. Typical wastes for
this industry include solvents,
corrosives (acid and bases), sludges
(heavy metal and paint), still and tank
bottoms, oils, toxics (organic and
inorganic).
Table 11 depicts the distribution by
disposal method for the total hazardous
waste generated by the organic chemicals
industry in 1977. We estimate that
municipal disposal accounts for 20
percent or less of offsite disposal. The
offsite disposal total given in the table
appears low and should be increased to
between 5 and 15 percent of the total.
This is primarily caused by the increased
use of contract incineration and solvent
recovery vendors. The amount going to
municipal disposal would still be fairly
low even with this revised offsite
estimate. It would be somewhere between
2 and 5 percent of the total and would go
primarily to some form of landfill.
Pesticides, SIC 28694/2879 --
Disposal location for the pesticides
industry was extremely difficult to
ascertain from the available data. This
is reflected in Table 12 by the fact that
no entries are given in the offsite
(public) and (private) columns for the
various disposal methods, but entries are
given in the site undetermined column.
This column is footnoted to indicate the
estimated distribution between offsite
(public) and (private) disposal methods.
Hazardous wastes for this industry
include waste pesticides; pesticide
contaminated items such as packaging
materials; cleanup residues such as
contaminated articles, wastewater,
solvent, and floor sweepings; and other
miscellaneous waste types.
Explosives, SIC 2892 --
Very little hazardous waste from the
explosives industry is disposed of in
municipal facilities. The bulk of these
wastes is disposed of onsite (by open
burning or landfill). A small amount is
handled by contract disposal firms (by
open burning or chemical detoxification).
Table 13 gives waste types, amounts, and
the distribution of disposal methods for
both the private explosive and government-
owned contractor-operated (GOCO) segments
of this industry.
Petroleum Refining, SIC 2911 —
Municipal landfills are responsible
for accepting approximately 23 percent of
the hazardous waste generated by this
industry (Table 14). This waste is
composed of the waste types listed in
Table 15. Hazardous constituents of each
waste type are also included in this
table. No breakout was possible as to
which waste types are disposed of
municipally. It can only be assumed that
a portion of each waste type finds its
way to municipal landfills.
Petroleum Rerefining, SIC 2992 —
Table 16 depicts hazardous waste
disposal by waste type for petroleum
rerefining. Public landfills accept
almost 10,000 Mg/year of this industry's
hazardous waste. Most of this waste has
been treated before disposal to inhibit
heavy metal leaching . Hazardous waste
constituents of the waste types are given
in Table 17.
Rubber Products, SIC 30 —
Over 70 percent of the hazardous
waste generated by this industry finds
its way to either general purpose or
approved hazardous waste municipal
landfills (Table 18). Principal
hazardous constituents of the waste are
oils, toxic organics, and heavy metals.
Leather Tanning and Finishing, SIC 3111 --
Public disposal of hazardous waste
accounts for 91,700 Mg/year or over 50
percent of the total hazardous waste
generated by this industry. Table 19
shows the distribution of quantities of
hazardous waste by disposal method,
onsite and offsite, private and public.
27
-------
TABLE 11. SIC 2861, 2865, 2869 (EXCEPT 28694) --
ORGANIC CHEMICALS3
Industrial hazardous waste quantities by disposal method
Mg/year, 1977 (wet basis)
Method
Quantities
Onsite Offsiteb
Landfill 483,000 113,000
Incineration 2,250,000 51,000C
Controlled (699,000) . . .
Uncontrolled (1,550,000) . . .
Deep well 6,540,000 . . .
Biological treatment/lagoon 565,000 . . .
Recovery 267,000 . . .
Landfarm NAd ...
Totals -10,100,000 164.0006
Total organic chemicals industry hazardous waste:
10,300,000 Mg/year, 1977 (wet basis)
References 5 and 14
"Predominantly private except for minor portions
(<20%) disposed of legally, illegally, or unknowingly
in municipal landfills and/or incinerators
cLargely controlled (>90%) due to regulations which
contract incinerator operations must satisfy to
destroy a variety of wastes
dNot available
eThe amount given here is believed to be low. The
actual quantity disposed of offsite is believed to be
between 5 and 15 percent of the total.
28
-------
TABLE 12. SIC 28694/2879 -- PESTICIDES*
Industrial hazardous waste quantities by disposal methods
Mg/year, 1977 (wet basis)
Method Onsite Offsite (public) Offsite (private) Site undetermined
Landfill
Incineration
Storage^
Recovery
Unknown^
Totals
175,000 ... ...
• •• *•• •••
81,000 ... ...
*»• »•• •••
• •• ••• •••
256,000 Not available Not available
75,000b
100.00QC
. . .
50.0006
144,000
369,000
Total pesticides industry hazardous waste: 625,000 Mg/year, 1977 (wet basis)
References 5, 14, 17, 19, and 20
"This amount is split between offsite public and private.
A conservative estimate would be 25,000 Mg to offsite public
disposal and 50,000 Mg to offsite private disposal.
cLargely offsite private (>95J») and controlled (>90%) due to regulations
that contract incinerator operations must satisfy to destroy a variety
of wastes.
"In drums or open piles
eThis amount is split between onsite and offsite private. It is believed
that recovery occurs almost exclusively onsite with only a minor portion
(<1JO recovered offsite.
'includes onsite and offsite private chemical detoxification and subsequent
disposal, usually offsite landfill (public and private); deep well disposal
(minor); and other unspecified disposal methods.
29
-------
TABLE 13. SIC 2892 -- EXPLOSIVES0
Industry segment
Private explosives industry
Government-owned, contractor
operated (GOCO)
explosives industry
Explosives industry
grand totals
Industrial hazardous
Waste type
Fixed high explosive waste
Blasting agents
Subtotals
Explosive wastes
Explosive contaminated
inert wastes
Other hazardous wastesd
Subtotals
waste quantities by disposal method
Total hazardous waste
Mg/year, 1977 (dry basis)
-460
-1,200
-1,700
(-5,500-wet basis)
4,900
14,700
250
~19,900e
-21,500
(~25,400-wet basis)
Disposal methods
Mg/year, 1977 (dry basis)
Open burnedb Landfilled
>430 Negligible
>1,100 Negligible
>1,500 Negligible
4,800 . . .
13,700 1,000
90 140
18,600 1,140
20,100 1,140
Sold Otherc
<5 <26
<12 <74
<17 <100
140 ...
20 ...
160 ...
-180 <100
^Reference 5
"Predominantly onsite, >90 percent
Includes chemical detoxification and subsequent disposal; usually landfill, deep well disposal, spray irrigation,
lagooning, etc.
"Includes spent activated carbon from processing aqueous hazardous wastes (open burned), red water from TNT purification
(evaporated and sold), organic solvents from propellant manufacture, and wastewaters containing dissolved and suspended RDX/HMX
eDry basis = wet basis
-------
TABLE 14. SIC 2911 — PETROLEUM REFINING3
Industrial hazardous waste quantities by disposal method
Mg/year, 1977 (wet basis)
Method
Landfill
Lagoon
Landspread
Incinerate
Totals
Onsite
355,000
284,000
334,000
40,000
1,013,000
Total petroleum refining industry
Mg/year, 1977 (wet basis)
Off site
Public Offsite
428,000 107,000
. . . 289,000
I 4,000b
428,000 400,000
hazardous waste: 1,840,000
^References 6, 17, and 20
"Distribution unknown
31
-------
TABLE 15. SIC 2911 - PETROLEUM REFINING*
Waste types and hazardous constituents
Waste types
Constituents
Leaded gasoline sludge
Cooling tower sludge
Crude tank bottoms
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float
Exchanger bundle cleaning sludge
Slop oil emulsion solids
Once-through cooling water sludge
Waste bio sludge
Storm water silt
Spent lime from boiler feedwater
treatment
Kerosene filter clays
Nonleaded tank bottoms
API separator sludge
Lube oil filter clays
FCC catalyst fines
Coke fines
Neutralized hydrofluoric acid
alkylation sludge
Organic lead vapors, phenols, and heavy metals
Heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
Oil and heavy metals
Reference 6
32
-------
TABLE 16. SIC -- PETROLEUM REREFINING0
Waste type
Acid sludges
Caustic and
other sludges
Spent clay
Totals
Industrial hazardous waste quantities by disposal method
Disposal methods
Mg/year, 1977 (dry basis)b
Total hazardous waste Landfill, offsite
Mq/vear. 1977 (dry basis)
Landfill, onsite
Public Private
Treated0 Untreated Treated Untreated Treated Untreated
38,300 6,200 . . . 3,700 900 20,000 7,900
15,400 ... ... ... ... ... ...
20,190 1,900 . . . 4,100 1,000 6,500 6,600
74,300 8,100 . . . 7,800 1,900 26.500 14,500
Recycled/ reused
Onsite and offsite
15,400
15,400
Reference 7
bDry basis approximates wet basis since caustic sludges contain only a slight amount of moisture.
cTreated means acid neutralization by mixing with cement dust, line, or other alkaline materials.
-------
TABLE 17. SIC 2992 - PETROLEUM REREFINING*
Hazardous waste constituents
Waste type
Acid
Acid sludges 11,600
Caustic and other sludges . . .
-Spent clay ...
Totals 11,600
Oilsb
13,000
5,600
4,000
22,600
Constituents
Mg/year, 1977 (dry basis)
As Ba Cd Cr Cu Pb Zn
2.4 37.8 0.8 0.4 3.8 581 81
0.8 15.5 0.4 0.6 1.9 232 32
3.2 53.3 1.2 1.0 4.7 898 113
^Reference 7
°0ils include petroleum oils, polymers, polar compounds, and asphalt.
-------
TABLE 18. SIC 30 — RUBBER PRODUCTS3
Industrial hazardous waste quantities by disposal method
Waste type
Floor sweepings
Air pollution control
equipment dust
Oily wastes
Banbury mixer seal oils
Totals
Disposal methods
Mg/year, 1977 (dry basis )b
Total hazardous waste
Mg/year, 1977 Ons ite
(dry basis)
General
purpose
Landfill/dump Landspreading Interim storage landfill0
9,500 450 ... ... 9,000
41,200 1,950 ... ... 38,200
1,500 ... 70 ... ...
100 ... ... 100 ...
52,300 2,400 70 100 47,200
Offsite
Approved
hazardous waste
landfilld
. . .
1,000
1,400
. . .
2,400
Secure
landfillc
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
. . .
Negligible
^Reference 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 19
bDry basis = wet basis
"•Believed to be largely public, -80*
"Believed to be largely private, -80*
-------
TABLE 19. SIC 3111 -- LEATHER TANNING AND FINISHING*
Industrial hazardous waste quantities by disposal method
Mg/year, 1977 (wet basis)
Quantities
Method
Onsite
Offsite
Landfill15
Dumps'3
Lagoons, trenches, pits,
Certified hazardous waste
pondsc
disposal facility13
Totals
Total leather tanning and finishing industry
173,000 Mg/year, 1977 (wet basis)
4,800
1,900
5,300
. . .
12,000
hazardous
Private
51,200
2,100
6,200
9,700
69,200
waste:
Public
45,800
38,500
7,300
. . .
91,600
References 9, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20
"Waste types disposed of by these methods include: trimmings
and shavings, finished and unfinished leather trim, buffing dust
finishing residues, wastewater screenings, and sewer sump and
dewatered wastewater or treatment sludges.
cThese methods are primarily for sludges. Some other
waste types may intentionally or inadvertently be disposed of via
these methods.
36
-------
Waste types are footnoted for particular
disposal methods. Hazardous waste
constituents are heavy metal compounds,
principally chromium, lead, zinc, and
copper.
Electronic Components, SIC 367 —
A significant portion of the
hazardous wastes generated by the
electronic components industry is
disposed of (-44 percent) in municipal
landfills (Table 20). A portion of all
the wastes of this industry find their
way to municipal landfills. Typical
hazardous constituents composing these
wastes are given in Table 21.
Batteries, SIC 3691/3692 --
Public disposal in general purpose
landfills accounts for over 47,000 Mg of
hazardous waste disposed of by this
industry on an annual basis (Table 22).
Waste types for particular processes
within the industry are given in Table 23.
The two waste types for this industry are
wastewater effluent treatment sludges and
rejected and scrap batteries/cells.
Table 23 also gives amounts of hazardous
constituents for each waste type for each
manufacturing process.
Industrial Hazardous Waste Municipally
Disposed --
The following table summarizes the
amount of industrial hazardous waste
being disposed of in the municipal sector
for those SIC codes included in our
study. This table was developed from
information included on Tables 7 through
22.
Industrial hazardous
waste amount
Type of municipal (Mg/year, 1977)
disposal facility (wet basis)
General purpose
landfill
Dumps
Lagoons, trenches,
pits, ponds
Approved hazardous
waste landfills
Sewer
Total
1,543,000
38,500
7,300
500
90
1,589,000
TABLE 20. SIC 367 -- ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS3
Industrial hazardous waste quantities by disposal method
Disposal methods
Mg/year, 1977 (wet basis)
Waste type
Total hazardous waste
Mg/year, 1977
(wet basis)
Onsite
Offsite
Public
Landfill Incineratorb landfill
Private
Landfill Incinerator9
Nonreclaimable halogenated
solvents and still bottoms
Nonreclalnable nonhalogenated
solvents and still bottoms
Wastewater treatment sludges
Lubricating and hydraulic oils
Paint wastes
Totals
2,400
16,600
50,800
2,400
200
72,500
200 ...
1,700 . . .
7,600 . . .
... ...
... 6
9,500 6
1,100
7,500
21,600
1,200
200
31.600
1,100 . . .
7,400 . . .
21,600 . . .
1,200 . . .
10 6
31,310 6
^References 10, 14, and 19
^Resultant ash is disposed of either in onsite or offsite private secure landfills. It is estimated
that this ash amounts to approximately 1 to 2 Mg and Is contaminated with heavy metal
oxides and salts.
37
-------
TABLE 21. SIC 367 -- ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS9
Typical hazardous waste constituents
Nonreclaimable halogenated solvents and still bottoms
Perchloroethylene
Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethylene
Freons
Methylene chloride
Still bottoms from reclamation of above solvents
Nonreclaimable nonhalogenated solvents and still bottoms
Mixed solvents (halogenated and nonhalogenated)
Methanol
Acetone
Alcohols
Proprietary photoresists
Xylene
Still bottoms from reclamation of above solvents
Wastewater treatment sludges
Particulate metals and oxides
Chemically precipitated anions and cations
Oils
Solvents
Lubricating and hydraulic oils
Water soluble oils
Petroleum derived oils
Paint wastes:
Spray booth filters
Cleanup rags
Solvent/paint mixtures
Reference 10
38
-------
TABLE 22. SIC 3691/3692 -- BATTERIES9
Industrial hazardous waste quantities by disposal method
Mg/year, 1977 (wet basis)
Quantities
Method
Offsite
Onsite
General purpose landfillb
Secured landfill0
Reclaimed/recovered/sold
Totals
45,200
12,300
10
57,510
Public
47,200
• • •
• • *
47,200
Private
47,200
12,300
. . .
59,500
Total batteries industry hazardous waste:
-164,000 Mg/year, 1977 (wet basis)
^References 11, 14, and 20
"This type of landfills accepts a wide variety of
wastes. There are usually no environmental
protection provisions for hazardous wastes such as
special containment, monitoring, or leachate
treatment. Exact classification can range from open
dump to sanitary landfill.
cThis type of landfill employs environmental
protection provisions, is usually located in a
geologically and hydrologically suited area,
prohibits certain wastes, maintains records, and is
licensed or permitted by the state which it is in.
39
-------
TABLE 23. SIC 3691/3692 -- BATTERIES'
SIC 3691: Waste types and typical hazardous waste constituents by process
Process
Waste types
Total hazardous waste
Kg/year, 1977
(wet basis)
Constituents
Mg/year, 1977 (dry basis)
Lead
Cadmium Nickel Silver Zinc Mercury
Miscellaneous
Lead-acid
Nickel-cadmium
Other storage
batteries
Cadnriun-s liver
oxide
Zinc-silver
oxide
Uastewater effluent
treatment sludge
Wastetrater effluent
treatment sludge
Rejected and scrap cells
Uastewater effluent
treatment sludge
Rejected and scrap cells
Rejected and scrap Cells
Totals
Carbon-zinc
Alkaline-
manganese
Mercury
Magnesium-
carbon
Zinc-silver
oxide
Other Primary
batteries
Carbon-zinc
air cell
Rejected and scrap
batteries
Rejected and scrap
batteries
Rejected and scrap
batteries
Wastewater effluent
treatment sludge
Rejected and scrap
batteries
Rejected and scrap
batteries
Weston mercury Rejected and scrap
cell batteries
Magnesium Rejected and scrap
reserve cell batteries
Lead-Add Rejected and scrap
reserve cell batteries
Wastewater effluent
treatment sludge
163.000 450° ...
Cd(OH)2 =• 12
44 N1(OH)2 = 3.7
5 ... 2.3 1.4 ...
3C ... 0.044 ... 0.13 0.014 0.0002 Water treatment sludges
containing silver and
cadmium » 1.2
NAd
NA . ...
NA ...
-163.000 450 2.3 1.4 0.13 0.014 0.0002 ...
SIC 3692
1,100 0.03 0.03 380 0.67 ZnCl2 <= 29
165 ' 27 1.3 ...
8 . 5 0.02 HgO - 0.07
120 Cr(OH)2/CrCO,
sludge - 47.8
6» 0.01 0.0007 Ag^ = 0.003
55 2 0.007 . . .
0.009 ... Negllg Negllg. . . .
NAC.
-------
REFERENCES
1. March 1975. Assessment of
Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices, Inorganic Chemicals
Industry. Versar, Inc. PB 244 832.
2. March 1978. Assessment of
Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices, Rubber and Plastics
Industry. Chapter II. Foster
D. Snell, Inc. PB 282 071.
3. 1976. Pharmaceutical Industry:
Hazardous Waste Generation,
Treatment, and Disposal. Arthur
D. Little, Inc. PB 258 800.
4. September 1975. Assessment of
Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices: Paint and Allied
Products Industry, Contract Solvent
Operations, and Factory Application
of Coatings. Wapora, Inc.
PB 251 669.
5. January 1976. Assessment of
Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices, Organic Chemicals,
Pesticides and Explosives
Industries. TRW, Inc. PB 251 307.
6. June 1975. Assessment of Hazardous
Waste Practices in the Petroleum
Refining Industry. Jacobs
Engineering Co. PB 259 097.
7. 1977.. Assessment of Industrial
Hazardous Waste Management,
Petroleum Rerefining Industry.
•PB 272 267.
8. March 1978. Assessment of
Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices, Rubber and Plastics
Industry. Chapter III. Foster
D. Snell, Inc. PB 282 072.
9. November 1976, Assessment of
Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices, Leather Tanning and
Finishing Industry. SCS Engineers,
Inc. PB 261 018.
10. January 1977. Assessment of
Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
-- Electronic Components
Manufacturing Industry. Wapora,
Inc. PB 265 532.
11. January 1975. Assessment of
Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices, Storage and Primary
Batteries Industries. Verser, Inc.
PB 241 204.
12. State of Arizona Waste Surveys:
1977. Arizona Hazardous Waste
Generation Survey Data, Arizona
Department of Health, Division of
Solid Waste and Vector Control.
June 1975. Report to the Arizona
Department of Health Services on
Industrial and Hazardous Wastes.
Behavioral Health Consultants, Inc.
June 3, 1974. Industrial Solid
Waste Survey. Arizona Department of
Health Services, Bureau of
Sanitation.
13. August 1977. Industrial Process
Waste Survey. Office of Solid Waste
Management, Connecticut Department
of Environmental Protection.
14. October 1977. Hazardous Waste
Survey. Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, Solid
Waste Management Program.
15. July 1978. State of Maine Hazardous
Waste Survey Report.7 Prepared for
Solid.Waste Management Division,
State of Maine Department of
Environmental Protection, by SCS
Engineers, Augusta, Maine.
16. December 1977. Hazardous Wastes in
Montana — A Survey of Waste
Generation and Management
Practices. Montana Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences,
Environmental Sciences Division.
17. March 1974. Hazardous Waste
Management Planning 1972-1973.
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality.
18. March 1977. Rhode Island Hazardous
Waste Report. Rhode Island
Department of Health, Division of
Solid Waste Management.
J.
1
*• i
U):
D,
>•
{£
<
o:
a
j.
a
CD
I
41
-------
19. January 1978. Vermont Industrial
Waste Survey — Status Report.
Division of Environmental
Engineering, State of Vermont Agency
of Environmental Conservation.
20. December 1975. An Evaluation of the
Status of Hazardous Waste Management
in Region X. Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories. PB 262 673.
42
-------
ENCAPSULATION OF 55-GAL DRUMS HOLDING HAZARDOUS WASTES
H.R. Lubowitz, R.W. Telles, S.L. Unger
TRW Systems Group
Redondo Beach, CA. 90278
C.C. Wiles
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
ABSTRACT
Hazardous wastes in corroding 208 1 (55-gal) metal drums present a serious potential
threat to the well-being of man and his environment. To render drums secure and safe for
transporting to and final deposit in a landfill, investigations were carried out to over-
pack them with polyethylene (PE) encapsulates.
PE receivers, 6.35 mm (1/4-in.) thick wall and wide-mouth, and PE flat sheet, 6.35.mm
(1/4-in.) thick, were employed for fabricating encapsulates. The receivers after inser-
tion of corroding drums were weld sealed with sheet. Encapsulates so fabricated were
expected to exhibit satisfactory performance. (In contrast, containers sealed convention-
ally, rather than welded, by use of lids and threads, gaskets, sealants and hoops were not
expected to give rise to safe transportability of wastes and long-term stability of
contaminants under landfill conditions.) The encapsulates provided a unique service
because wide-mouth PE containers were not commercially available for securing 208 1 (55-
gal) drums and/or complying with Department of Transportation specifications governing
containers for use in transporting hazardous wastes.
A prototype apparatus was designed and constructed to fabricate PE encapsulates by
welding. The apparatus was analogous to that employed in commercial butt welding of PE
pipe. Facilitating encapsulate fabrication was the findings that precision piece align-
ment and high surface regularity were not required. Furthermore, only minimal mechanical
pressures were needed to form the welded joints. Differentiating encapsulate welding
from pipe welding was moving of the heating element horizontally rather than vertically.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this work was to secure
corroding 208 1 (55-gal) drums holding
hazardous wastes at the place where they
reside. They would be encapsulated in
polyethylene (PE) overpacks on an "as-is"
basis, i.e., no isolation of their contents
would be carried out. The encapsulated
drums would comply with Department of
Transportation (DOT) specifications govern-
ing containers employed in transportation
of hazardous wastes. And they would be
suitable for long-term, safe deposit in a
landfill.
The work was an outgrowth of previous
work carried out at TRW under sponsorship
of the Environmental Protection AgencyJ»2.3
In previous work, hazardous, unconfined
waste parti dilates, sludges and corroding
small containers with contaminants were
managed on a laboratory scale by encapsu-
lating them in 63.5 mm (1/4-in.) thick,
seam-free PE jackets. So encased, the
wastes were found to exhibit unusual resis-
tance to delocalization under severe
mechanical stresses and harsh leaching
waters which simulated extreme case
43
-------
solutions that may be found in a landfill.
When management of 208 1 (55-gal) drums
was set forth, it was therefore proposed
to encapsulate them also by jackets similar
to those investigated.
Initial studies showed that encapsu-
lating 208 1 (55-gal) drums with PE jackets
may be carried out best by plastic welding,
invoking particularly the art employed com-
mercially for welding PE pipe.4 Fabricat-
ing PE encapsulates by welding, however, was
not state-of-the-art. Consequently, com-
mercial apparatuses applicable to such an
operation did not exist.
With pipe welding art as a guideline,
the prototype apparatus described herein
was constructed. The apparatus weld sealed
PE receivers with PE flat sheet. Both
receivers and flat sheet were items of
commerce with the former being tailorable
as required and being capable of production
in commercial rotomolding operations.
MATERIALS
Polyolefins, particularly PE (but not
excluding high impact polypropylenes and
polyisobutylene), were selected for fabri-
cating encapsulates because such materials
were well characterized, mass-produced, low
in cost, and provided a unique combination
of properties: excellent chemical stabil-
ity, flexibility and mechanical toughness.
Prior laboratory studies showed PE encapsu-
lates to have high performance heavy metal
contaminant retension when subjected to
aggressive leaching solutions.3 Yet the
resin can transmit gases, thus the encapsu-
lates were self-venting when gas formed
within as a result of chemical reactions.
Commercial PE containers were not
available in size and in construction for
securing 55-gal metal drums. The largest
plastic vessel that may be transported with
compliance to DOT regulations were 55-gal
drum size fitted with bung holes. Wide-
mouth drums did not qualify. Other PE
vessels were not fitted with the means to
effect secure closure. They were employed
mainly as liners of steel and fiberglass
reinforced vessels, or as free-standing
receivers and holding tanks. Their value
was particularly noteworthy in process and
storage operations involving corrosive
chemicals. There was great interest by
plastics fabricators to make by rotomolding
large, free-standing chemical tanks from PE
to replace plastic coated or glass lined
steel tanks, stainless steel tanks, and
fiberglass reinforced plastic tanks.
With consideration of commercial con-
tainer art and the mechanics of encapsulate
fabrication, rotomolded wide-mouth PE
receivers, and PE flat sheet, were selected
for use in making encapsulates. The re-
ceivers and flat stock were commercially
available materials. Although on-the-shelf
receivers were taller than desired, they
were capable of being readily constructed
to specifications when needed in significant
numbers. The specifications of materials
selected as suitable for encapsulate fabri-
cation were:
Receptacles
• Rotomolded
• Medium density PE
• 6.35 mm (1/4-in.) thick walls
• Dimensions of 669 mm (26 11/32-in.)
O.D. x 944 mm (37 3/16-in.) height
• Approximate weight of 20.4 kg (45
Ib) (including cover)
• Capacity of 322 1 (85-gal)
Cover
• Cut from extruded flat stock
• High density PE
• 6.35 mm (1/4-in.) thick
The height and diameter of receptacles
were selected for accommodation of 208 1
(55-gal) drums as shown in Figure 1. The
free space between receptacle interior and
208 1 (55-gal) drum can be filled, if
required, with low-cost filler materials
such as foam to minimize drum movement
during handling. Additionally, the free
space allows encapsulation of distorted
drums.
Figure 2 shows a side view of encapsu-
late. The upper "rim" or "flange" facili-
tates handling operations.
44
-------
Figure 1. Receptacle holding 55-gal drum.
Figure 2. Structure of encapsulate holding
55-gal drum of hazardous waste.
WELDING APPARATUS
The welding apparatus was viewed as a
container heat sealing device comparable to
commercially employed polyethylene pipe
welding devices.5 The apparatus was fabri-
cated with commercial components in the
first cut for demonstration of proof-of-
principle, i.e., 55-gal corroding drums
holding hazardous wastes can be secured in
plastic encapsulates fabricated by welding.
And in the second cut (in a later program),
the apparatus will be refined with custom
made parts for efficient field operations.
(We visualize the refined apparatus to be
similar to the proof-of-principle one, but
lighter in weight, particularly the frame.)
In order to get the purchased compo-
nents into an encapsulate welding apparatus,
additional pieces of equipment were re-
quired. These pieces were designed and
custom fabricated. The pieces were geared
to transmit pressure from the pump to point
of welding and to apply heat to the weld
areas.
The finished apparatus was novel
although many of its features approximate
features of commercial pipe welding appara-
tuses. The apparatus consisted of three
major components: (1) the frame, (2) the
hydraulic system and (3) the heater.
Figure 3 gives a schematic of the apparatus
and materials positioned for welding. The
hydraulic system (pump, valves, cylinder,
platen) and heater (with heater holder and
circuitry) were attached to the frame; the
apparatus was of modular construction thus
allowing easy replacement and interchanging
of components and simplifying shipping.
Frame
The frame (see Figure 4) was used to
position both the plastic pieces for encap-
sulation and the other components of the
apparatus. The frame employed in the
prototype apparatus was an Enerpac 7531 H-
frame, rated at 76,200 Kg (75-ton).
Although this frame was oversized on a
pressure capacity basis, this was the
smallest frame which has the bed diameter
needed. Because the receivers were approxi-
mately 762 mm (30-in.) diameter, the
distance between the uprights of the H-frame
must be approximately 889 mm (35-in.) so the
receivers can be placed easily under the
frame.
45
-------
CYLINDER
PUMP
RECEPTACLE
55-GAL DRUM
Figure 3. Apparatus for encapsulating 55-gal drums.
46
-------
easily met the second design criterion.
Pressure relief valves were utilized to
prevent overpressurization. The components
of the hydraulic system are shown in Figure
5.
Figure 4. Apparatus for encapsulating 55-
gal drums holding hazardous
wastes.
Hydraulic System
The hydraulic system consisted of a
pump, a hydraulic cylinder, and the neces-
sary valving. The hydraulic system was
used to move the cover vertically so the
heater can slide between the plastic pieces,
and to apply the welding pressure necessary
to achieve a leak-proof weld. The primary
design criteria which the hydraulic system
must meet were: (a) turnaround time less
than 5-seconds and (b) pressurize the
plastic pieces up to 300 psi. The first
criterion, quick changeover, prevented
"skinning", the formation of thin layer of
polyethylene after the heater was removed
from the polyethylene pieces. This crite-
rion was met by using a high capacity, two
stage, 1 1/2- H.P. electric pump and a
double acting cylinder to move the platen
to which the cover was clamped. The lid
was first moved down to press against the
heater. After heating, the cover was moved
up, the heater removed, then the coyer
moved down and pressed against receiver.
The cylinder was rated at 10-ton which
Figure 5. Hydraulic system components.
Heater
The heater was a ring heater designed
to melt the lip of the receiver and a flat
portion of the cover. The ring was 26-in.
I.D., 30-in. O.D., and 1-in. thick. The
heater was made from cast aluminum and was
teflon coated to prevent the melted poly-
ethylene from sticking to the heater. The
heater was rated at 5.5 KW so that it can
achieve a temperature of 450°F in 10 minutes.
The heater was bolted to the heater holder.
The heater holder was attached onto the
H-frame. It was designed to allow vertical
movement between the plastic pieces, as well
as, horizontal swivel movement away from
the welding area. The heater and heater
holder are shown in Figure 6.
The welding apparatus, shown in Figure
4 with the operator, functioned as follows:
47
-------
Figure 6. Heater and heater holder.
1. Receptacle (holding 55-gal drum)
and cover are positioned for
welding.
2. Heater, at temperature, was con-
tacted onto surface areas of cover
and receptacle geared for juncture.
3. Heater was removed from welding
area.
4. Cover and receptacle contacted
under pressure.
5. Welded joint cooled under pressure.
The following observations compare
pipe welding to encapsulate fabrication:
• During welding pipes were posi-
tioned horizontally and end-to-end
whereas receptacles were positioned
in an upright position.
• Pipes with diameters comparable to
receptacles used for encapsulation
had much thicker walls, thus re-
quiring manipulation of heavier
pieces.
• Greater weights of pipe involved
heavier duty machinery than that
needed in encapsulation.
• Greater surface area of pipe re-
quired mechanical force at closure
to be greater than that needed in
welding lids to receptacles.
• Perhaps most important, closure of
pipe required careful alignment to
match rim to rim, whereas proper
fitting of lid to rim of receptacle
can be effected with lesser align-
ment sensivity.
NATURE OF PE ENCAPSULATES
Welded encapsulates were water-tight
overpacks for 55-gal drums. They pre-
cluded contact of hazardous waste consign-
ments with aggressive environmental waters
even though the drums within may continue
to corrode. Furthermore, encapsulates were
anticipated to hold wastes secure under
severe mechanical stresses that may arise
in loading, transporting and landfill
deposition.
Encapsulates were expected to provide
appreciably greater service life than PE
drums and pipe used in commercial opera-
tions because:
• Cyclical mechanical stresses or
dynamic stresses would be essen-
tially absent, thus mitigating
plastic fatigue, a property that
concerns users of PE drums and
welded PE pipes.
• Reuse of encapsulates, in contrast
to commercial plastic drums, was
not contemplated, thus the absence
of repeated impact.
• Deposit in a landfill shielded
encapsulates from ultra-violet
radiation.
Because they were subject to less
stressful conditions, future encapsulates
may be fabricated with scrap PE. And in
addition, a simpler design may be employ-
able than that required for commercial PE
55-gal drums.
48
-------
The major concern was stress due to
single impact. Because encapsulates' con-
tents were not homogeneous (due to 208 1
(55-gal) metal container inserts) encapsu-
lates are subject to greater localized
stress than that occurring in filled com-
mercial plastic drums. However, the use of
appropriate materials such as foam, if
required, in the free space between encap-
sulate inner walls and metal drum, could
mitigate the concentrated stress.
CONCLUSION
The work indicated that corroding 55-
gal. drums can be managed in the field as
follows:
1. Transport equipment and materials
(materials can also be in the form
of partially fabricated encapsu-
lates) to the site where drums
reside.
2. Encapsulate drums and transfer
them to a landfill (encapsulates
secure contents in case of mishaps
in transportation).
3. Charge encapsulates into landfill
according to accepted practice
with respect to depositing con-
tainerized wastes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was supported by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Divi-
sion, Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
REFERENCES
1. Wiles, C.C., and Lubowitz, H.R., "A
Polymeric Cementing and Encapsulating
Process for Managing Hazardous Waste",
Proceedings of the Hazardous Waste
Research Symposium, EPA-600/9-76-015,
p. 139, July 1976.
2. Lubowitz, H.R., Derham, R.L., Ryan,
L.E. and Zakrzewski, G.A., "Develop-
ment of a Polymeric Cementing and
Encapsulating Process for Managing
Hazardous Wastes", U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Report, EPA-600/2-
77-045, August 1977.
Lubowitz, H.R., and Wiles, C.C.,
"Encapsulation Technique for Control
of Hazardous Materials", Proceedings
of the Hazardous Waste Research
Symposium, EPA-600/9-78-016, p. 342,
August 1978.
"Heat Joining of Thermoplastic Pipe
and Fittings", ANSI/ASTM D-2657, Ameri-
can Society of.Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, Penn.
"No. 48 Fusion Unit for PE Pipe",
Technical Bulletin No. 67017, Me Elroy
Manufacturing, Inc., Tulsa, OK.
49
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONCENTRATION TECHNOLOGIES
Alan J. Shuckrow
Andrew P. Pajak
C. J. Touhill
Touhill, Shuckrow and Associates, Inc.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15237
ABSTRACT
This paper describes an ongoing program to evaluate and verify several
selected concentration techniques for hazardous constituents of aqueous
waste streams. The project has four phases of work. In Phase I, data
was obtained regarding the performance of unit processes for concentrating
the hazardous constituents. Applications are expected in the treatment
of ground and surface waters affected by the disposal of hazardous wastes.
In conjunction with gathering data on the unit processes, data were
obtained on the composition of the waste streams to which the processes
could be applied. In Phase II, technology profiles describing the
pertinent unit processes are being prepared. These profiles are intended
to describe applications of the processes, performance, and design
criteria; both case studies and laboratory bench-scale and field pilot-
scale work will be used to prepare the profiles. In Phase III, those
unit processes believed to be most applicable will be further evaluated
in laboratory treatability studies. Individual unit processes and process
trains will be used. In Phase IV, field demonstration studies will be
conducted. One site in Michigan has been selected for conduct of •
treatability and demonstration work. Other sites are being screened to
select a second location for on-site studies.
INTRODUCTION
Indiscriminate past disposal
practices - the implacement of
waste chemicals in nonsecure ponds,
lagoons, and landfills - have
created serious environmental and
public health problems. Indeed, as
of June 1, 1979, 151 sites were
under investigation. EPA has
estimated that as many as 2000
disposal sites around the country
may contain wastes that could pose
health hazards and that more than
30,000 sites may contain hazardous
wastes. In addition, EPA estimates
that 80-90% of the approximately 35
million metric tons of hazardous
wastes being produced annually in
the United States is not being
disposed of with adequate safeguards.
Recent incidents such as Love
Canal and Valley of the Drums have
aroused public attention and appre-
hension. Congressman Albert Gore,
Jr. has described the hazardous
waste disposal problem as "the most
significant environmental health
problem of this decade." The
seriousness of the problem is
evidenced by the fact that several
pieces of legislation have been
proposed to create a "superfund" to
clean up uncontrolled waste sites
and spills of oil and hazardous
materials. Currently, responsibil-
ity for remedial action often
devolves to state and local
governments. This fund would enable
EPA to provide legal and technical
50
-------
assistance to local and state
governments with regard to cleanup.
Because discontinuance of
production and use of hazardous
materials is infeasible economically,
due to their benefits to society in
terms of end-products and as raw
materials, emphasis in environ-
mental protection must focus on
effective management. One such
management step is preprocessing or
concentration prior to detoxifica-
tion or disposal.
This paper addresses a project,
"Evaluation and Development of
Techniques to Concentrate Hazardous
Constituents of Municipal Waste
Streams", currently being conducted
for the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
The purpose of the project is
to evaluate and verify several
selected concentration techniques
for hazardous constituents of
aqueous waste streams. Existing
concentration and pretreatment
techniques are being identified,
documented, researched, and
evaluated for broad range effective-
ness in placing hazardous materials
in physical forms most amenable to
ultimate disposal/detoxification.
Concentration schemes are being
selected for further development
and subsequent field scale verifi-
cation.
The project has the following
four phases of work to be conducted
over three years:
Phase I - Literature Search/
Data Acquisition,
Program Approach
Development
Phase II- Data/Process
Analysis and
Assessment
Phase Ill-Evaluation and
Modification of
Selected Processes
and Techniques
Phase IV- Verification of
Selected
Concentration
Technologies
In Phase I, data were obtained
regarding the performance of unit
processes for concentrating the
hazardous constituents. Applica-
tions of the unit processes are
expected in the treatment of leach-
ates and ground and surface waters
affected by the disposal of
hazardous wastes. There are many
well known examples of this type of
problem: Love Canal, Rocky Mountain
Arsenal, Redstone Arsenal, and
Valley of the Drums, to name a few.
In conjunction with gathering data
on the unit processes, data were
obtained on the composition of the
waste streams to which the processes
could be applied.
In Phase II, technology pro-
files describing pertinent unit
processes are being prepared. These
profiles are intended to describe
applications of the processes,
performance, and design criteria;
both case studies and laboratory
bench-scale and field pilot-scale
work will be used to prepare the
profiles.
In Phase III, those unit
processes believed to be most
applicable will be further evaluated
in laboratory treatability studies.
Individual unit processes and pro-
cess trains will be used. In Phase
IV, field demonstration studies
will be conducted.
At the time of this writing,
Phase I has been completed, Phase II
of the project is well underway,
and Phase III is commencing.
DATA ACQUISITION
The major thrust of Phase I
efforts were twofold: 1) to
collect and compile existing data
on candidate technologies for
concentration of hazardous constit-
uents of aqueous wastes; and 2) to
obtain and compile data on the com-
position of actual waste streams
which may require or could benefit
from treatment by the concentration
technologies.
51
-------
Technologies included for
initial consideration in the project
were:
Solvent Extraction
Crystallization
Evaporation
Ion Exchange
Distillation
Reverse Osmosis
Carbon Adsorption
Resin Adsorption
Chemical Precipitation
Flocculation/Dissolved Air
Flotation
Density Separation
Filtration
Catalysis
Molecular Sieves
Centrifuging
Dialysis/Electrodialysis
Biological Treatment
Several hundred pertinent
articles in the literature were
identified as having potential
usefulness. Of these, over 250
were reviewed and about 100 were
summarized using an established
literature review format.
Numerous contacts were made
with governmental entities and
companies involved in hazardous
waste management and associated
technology. These contacts
consisted of telephone interviews,
correspondence, personal interviews,
and site visits for the purpose of
obtaining data on candidate concen-
tration technologies, information
on known problems, and composition
data on actual waste streams which
could benefit from concentration
technology.
Several important conclusions
reached during data acquisition
efforts directly impacted selection
of an approach to technology
screening and evaluation. Some of
these were:
1) Only a limited number and
range of unit operations
have been applied in the
treatment of hazardous
aqueous wastes, even
though concentration
technologies have been
used for other applica-
tions .
2) Activated carbon has been
used almost exclusively .
for concentration of or-
ganics in the limited
number of larger scale
hazardous waste treatment
operations.
3) Concentration technology
performance and operating
data for industrial pro-
cess wastes containing a
variety of pollutants
usually are reported using
a surrogate parameter such
as TOC or COD. Specific
compound data are availa-
ble only for a very limit-
ed number of materials.
4) Limited specific informa-
tion is available through
vendors because much of
their work is considered
proprietary and/or confi-
dential.
5) The current, biggest problem
is contamination from
waste disposal sites -
generally leachates, and
contaminated ground and
surface waters.
6) There is no such thing as
a "typical" hazardous
waste problem - each site
is unique.
7) Wastes encountered are
diverse in terms of compo-
sition and concentration,
often varying over time at
any given site. Some
wastes contain a broad
spectrum of organic and
inorganic compounds, while
others have only a few
constituents.
8) Actual or threatened legal
proceedings almost invari-
ably restrict the availa-
bility of data on the
nature of the problem and
effectiveness of cleanup
operations.
52
-------
WASTE CATEGORIZATION/CLASSIFICATION
Composition data on leachates
and contaminated ground and surface
waters in the proximity of 27 sites
containing hazardous wastes were
obtained and summarized. In addi-
tion, data on 43 industrial dis-
posal sites which were surveyed in
a previous study by Geraghty and
Millerl were examined.
A wide variation was found
from site to site in the detail and
completeness of the available data.
Very few waste streams have been
well characterized. In addition,
it was noted that waste composition
often is highly variable at any
given site with respect to both
time and location.
Because of the large number of
chemicals and possible combinations
and permutations of constituents in
hazardous waste streams, it was
deemed desirable to employ predic-
tive techniques to forecast the
behavior of chemicals present in
such waste streams. Unfortunately,
no proven method exists to accur-
ately predict the removability of
all of the potential chemical con-
stituents of hazardous aqueous
waste streams.
Nevertheless, some grouping or
classification of waste streams and/
or constituents is desirable to
extend the usefulness of the data,
facilitate the evaluation of con-
centration technology, and permit
forecasting of treatment effective-
ness in other situations. No one
system is fully adequate to accom-
plish these purposes. Therefore,
as a first attempt at grouping of
waste streams and classification of
chemical constituents, two schemes
have been devised. Both provide
insight into the problem and
facilitate the technology evalua-
tion. As the project proceeds,
the utility of the grouping/
classification systems will be more
fully assessed and the systems will
be modified as necessary to meet
the objectives of this research.
The first attempt at grouping
pertains to waste streams and is
based upon the concentration of the
inorganic and organic constituents.
A matrix has been devised as shown
in Figure 1* which describes the
concentration of the inorganic and
organic constituents as high,
medium, and low. In general, the
working definitions of "high",
"medium" and "low" are as follows:
Hazardous Hazardous
Inorganic Organic
Constituent Constituent
High
Medium
Low
greater than greater than
5 times water 400 ppb
quality cri-
teria*
from 2 to 5
times water
quality
criteria!
from 5 to 400
PPb
less than less than 5
water qual- ppb
ity criteria*
In addition, if a gross parameter
such as BOD or TOC was reported in
significant concentration (BOD>20mg/l
TOC>10mg/l),the waste stream was con-
sidered to fall in the high organic
category. Although this system is
not rigorous, it does permit a
useful grouping of the actual waste
streams as shown in Figure 1.
In addition to the grouping of
waste streams, a contaminant class-
ification system was formulated
(Table 1). All of the identified
constituents of the 27 hazardous
waste streams have been classified
according to this system. The
frequency of occurrence observed
for compounds in each classification
is summarized below:
*Each of the 27 sites for which
composition data were summarized,
were coded. The codes appear in
the Figure 1 matrix.
#Water quality criteria derived from
Quality Criteria for Water, US EPA,
Washington, DC, July 1976.
53
-------
Figure 1
Waste Stream Categorization Matrix
0
8
A
"
i
0
N
C
E
N
J
s
T
1
o
N
H
7
«
d
I
«.
.
w
INORGA
High
Sitet OO6
Oil
r i
Site 022
J
Slte» 004
012
014
015
016
018
NICS CONCENT*
Medium
Site O10
r
L
IATION
L __Lr_
Sites 001
002
003
OOS
021
023
024
025
026
027
Site* 008
OOS
013
Alcohol
Aliphatic
Amine
Aromatic
Halocarbon
Metal
2
4
2
8
9
15
Miscellaneous 11
PCB 2
Pesticide 1
Phenol 7
Phthalate 2
Poiynuclear
Aromatics 5
Both the categorization matrix
and the classification system were
jused in the selection of two actual
waste streams for use in the
.technology, screening described
subsequently.
TECHNOLOGY SCREENING
The foregoing material has
been used to formulate an approach
to the screening and evaluation of
concentration technologies. Sub-
sequent to this screening and
evaluation, selected technologies
will be subjected to more detailed
examination at the bench, and
^ultimately, pilot scale during
later phases of the program.
Factors being considered in the
technology evaluation include:
state of development
range of technology appli-
cation
process flexibility
process reliability
economic and engineering
constraints in technology
modification and applica-
tion
start-up requirements
efficiency
specific limitations
energy requirements
form of concentrated mater-
ial (susceptibility to
ultimate detoxification/
disposal)
environmental acceptability
The literature search format devel-
oped in Phase I was structured to
categorize collected data in a
manner to facilitate evaluation of
the factors listed above.
Technologies are being evalu-
ated in light of their applicability
to treatment of hazardous waste
streams identified in Phase I.
As a first step in the evalu-
ation process, three stream com-
positions were chosen and sent to
selected treatment equipment/product
vendors. In addition, the vendors
were supplied with: an estimated
flowrate based upon data gathered
on actual sites and a desired
effluent quality based upon pub-
lished standards whenever possible.
The vendors were asked to provide
their projections on the performance
of their process or product in con-
centrating the hazardous constitu-
ents for the three selected waste
streams. They also were requested
to advise on any pretreatment or
supplemental treatment they consider
necessary for optimum performance.
In addition, they were asked to
estimate unit sizes, design criteria,
operating requirements, and process
economics. In the event that
achievement of the desired effluent
quality is extremely expensive, or
54
-------
TABLE 1 CONTAMINANT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM*
1. Alcohols
2. Aliphatics
3. Amines
4. Aromatics - nonhalogenated and halogenated aromatic compounds
5. Ethers
6. Halocarbons - halogenated aliphatic compounds
7. Metals
8. Miscellaneous - including selected priority pollutants, CN,
pH, BOD, TOC, COD, chloride, sulfate,
phosphate, and other parameters generally
used to characterize wastewaters
9. PCB'S
10. Pesticides
11. Phenols - including chloro and nitro phenols
12. Phthalates
13. Polynuclear Aromatics
*Based on a classification system suggested by Dryden and Mayes.2
alternatively, cannot be met at all,
the vendors were asked to define how
well the process or product will
perform in the competitive price
range.
Eight vendors agreed to par-
ticipate in the technology evalua-
tion. However, responses received
to date indicate that most of the
vendors are unwilling or unable to
make projections with regard to the
performance of their technologies
for treatment of the mixed compo-
sition waste streams. •
The second step, pursued
simultaneously with the vendor
analyses, entails an independent
desk-top analysis conducted by the
project team using the same waste
stream data.
Information generated by the
project team on the selected waste
streams will form the basis for the
technology profiles. Thus, the
profiles will extend beyond general
characterizations for the more
promising concentration techniques
and will contain an evaluation of
candidate process applicability to
hazardous aqueous wastes which
span a range of expected composi-
tions. The resulting technology
profiles will provide the basis for
selection or rejection of candi-
date concentration technologies for/
from further consideration in Phases
III and IV.
WASTE STREAM SELECTION
Inspection of the waste stream
categorization matrix (Figure 1)
reveals that most of the actual
waste streams identified in Phase I
fall into one of two categories:
high organic-low inorganic or low
organic-high inorganic. With re-
gard to the latter category, con-
centration technology is essen-
tially state-of-the-art. Moreover,
inorganic constituents of concern
are present in waste streams in
other categories and will be ex-
amined as part of the overall treat-
ment analysis for these waste
streams. Therefore, low organic-
high inorganic category is not being
considered in the Phase II analysis.
Waste stream data from Site 026
in the high organic-low inorganic
category was selected for the Phase
II analysis for several reasons:
the data set is one of the most
comprehensive available; ongoing
activity at the site foretells
future supplemental data availa-
bility; the state has assumed
responsibility for mitigation of
contaminated groundwater problems;
no litigation is involved; the
state regulatory agency has been
cooperative; and a strong possibility
55
-------
existed for use of the actual waste
in laboratory and pilot scale
studies in Phases III and IV.
The second waste stream compo-
sition selected for the Phase II
analysis was that of Site 010 in the
high organic-medium inorganic cate-
gory. Reasons for selection are
similar to those given for Site 026.
In addition, heavy metals are pre-
sent in significant concentration.
Thus, this waste stream is suffi-
ciently different than that of
Site 026 to provide a second case.
The third waste stream compo-
sition utilized in the Phase II
technology screening is a hypotheti-
cal leachate postulated on the
basis of data contained in another
report^-. Frequency of occurrence
of the various classes of chemicals
given previously also was con-
sidered in formulating the hypo-
thetical leachate. The postulated
leachate composition represents
the high organic-high inorganic
case. Reasons for selecting a
hypothetical leachate include: (1)
it provides a common basis for
testing the appropriateness of
various technologies, (2) it repre-
sents a reproducable "waste"
composition for potential use in
laboratory studies, (3) it contains
a limited number of constituents
representative of the broad
range of materials found at actual
sites, and (4) it is representative
of "average" conditions at numerous
sites.
Quantitative data describing
the three waste streams of interest
together with desired effluent
objectives are given in Tables 2,
3, and 4.
BENCH SCALE STUDIES
Advantage will be taken of the
ongoing Phase II analysis in selec-
tion of unit processes to be ex-
amined in the laboratory treata-
bility studies. Although the Phase
II effort is incomplete at the
time of this writing, tentative
selection of several unit pro-
cesses for laboratory treatability
studies has been made as follows:
• Chemical Coagulation/
Precipitation
Sedimentation
Filtration
Carbon Sorption
Resin Sorption
Reverse Osmosis
Ultrafiltration
Air/Steam Stripping
Biological Treatment
Combined Biological - Carbon
No one of these unit processes
appears sufficient to achieve
adequate treatment of the hazardous
leachates and contaminated ground
and surface -waters identified in
Phase I of the ongoing project.
Therefore', the unit processes must
be arranged\in process trains. An
initial selection of process trains
to be examined in laboratory treat-
ability studies will be accomplished
as part of the ongoing Phase II
activities.
In addition to removal of
hazardous constituents from the
aqueous phase, by-product streams
will be examined in view of their
ultimate detoxification, disposal,
and environmental impacts.
Current plans call for conduct
of the bench and subsequent pilot
scale studies over an 18 month
period at two field sites. One
field site, site 026, has been
selected. This site is the Ott/
Story Chemical Company site located
in North Muskegon, Michigan.
Selection of this site, which is
now owned by Cordova Chemical
Company, was based on several
factors including availability of
quantitative data describing
problem nature and magnitude,
absence of pending litigation which
would limit information transfer,
cooperative relationships between
Cordova and Michigan Department
of Natural Resources (DNR), and an
ongoing feasibility study to
identify and evaluate clean-up
techniques which is being conducted
by DNR.
Cordova Chemical Company has
56
-------
TABLE 2 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION-SITE 010
Parameter
PH
TOC
SOC
COD
Oil & Grease
SS
TDS
S04
Sulfide
Total P as P
P04 as P
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Na
Ca
Cl
Fe
Hg*
Pb*
Sb*
As*
Cd*
Cr*
Cu*
Ni*
Se*
Ag*
Zn*
CN~*
hexachlorobutadiene*
1,2, 4-trichlorobenzene*
Aldrin*
heptachlor
phenol*
phenols (total)*
2 , 4-dichlorophenols*
methylchloride*
1 , 1-dichloroethylene*
chloroform*
trichloroethylene*
dibromochlorome thane*
Raw Wastewater
Quality Range
5.6 - 6.9
1800 - 4300 ppm
4200 ppm
5900 - 11,500 ppm
90 ppm
200 - 430 ppm
15,700 ppm
240 ppm
< 0 . 1 ppm
< 0 . 1 - 3.2 ppm
•;0.1 ppm
5 . 4 ppm
0.65 ppm
< 0 . 1 ppm i
< 0 . 1 ppm J
1000 ppm
2500 ppm
9500 ppm
31 - 330 ppm
< "• .5 -<1
0.3 - 0.4 ppm
2a
130a
lla
270|
540
240a
9a
la
480a
< 0 .Olappm
109a
23a
<10a
573a
30
3.5appm
10a
180a
28a
ND - 4550
ND - 760
ND - 35
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethylene ND - 1000
chlorobenzene*
methanol
ethanol
acetone
isopropyl alcohol
benzene*
toluene*
1200a
42.4appm
56 . 4appm
50.3appm
< 0 . lappm
ND - 3300
ND - 31,000
Effluent Quality
Goal
5-9
20 ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
10 ppm
10 ppm
No increase
250 ppm
0 . 3 ppm
0 . 1 ppm
0 . 1 ppm
NL
0 . 5 ppm
10 ppm
NL
NL
No increase
1 ppm
20
0.50 ppm
200
500
100
200
250
250
100
20
2 ppm
0.25 ppm
lO^ reduction
< 0.09
< 1
< 1
500
NS
< 0 . 1
<0.4
<2.Q
10;? reduction
10 3 reduction
< 0.3
see TOC
10 ^ reduction
see TOC limitation
see TOC limitation
see TOC limitation
see TOC limitation
10 3 reduction
10 ^ reduction
(continued)
57
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
Parameter
Raw Wastewater
Quality Range
Effluent Quality
Goal
1,1,1-trichloroethane*
carbon tetrachloride*
hexachlorocyclohexane -
alpha isomer
beta isomer
gamma isomer
delta isomer
ND - 225
92a
ND
ND
ND
ND
•' 2
< 4
see TOG limitation
600
700
600
120
ND-Not Detected
NL-No Effluent Limitation
a-denotes concentration following flow equalization and sand filtration
processes
*-A Priority Pollutant
TABLE 3 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION-SITE 026
Parameter
Raw Wastewater
Quality Range
Effluent Quality
Goal
pH
COD
TOC
NH3-N
organic N
chloride
conductivity
SS
TDS
volatile organics:
vinyl chloride*
methylene chloride*
1,1-dichloroethylene*
1,1-dichloroethane*
1,2-dichloroethane*
benzene*
1,1,2-trichloroethane*
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane*
toluene*
ethyl benzene*
chlorobenzene*
trichlorofluoromethane*
acid extractable organics:
o-chlorophenol*
phenol*
o-sec-butylphenolb
p-isobutylanisolb or
p-acetonylanisolb
11.5
5400 ppm
1500 ppm
64 ppm
110 ppm
3800 ppm
18,060 jumhos/CM
100 ppm
12,000 ppm
140
<5
220
<5
350
6
-'- 5
-5
.; c
• 5
•'5
•'5
32,500
6570
19,850
14,280
8150
7370
790
1590
5850
470
78
18
< 3 to 20
K 3 to 33
<3 to 83
< 3 to 86
5-9
50 ppm
20 ppm
0.5 ppm
NL
No increase
NL
10 ppm
No increase
10 3
103
10 3
10
10
10 1
ID3.
10 3
ID?.
103
0.2
2.0
reduction
reduction
reduction
reduction
reduction
reduction
reduction
reduction
reduction
reduction
0.09
0.5 ppm
see TOC limitation
see TOC limitation
(continued)
58
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
Parameter
Raw Wastewater
Quality Range
Effluent Quality
Goal
acid extractable organics:
(cont.)
p-sec-butylphenol*5
p-2-oxo-n-butylphenol
m-acetonylanisolb
isoprophylphenolk
1-ethylpropylphenol
dimethyIphenol*
benzoic acid
base extractable organics:
dichlorobenzene*
dimethylaniline
m-ethylaniline
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene*
napthalene*
methylnapthalene
camphor
chloroaniline
benzylamine or o-toluidine
phenanthrene* or
anthracene*
O to 48
<3 to 1357
<3 to 1546
•:-3 to 8
•'•3
<3
<3 to 12,311
10
10
10
:10
:10
-10
.10
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
172
6940
7640
28
66
290
7571
86
471
10 to 670
see TOC limitation
see TOC limitation
see TOC limitation
see TOC limitation
see TOC limitation
0.01
see TOC limitation
103 reduction
see TOC limitation
see TOC limitation
0.09
10 reduction
see TOC limitation
see TOC limitation
see TOC limitation
see TOC limitation
10^ reduction
NL-No Effluent Limitation
b-structure not validated by actual compound
*-A Priority Pollutant
TABLE 4 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION-SITE 000
Parameter
Raw Wastewater
Quality Range
Effluent Quality
Goal
TOC
BOD
COD
pH_
Cl
NHj
500
1000
1400
5.0
285
50
20
30
50
5-9
No increase
0.5
(continued)
59
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
Parameter
Raw Wastewater
Quality Range
Effluent Quality
Goal
ss
TDS
Na
Ca
Mg
K
Fe+2
Mn r*
As+5*
Ba
Cr+3*
Se*
Cu*
Ni*
Zn*
Cd*
Hg*
CN*
phenol*
trichloroethylene*
ethanol
acetone
benzene*
o-chlorobenzene*
o-nitrophenol*
endrin*
50
350
113
110
50
10
10
1.0
20
2.0
0.5
0.5
5.0
0.5
5.0
1.0
0.1
1.0
10
2.0
50
100
5.0
1 .0
2.0
10 ppb
10
No increase
NL
NL
NL
NL
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.2 (Total Cr)
0.1
0.25
0.25
2.0
0.1
0.02
0.25
0.5
lO-3 reduction
see TOC limitation
see TOC limitation
10 3 reduction
103 reduction
10 3 reduction
<1 ppb
NL-No Effluent Limitation
*-A Priority Pollutant
been very cooperative and a field
office for conduct of the laboratory
studies was established in Cordova
facilities in mid December, 1979.
Although it is too early to
fully detail the bench scale studies,
the following processes appear to
be most applicable at the Ott/Story
site:
Carbon Sorption
Resin Sorption
Biological
Stripping
Chemical Coagulation/
Precipitation
These processes alone and in
combination^ will be studied
during the first four months at
the Ott/Story site.
PILOT STUDIES
Based upon bench scale testing
results at both field sites, pilot
plant studies will be designed and
conducted to verify and optimize
process train performance. Pilot
studies will be aimed at developing
design criteria and scale-up factors
for the design of full size systems.
Pilot studies at approximately a
1 gpm scale will be conducted using
up to three process trains for
approximately nine months.
SUMMARY
Available data have been
collected and compiled on technol-
ogies with potential for concentrat-
ing hazardous constituents of
aqueous wastes. In addition, data
have been obtained on the composi-
tion of waste streams which may
require or could benefit from
treatment by the concentration
60
-------
technologies.
REFERENCES
Only a limited number of con-
centration technologies have been
applied to treatment of hazardous
aqueous wastes. Activated carbon
has been used almost exclusively
for concentration of organic com-
pounds in the limited number of
larger scale hazardous waste treat-
ment operations which were identi-
fied.
It was concluded that the
biggest problem facing the public
sector currently is contamination
from waste disposal sites -
generally leachates and contamin-
ated ground and surface waters.
Such wastes a.re diverse in terms
of composition, often varing over
time at any given site. Some wastes
contain a broad spectrum of organic
and inorganic compounds, while
others have only a few constituents.
Two waste stream categorization/
classification systems have been
devised and applied to 27 hazardous
aqueous waste streams for which
composition data were obtained.
A desk-top analysis of the
applicability of concentration
technologies to treatment of
characterized waste streams is
nearing completion. On the basis
of this analysis, technologies
will be selected for experimental
study on the bench scale and sub-
sequently on the pilot scale.
The Ott/Story Chemical Company
site has been selected for conduct
of the on-site experimental studies
which began in mid-December, 1979.
Other sites are being screened and
a second location for companion
experimental studies will be
selected shortly. Pilot scale
studies will follow the bench scale
studies at both locations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The work upon which this
paper is based was performed pur-
suant to Contract No. 68-03-2766
with the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Geraghty and Miller, Inc. The
Prevalence of Subsurface Migra-
tion of Hazardous Chemical
Substances at Selected Indus-
trial Waste Land Disposal Sites,
EPA/530/SW-634. US Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
October, 1977.
Dryden, F. E. and J. H. Mayes.
Priority Pollutant Treata-
bility Review, Task 1, Phase I
Report for Contract No. 68-03-
2579. US EPA, Cincinnati,
Ohio. July 1978.
61
-------
INORGANIC HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT
Warren J. Lyman
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, Mass. 02140
Gayaneh Contos
Versar, Inc.
Springfield, Va. 22151
ABSTRACT
This report describes an ongoing program being conducted for EPA's Solid and Hazar-
dous Wastes Division of MERL, Cincinnati, Ohio. The objective of the program is to iden-
tify, develop, and demonstrate selected treatment techniques for hazardous wastes in the
municipal sector. To some extent the program is focused on wastes containing heavy metals
and, to a lesser extent, on wastes containing organic as well as inorganic components.
Current plans include demonstration tests for three treatment techniques: (1) a solvent
extraction process for the treatment of sludges containing both inorganic and organic
components; (2) a magnetic separation process for the treatment of sludges containing
ferromagnetic or paramagnetic solids; and (3) a novel precipitation-filtration-adsorp-
tion process for treating acidic mixed plating wastes (of very high ionic strength) for
both heavy metal and organics removal.
INTRODUCTION
Arthur D. Little, Inc., along with
Versar, Inc., as a subcontractor, is cur-
rently assisting the Solid and Hazardous
Waste Division of MERL .in an assessment of
selected treatment technologies for in-
organic hazardous wastes disposed of in
the municipal sector. The term "municipal
sector" is taken to include all areas
outside the direct control of the genera-
ting industry and is not limited to pub-
licly owned and operated treatment plants
and disposal sites. The focus on the
municipal sector does mean, however, that
treatment technologies that are designed
to operate principally on segregated
waste streams within a generator's plant
may be inappropriate in this case.
More often than not, the wastes in the
municipal sector will be complex and vary-
ing mixtures of liquid and solid wastes
that result from the comingling of com-
patible wastes from a variety of sources.
The degree of waste segregation that might
be encountered in the municipal sector is
shown schematically in Figure 1. Purely
inorganic wastes may seldom exist, thus
requiring one to consider the effect of
various organics, including oils, on a
treatment system designed for inorganics;
the treatment system may, in fact, have to
include a unit operation for the removal of
the organic fraction. In addition, the
prospects for material recovery from such
wastes are significantly diminished from
those associated with segregated waste
streams. In spite of this, our program
has actively sought to identify treatment
systems that might, with certain waste
streams, allow some material or energy
recovery.
The objectives of any treatment system
selected might involve volume reduction,
detoxification, and/or material and energy
recovery. No treatment system can avoid
the problem of residuals generation, and
thus it has been necessary to consider each
62
-------
WORST
CASE
All Wastes Mixed
- Mixture of organic and
inorganic material in
form of dilute aqueous
sludge
1ST LEVEL OF 2ND LEVEL OF
SRGRKfiATION .....SKCKKCATION
. (2} Mixed Or^anlcs
- Contains little or
no water; burn for
heat value
— Qy Mixed Inorganics
- Dilute aqueous sludge ;
may contain small amount
of organic material
>_^ [A) Potential for Material
Recovery
- Waste lube oils
- Chlorinated solvents
- Other valuable chem.
. ...— QT) Easily Burned for Heat
Value
- Hydrocarbons
— nn Those Needins Special
Detoxification or
- Some pesticides
- Complex sludges „
- Relatively low solids
content (e.g. , leachat
waste plating/rinse
baths)
Q Dilute Sludges — i
< 10X solids; need to
f*M Concentrated Sludges _
3KU LEVEL OF
SEGREGATION
_., Probably not
t , , - - " "" required
|— (10) Need Special Treatment
- CN destruction
- Cr+6 reduction
— (ll) Treatable by General
B - Leachate
Recovery
- Contain only 1 or 2
valuable metals or
— (13) Contain Magnetic Metals
S 252 solids; can use
fixation, etc., directly
Note: Degree of segregation will depend on volume and nature of wastes generated in the
area, the economics of various treatment and disposal options, public and regula-
tory pressures, as well as other factors.
FIGURE 1. Waste Categories That Might Be Kept
Segregated For Wastes Disposed Of
In The Municipal Sector
- Metals small X of to-
tal solids; remove
vial HCMS
|— ^} Contain Significant Or-
ganic Content
> 1Z by vol.; use
asphalting/evaporation
or solvent extraction
| © Bulk of Solids is Calelum-
- Use pozzolanlc cementa-
tion
Solids Containing High
Fraction of Silicic
Material
- Use modified silicate
fixation
All Others
treatment technology in conjunction with
the basic disposal options available for
the residuals as compared with the disposal
options for the original raw waste. As
indicated in Figure 2, there may be signi-
ficant cost savings associated with some
treatment systems if the residuals going
to a secure (chemical) landfill can be sig-
nificantly reduced or eliminated. Not shown
in Figure 2 is the element of waste trans-
portation which should also be factored in.
At present, chemical landfills are few in
number and often receive hazardous wastes
that have been transported hundreds of
miles. The costs of such transport
(roughly lOC/kkg/mi for tank trucks) can
obviously be significant. Figure 3 gives
two examples where transportation costs
are considered; the "treatment" in each
example is encapsulation in asphalt with
simultaneous evaporation of the water.
We have assumed in these two examples that
the encapsulated waste could legally be dis-
posed of in a nearby sanitary landfill.
Where a range of daily costs is shown, this
reflects the indicated range of costs for
secure landfill disposal which results
primarily from the annual capacity of the
landfill. The range shown in Figures 2
and 3 ($75-570/kkg) is associated with
landfills having an annual capacity of
50,000 m3/yr ($75/kkg) down to 1,000 m%r
63
-------
~$75-570/KKG
Chemical Landfill
P.O.T.W.
Note: Disposal costs shown are per KKg of
wet solids. They are generally indica
tive of actual costs, but actual costs
will vary significantly in some
situations.
Figure 2. Basic Disposal Options for Hazardous Inorganic Wastes Discharged to the Municipal Sector
($570/kkg).
The program of study being undertaken
by Arthur D. Little, Inc. and Versar is in
three phases. Phase I, completed in
January 1979, included a literature search
64
-------
WASTE S1
250 kkg/d
5% solids
WASTE #2
4.2 kkg/d
76.6% solids
ASPHALTING &
EVAPORATION
(on site)
$17.4/kkg'
Water
"Includes disposal costs.
TRANSPORT
Soll S0.30/
kkg . mi
-»-\ ~100 mi
@$0 10/
kkg. mi
ASPHALTING*
EVAPORATION
Ion site)
$23l/kkg'
f Water
Figure 3. Asphalting/Evaporation vs. Secure Landfill Com
Two Examples
DISPOSE IN
SANITARY
LANDFILL
SlO/kkg
DISPOSE IN
SECURE
LANDFILL
S75-570/kkg
DISPOSE IN
SECURE
LANDFILL
S75-570/kkg
DISPOSE IN
SECURE
LANDFILL
$75-570/kkg
Total
Daily
Costi
$4.410
$ 21.250-
145.000
DISPOSE IN
SANITARY
LANDFILL
SlO/kkg
$990
S 360-
2.440
$ 525-
2.600
and data acquisition program for an initial
selection of waste streams and compatible
treatment technologies. Phase II, com-
pleted in December 1979, included a more
extensive analysis of the treatment tech-
nologies of interest and the eventual
selection of three processes for future
testing and/or demonstration. Phase III,
to be conducted in 1980, will consist of
laboratory and pilot-scale tests on the
three selected processes. Results of these
tests should be available late in 1980.
The information below provides some details
from the studies conducted in Phase I and
II, and a brief description of the pro-
cesses to be tested in Phase III.
PHASE I STUDIES
The results of three previous studies
(Arthur D. Little, Inc.,1 Versar, Inc.2'3)
formed the basis for a significant portion
of the Phase I review. This was supple-
mented by additional literature search
efforts, contacts with several waste gen-
erators, and discussions with individuals
knowledgeable in the area of hazardous
waste treatment.
A total of 21 unit processes were even-
tually identified as being applicable to
the treatment of inorganic hazardous wastes
(Table 1). The unit processes are sepa-
rated into three groups:
65
-------
A. Unit processes for the treatment
of sludges;
B. Unit processes for the dewatering
of sludges; and
C. Unit processes for the treatment of
liquid wastes.
It is recognized that a complete treat-
ment system, consisting perhaps of several
unit operations, may be necessary for some
waste streams. A schematic diagram of
several generalized treatment process path-
ways (incorporating the unit operations of
Table 1) is shown in Figure 4.
TABLE 1. Summary List of Potentially
Applicable Unit Treatment Processes
Process
Category
(see text)
A. Unit Processes for the Treatment of
Sludges
1. Fixation/ III-IV
Encapsulation
2. Asphalting/ IV
Evaporation
3. Calcination IV
4. Fusion III
5. High Gradient III
Magnetic Separation
6. Distillation V
7. Dissolution III
B. Unit Processes for Dewatering
Sludges
8. Filtration V
9. Sedimentation V
10. Centrifugation V
11. Evaporation IV-V
12. Vapor Compression .III
Evaporation
13. Solvent Extraction III
14. Ultrasonic II
Dewatering
C. Unit Processes for the Treatment
of Liquid Wastes
15. Precipitation V
16. Neutralization V
17. Flocculation V
18. Adsorption IV
19. Reverse Osmosis IV
20. Ion Exchange IV
21 Oxidation IV
(of cyanide)
Table 1 also identifies a process
"category" for each unit process according
to the following scheme:
No. Category Description
II Process might work in 5-10 years, but
need research effort first.
Ill Process appears to be useful for ha-
zardous wastes, but needs develop-
mental work.
IV Process is developed for some appli-
cations but is not commonly used for
hazardous wastes.
V Process will be common to most indus-
trial waste processors.
The assignment of a high category number
(IV or V) thus implies a relatively high
state of development for the process and a
moderate to high degree of usage for waste-
water treatment and/or other applications.
It cannot be taken to imply that the pro-
cess has been "demonstrated" (especially
for hazardous waste treatment) since this
term usually implies satisfactory applica-
bility to specific waste streams.
PHASE II STUDIES
The Phase II studies were aimed at
narrowing down the candidate list of treat-
ment processes with the intent to even-
tually select four for in-depth study.
Simultaneously we engaged in a search and
study program for waste streams in the
municipal sector that would be of particu-
lar interest to this program.
To assist us in the first item, the
screening of treatment processes, we
initially selected eleven surrogate waste
streams for study (Table 2). Nine of these
waste streams were inorganic hazardous
wastes generated by various segments of
the inorganic chemicals industry; these
waste streams had been previously investi-
gated by Versar. A mixed metal hydroxide
sludge and landfill leachate (from sites
containing industrial wastes) were con-
sidered in addition. A twelfth waste
stream consisting of mixed (acidic) plating
wastes was subsequently added to this list.
Special studies on selected treatment
processes (e.g., alternative dewatering
and fixation processes) were also required
66
-------
Concentrated
Sludge or
Dry Solids
Notes:
1. Numbers in parentheses identity unit treatment operations
las listed in Table 1) associated with certain pathways.
2. More likely pathways identified by bold arrows.
^f Discharge
(if safe)
15.6)
Possible Material
Recovery
Figure 4. Schematic Diagram of Treatment Process Pathways for Inorganic Hazardous Wastes
to determine their specific applicability
to the waste streams in question.
For each of the twelve waste streams
being considered, one to three different
treatment trains were proposed and evalu-
ated. The treatment trains were designed
to be complete treatment processes and, as
such, contained between one and nine unit
operations (see Table 1) in some defined
sequence. The costs (capital and opera-
ting) of each treatment train were esti-
mated and the relative merits compared.
From this analysis it was shown that a
relatively small number of unit operations
could be considered as key operations for
the treatment of inorganic hazardous
wastes. Each key operation was then eval-
uated with respect to several factors in-
cluding: (1) applicability to various
waste streams (including the ability to
handle wastes containing both inorganic
and organic chemicals), (2) effectiveness
and technical feasibility, (3) potential
for material or energy recovery, (4) capi-
tal and operating costs, (5) the need for
further research and development (or demon-
stration) with the process, (6) the level
(e.g., lab, bench, pilot) at which future
R and D was most needed, (7) the availabil-
ity of pilot plant equipment and waste
streams for use in our Phase III program,
(8) the environmental impacts associated
with the use of each process, and (9) the
need to avoid duplication of effort with
other research efforts in this field.
The end result of our evaluation pro-
cess was the selection of three treatment
processes to be tested in Phase III:
(1) Solvent Extraction (B.E.S.T. pro-
cess developed by Resources
Conservation Co. for the treatment
67
-------
TAHLE Z. Summary List of Wasli
Waste Stream Physical Form X Solids
1. (4*) Asbestos Separator Wastes, Sludge 70
Diaphragm Cell
2. [7a*] Solids from Wastewater Sludge 25
Hazardous
Components
Asbestos
Cr(OH)3
Hazardous
As I of Total
Dry Solids
12
0.5
Raw Waste:
Typical
Rate
Dry Wet
Basis Basis
(KKg/d) (KKg/d)
1.5 2.2
27 110
Treatment, Titanium Dioxide
Chloride Process, Rut lie Ore
3. [7b«l Solids from Wastewater
Treatment, Titanium Dioxide
Chloride Process, Ilraenite Ore
Sludge
25
Cr(OHK
0.09
140
* Number In brackets is waste stream number from Versar's "Alternatives Report."
** Characteristics and flow rates listed are those for five class 1 landfills in the Los Angeles area Chat
were recently investigated.
560
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
[8*] Sludges from Wastewater Sludge
Treatment, Chrome Color and
Inorganic Pigment Manufacture
[14*1 Chromate Contaminated Muds and Sludges
Wastes, Chromate Manufacture
[15*1 Nickel Waste from Waste- Sludge
water Treatment, NiSO, Manufac-
ture
[17*] Arsenic and Phosphorus Dry Residues and Dust
Waste's, P2Sc Manufacture
[18*1 AsCl3 Wastes from Dry Residues
fCt Manufacture
Mixed Metal Hydroxide Sludge Sludge
Finishing and Electroplating
Wastewaters
Landfill Leachate from Sites Aqueous
Containing Hazardous Indus- Stream
trial Wastes
Mixed Industrial and Com- Sludge
mercial Hazardous Wastes
As Received in Municipal
Sector**
77
75
50
100
100
5
Very
Small
Dissolved:
6-18
Total:
12-73
Various heavy
metals (Cr,
Pb, Zn, Fe)
Cr(OH)3, Chro-
mate
Ni(OH)2
As S3> P, and
phosphorus sul-
flde
ASC£5
Heavy metal
(Cr, Nl, Zn, Fe,
Al, Cu, Pb, Cd,
Sn, Mn, others)
Heavy metals,
organics
Heavy metals,
organics
44 2.3
0.02 150
0.14 0.5
9 119
5 60
60 12.5
< 0.1X
of total
aqueous flow
Metals: 0.05 .5-1200
Organics: 8X
of raw waste
volume
16
200
1
-
-
250
50-200
50-2000
of municipal sludge). This pro-
cess can operate on a mixed in-
organic solids/organics waste
stream and separate it into three
output streams: aqueous stream,
dry inorganic solids, and ex-
tracted organics.
(2) High Gradient Magnetic Separation
(HGMS). The process can magnet-
ically filter our ferromagnetic
and paramagnetic solids (most
heavy metals and their salts)
from a waste stream that may con-
tain a large amount of nonmagnetic
(most presumably nonhazardous)
material.
(3) Precipitation and Adsorption. A
novel two-stage precipitation pro-
cess incorporating carbon adsorp-
tion for'Organics removal was
selected for the treatment of the
acidic mixed plating wastes and
leachate.
A fourth process based on simultaneous evap-
oration and encapsulation in asphalt was also
ranked high in the final evaluation process
and was studied in some detail. This pro-
cess was, however, considered inappropriate
for further tests in this program for a com-
bination of reasons and thus will not be
demonstrated in Phase III.
68
-------
DESCRIPTION OF PROCESSES TO BE TESTED
Solvent Extraction
A novel process employing solvent ex-
traction was recently developed by Resources
Conservation Co. (Renton, Wash.) to remove
essentially all of the water and oils from
sludges containing both organic and inorgan-
ic material. The process, called Basic
Extractive Sludge Treatment (B.E.S.T.), con-
verts sludges with .05% to 60% solids to
output streams of (1) very dry solids (4-5%
moisture), (2) a clear aqueous effluent
(will contain soluble inorganic salts) and
(3) recovered oils. The process was ini-
tially designed for processing municipal
sludges although it has been tested on some
industrial sludges. The process train
includes: (1) mixing the sludge with an
aliphatic amine at low temperatures (^10°C)
where the solvent, water and soluble oils
form a single liquid phase; (2) removal of
solids with a centrifuge followed by solids
drying (and solvent recovery); (3) heating
the solvent/water/oil mixture (to <\-50°C) to
force phase separation (aqueous and organic);
(4) steam stripping of the aqueous phase
for solvent recovery; and (5) distillation
of the solvent phase for oil recovery and
solvent recycle. The use of heat exchangers
minimizes the system's energy requirement,
and the overall efficiency can be improved
by mechanically dewatering the raw waste to
at least 30% solids. The dry solids pro-
duced, if hazardous, could be disposed of as
is in a secure landfill; the recovered oils
could be burned for heat recovery. The
aqueous effluent might need further treat-
ment depending on the nature and concentra-
tion of soluble inorganics present.
The principal benefits derived from
the use of such a process, besides its gen-
eral applicability to most sludges, are
extraction of dry solids free from oils, and
the extraction of oils for reuse or heat
value. The dry solids, if-required, could
be encapsulated prior to disposal with any
of the common inorganic-chemical techniques.
These fixation techniques are generally not
operable on oil-containing sludges. The
more important questions about this process
relate to (1) the degree of treatment effec-
tiveness on mixed hazardous wastes, (2) the
complexity of the operation, (3) treatment
costs (especially capital costs), and
(4) energy requirements.
It is our intent to conduct a variety
of tests on this process using a pilot plant
owned by the Resources Conservation Co.
Tests, using at least two different mixed
wastes, will be designed to optimize the
process and to answer the questions stated
above.
High Gradient Magnetic Separation (HGMS)
HGMS is a relatively new technique for
separating ferromagnetic and paramagnetic
materials (down to colloidal particle size)
from gas or liquid streams, on a large
scale and at flow rates over one hundred
times faster than the flow rates possible
in ordinary filtration, and with lower cost
and energy requirements. HGMS uses fine
ferromagnetic material containing about 95%
void space (felted or woven steel fabric,
compressed steel wool, expanded metal, etc.),
and magnets capable of generating high-
intensity fields (up to 20,000 gauss) in
large cavities. The magnetic impurities
are collected on the filter by magnetic
attraction as the feed stream passes through
the unit. When the magnet is turned off,
the filter matrix may be washed clean.
HGMS machines may be operated either
as a cyclic or continuous operation, and
both methods are in commercial use today
primarily in the area of ore beneficiation.
The principal current application in the
United States is the beneficiation
(whitening) of clay via the removal of a
small magnetic fraction that imparts the
unwanted color. Other units are used for
iron ore beneficiation and for cleaning
impurities out of the recycled cooling water
in some power plants. The process has been
tested on certain industrial waste waters
and, in conjunction with the addition of
magnetic seed material, on municipal waste
waters. The process is being studied at
present for coal desulfurization; a very
large fraction of the pyritic sulfur can be
removed from pulverized or liquified coal.
There are no current applications to
hazardous wastes.
A large fraction of the more common
heavy metals encountered in hazardous
wastes are either ferromagnetic or para-
magnetic in the elemental form or in com-
pounds. -Included are Fe, Co, Ni, Cr, Cu,
Ti, and Cs; not included are Pb, Hg, and
Zn. In some instances it may be possible
to remove nonmagnetic solids if they are
associated in any way with the magnetic
69
-------
material. Thus this process may be appli-
cable to a hazardous waste containing mixed
metal compounds (e.g., No. 9 in Table 2)
while it is certainly applicable to wastes
whose principal hazardous components are
known to be magnetic (e.g., Nos. 2, 3 and 6
in Table 2).
It is our intent to test HGMS on at
least two waste streams to determine its
applicability to hazardous sludges, one
containing both magnetic and nonmagnetic
compounds and one containing only magnetic
impurities. The overall effectiveness of
the process, costs, and energy requirements
will be assessed. It should be clear that
the end result of using HGMS on such wastes
is (1) a nonmagnetic fraction which will
presumably be sufficiently free of hazard-
ous components and can be disposed of in a
sanitary landfill, and (2) a magnetic frac-
tion of relatively small volume which may
be sent to a secure landfill or treated
further for material recovery.
Precipitation/Adsorption
A treatment process involving precipi-
tation and carbon adsorption, with subse-
quent filtration, has been proposed for the
treatment of mixed acidic plating wastes
that are collected by a hazardous waste
hauler in the New England area. Waste from
several generators is collected in a common
tank prior to transport to a distant secure
landfill. We have analyzed several differ-
ent composites of such wastes and found
them to be characterized by very low pH
(0.5-3), high dissolved solids (^8,000 to
20,000 mg/L), high suspended solids (^2,000
to 10,000 mg/L), relatively low organic
content ('v/lOO to 500 mg/L oil and grease) ,
and varying concentrations of a variety of
metals (Fe, Al, Na, B, Cu, Pb, Sn, Zn, Cr
and Nl). Anion analyses showed very high
concentrations of Cl~, S0,=, NO ~ F~, and
PO,=. Phenols and dichlo?obenzenes ac-
f\
counted for about one half of the freon-
extractable organics in one sample; the
remainder was mostly hydrocarbons with
smaller amounts of low molecular weight
alkylated polynuclear aromatics, and an
alkylbenzene-sulfonamide.
We decided that the primary treatment
objectives for such a waste would be neu-
tralization and removal of all hazardous
components from the waste to the degree
that the treated aqueous waste could be
safely discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW). Neutralization of
such a waste will, perforce, result in the
precipitation of a large fraction of the
heavy metals. The principal question is
whether or not precipitation in such a
waste can be effective enough given (1) a
very high ionic strength which favors the
formation of soluble ion pairs, and
(2) chelating agents which will also tend
to keep some metals in solution. To insure
a very high removal efficiency for essen-
tially all heavy metals we selected, a two-
step, batch precipitation scheme that
operates as follows. Calcium hydroxide is
used initially to slowly raise the pH while
the waste is continuously filtered in a
recycle loop, thus taking advantage of the
minimum solubility of each metal over the
pH range of 0.5 (or 2 for some wastes) to
nearly 11. Above pH 8 a sulfide precipi-
tating reagent (e.g., Na.S) is added to
reduce and precipitate any Cr+6 present,
and to effect a higher degree of removal
for the other heavy metals.
The process described above has been
tested in our laboratory on a sample of
mixed plating wastes. Very high removal
efficiencies were achieved for all heavy
metals of concern, and the final filtrate
was found to have, with one slight excep-
tion, lower heavy metal concentrations than
the maximums allowed by the EPA for electro-
plating plants discharging to POTWs. The
anions F~ and PO,= were also very effi-
ciently removed while SO,= was reduced
about 90%.
We propose to use powdered activated
carbon (on a throw-away basis) for the
removal of hazardous organics from the
waste. The carbon will be added at both
acidic and basic pHs to increase removal
efficiencies for various organics that tend
to ionize in some pH ranges. The use of
powdered carbon, with no subsequent regen-
eration, avoids the clogging problems (and
the requirements for separate containers
and associated pumps and piping, etc.)
associated with fixed-bed granular carbon
filters, and the significant problems often
associated with carbon regeneration systems.
It is our intent to carry out addi-
tional laboratory tests on this process and
then to construct a small pilot unit to use
on batches as large as 100 liters. The
treatment effectiveness for a number of
different waste composites (from the hazard-
ous waste hauler) will be determined. A
70
-------
modified treatment process may subsequently
be used to treat samples of leachate that
have been contaminated by industrial wastes.
REFERENCES
1. Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1976. Physi-
cal, Chemical, and Biological Treatment
Techniques for Industrial Wastes,
Report to U.S. EPA, Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, Washington,
D.C. (N.T.I.S. PB-275-054/5GA (Vol. I)
and PB-275-278/IGA (Vol. II)).
2. Versar, Inc., 1975. Assessment of
Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Inorganic Chemicals Industry, EPA-530/
SW-104C, Report to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
3. Versar, Inc., 1977, Alternatives for
Hazardous Waste Management in the In-
organic Chemicals Industry, Report to
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste, Washington,
D.C. (N.T.I.S. PB-274-565).
71
-------
THE REACTION OF PCB'S WITH SODIUM, OXYGEN, AND POLYETHYLENE GLYCOLS
Louis L. Pytlewski
Kenneth Krevitz
Arthur B. Smith
Edward J. Thome
Chemistry and Biosciences Lab
Franklin Research Center
Phila., Pa. 19103
Frank J. laconianni
Chemistry Department
Drexel University
Phila., Pa. 19104
ABSTRACT
PCB's, as well as representative halogenated pesticides, were found to be rapidly and com-
pletely decomposed by the use of molten sodium metal dispersed in polyethylene glycols.
The reaction was found to be exothermic and self-sustaining with the formation of NaCl,
H2, and polyhydroxylated biphenyls (in the case of PCB's) and other phenolic compounds.
Tne reaction requires the presence of sodium and oxygen with the subsequent formation of
a sizeable number of free radicals. A superoxide type of free radical was identified by
the use of Electron Spin Resonance Spectroscopy and it is felt that dechlorination occurs
by the reaction of a PCB molecule with a novel sodium-glycolate-superoxide radical.
A reactive sodium-glycolate-oxygen solution can be made up beforehand, stored, and used
effectively.
The experimental conditions are simple, open, and inexpensive. The reagents used are com-
monly known and available in commercial quantities. Cost estimates have been made for
PCB's decomposition on a large scale and range between 10 to 32£ per pound, without taking
into account the salability of the reaction products.
INTRODUCTION
The enormous variety and amounts of not only extremely energy intensive, and
toxic halogenated organic materials which becoming increasingly so each day, but the
have pervaded our environment during the effluents are very corrosive and costly to
past fifty years have left us with a major, remove. Chemical processes such as chlor-
crucial problem of disposal. Such a prob- olysis, catalytic dehydrochlorination, mol-
lem is very clearly delineated in a recent ten salt reactions, ozone reactions, alkali
USEPA publication, "State-of^the-Art Report: metal reduction in extremely dry "solvated
Pesticide Disposal Research" . . electron" solvents all present entirely too
many problems before and after reaction:
To date, it appears that there are severe limitations exist as to breadth of
basically two methods used for large scale reactivity, expensive reagents, complex ap-
disposal of toxic materials such as PCB's: paratus, energy intensiveness, complete ab-
storage and incineration. When one real- sence of usable reaction products, extremely
izes the enormous variety of toxic com- inert atmospheres, extensive temperature
pounds that have been made and how many controls, etc. Furthermore, no present
millions of pounds of these materials have chemical methods have even the remotest
been manufactured , it is impossible to chance of directly interfacing with an ex-
believe that such methods of disposal are isting environmental pollution problem.
solving or ever will solve any environ-
mental disposal problems. Incineration is
72
-------
Our research was addressed to the well-
known extreme chemical stability of chlorin-
ated materials since these comprise the bulk
of the problematic halogenated types. The
resistance of the C-C1 bond to chemical at-
tack is well documented in the literature of
organic chemistry3.
There are few published studies regard-
ing chemical decomposition reactions of
highly chlorinated materials2'.1*. Most chemi-
cal approaches are critically reviewed in
reference 6. Chemical decomposition of highly
chlorinated aromatic compounds such as PCBs
and DDT have been achieved, in some cases
only partially, usjng very strong reducing
agents such as BH^ , and alkali metals dis-
solved in very dry, liquid NH3, amines, HMPA,
and more recently^ the well known sodium-
naphthalene reagent. However, such reduc-
tions require extremely anhydrous, air-free
reaction systems and greatly reduced reaction
temperatures (0 C and lower).
OBJECTIVE
The objective was to devise a reaction
system which would result in the cleavage
of the C-C1 bond. Further, the reaction .
should be quick, complete, exothermic, and
thus self-sustaining; the reaction products
should be usable, easily recovered, and also
recyclable; the outlook should be good for
developing commercial processes using in-
expensive chemicals and equipment.
EXPERIMENTAL WORK AND RESULTS
The objectives of this research have al-
ready indicated the main thrust of our ap-
proach to the accomplishments of this pro-
gram. We have discovered that molten sodium
metal in the appropriate solvent medium can
function as a broad based chemical reactant.
This reactivity is governed by the primary
mode of decomposition of the molecule of
interest.
In our laboratories at FRC we had been
investigating the use of Phase Transfer
Catalysis5 as a means for decomposing a large
variety of very inert, toxic compounds,
including PCBs. When it was found that PCBs
were insensitive to Phase Transfer processes
of several types (such as H"1 and BH" trans-
fer into alkane hydrocarbon solutions of
PCBs), we decided that it would be in order
to conduct a series of experiments whereby
extremely reactive reagents would be added
to heat and dissolved PCBs. Basically, it
was felt that if we could get some type of
reaction "going" with PCBs, no matter how
exotic or unorthodox, it would at least
give us a "handle" with which to work.
We were able to devise a reaction med-
ium at the start which instantly and com-
pletely decomposed large quantities of PCBs.
The reaction was carried out in simple lab-
oratory glassware, consisting of a 500 ml
three neck round bottom flask equipped with
a reflux condenser, a thermometer, and a
neck sealed with a rubber septum.
The reacting solution was composed of
200 ml of polyethylene glycol 400 (average
molecular weight = 400)[we later found that
most glycols functioned as reactive sol-
vents] dried over anhydrous Ha2SO. (which
could also be present in the reaction mix-
ture) and 2.3 grams of metallic sodium. At
room temperature the solid metallic sodium
in PEG 400 was unreactive with PCBs. How-
ever, when the temperature of the system
was raised above the melting point of the
metallic sodium (97.28 C) and vigorously
stirred to give a uniform dispersion, the
reaction mixture took on a deep amber color.
and the temperature of the system rose-in
a self-sustaining fashion to about 110 C.
When the last of the liquid droplets of
molten sodium on the solution surface dis-
appeared, a 1 ml volume of PCB oil (Iner-
teen, Westinghouse) was added to the reaction
mixture and the temperature of the system
further rose to about 180 C. A gas chrom-
atographic aliquot was taken 30 seconds
after the addition of PCBs with the resul-
tant chromatograms showing an approximate
95% decomposition of the PCB oil. The re-
action of molten sodium with PEG 400 was
accompanied by the evolution of large
amounts of H2 gas.
The reaction solution containing a
small amount of residual sodium was quenched
with methanol and water. Water soluble Cl"
was present and detected using a dilute
HN03, silver nitrate solution. Cyclohexane
v/as used to extract the organic components..
Infrared and NMR spectra indicated that the
PCB oil was converted to phenolic compounds
(polyhydroxylated biphenyls and hydroxy-
benzenes). These compounds were also de-
termined to be in the water layer as indi-
cated by the classical FeCU-phenols quali-
tative tests. We also observed the precipi-
tation of a white solid from the NaPEG 400-
PCB system whose x-ray diffraction pattern
matched that of NaCl.
Subsequent NaPEG 400 reactions were
73
-------
conducted using the following compounds in
place of PCBs; hexachlorocyclohexane, hexa-
chlorobenzene, tri- and tetrachlorobenzenes,
pentachlorophenol, DDT, kepone, and chloro-
ethylethylsulfide (a mustard gas simulant).
Essentially all of these compounds were de-
chlorinated rapidly and completely—with the
formation of NaCl and oxygenated products
including Na~S and ethanol in the case of
chloroethylethylsulfide.
Importantly, we have determined
that dechlorination did not occur using so-
dium treated under the following experimental
conditions:
a) in non-polar, low volatility
liquids such as Nujol
b) in glycolic solvents where both
terminal hydroxyl groups are re-
placed with alkoxy groups.
c) in glycols, including poly-
ethylene glycols, in the absence
of air (oxygen).
The melting of sodium in polyethylene
glycol 400 was done in an oxygen free.en-
vironment and it resulted in the formation
of a clear solution ( a very slight yellow
tinge) with the evolution of hydrogen. When
air was allowed into this system a vigorous
reaction occurred with the formation of the
expected deep red-amber colored solution.
The deeply colored sodium-PEG 400 so-
lution was found to have a broad, intense
ultraviolet absorption band centered at 250
nm, and produced a single, strong ESR ab-
sorption band located at 3391 gauss with a
very narrow band width of 7 gauss. Dechlor-
ination of PCBs occurred using this solution
at elevated temperatures; measurably slow at
40°C and too fast to collect rate data at
65 C. However, when these rate experiments
were repeated under a dry N« atmosphere de-
chlorination did not occur.
In the presence of air (oxygen) molten
sodium reacted with all glycolic solvents to
produce deep amber colored solutions, except-
ing those having two terminal alkoxy groups--
e.g., diethylene glycol dimethyl ether was
inert.
Furthermore, analysis of the reaction
mixture (after treatment with methanol to
decompose any small amount of residual sodium)
by mass spectrometry in the chemical ioniza-
tion negative ion mode showed the complete
absence of chlorinated organic material.
DISCUSSION
Two ingredients are essential for de-
chlorination in polyethylene glycols—
sodium and oxygen. Oxygen is necessary
for the formation of the free radical-con-
taining amber colored NaPEG 400 solution,
and also for its reaction with PCBs. The
ESR absorption band of the NaPEG 400 so-
lution is extremely narrow and this elim-
inates radicals of the types *OH, -OR, Na«,
and solvated electrons (as in Na-liquid NH,
solutions. The ESR spectrum does match that
observed for Op-, the superoxide ion, also
written as Ol. However, even though the
NaPEG 400 solution may contain the highly
reactive Ol radical, this is not the prin-
cipal reactive species for dechlorination
of PCBs because a continuous supply of
oxygen is required for this reaction.
It is well known in the literature of
organic chemistry that ethers are readily
susceptible to insertion reactions with 0?
to form explosive hydroperoxides3:
Vxi °i ^4
CS >r LJ £- r ^r
^C-H —^ —L, X.—
H H H 0-0-H
PEG 400 can also be classified as a polymeric
ether, whose average molecular formula is
H-(f-0-CH2CH2-^0-H, containing eight ether
linkages, ft is tempting to propose hydro-
peroxide groups at the carbon-ether linkages
in PEG 400 but reaction does not readily
occur with polyethylene glycol alone. This
brings us to the importance of sodium in
the reaction. It is necessary to propose
that rapid oxygen uptake can occur at poly-
ethylene glycol ether linkages only by in-
sertion between sodium-carbon bonds. There
is precedence for this type of bond and it
has been described as occurring in reactions
of sodium with high molecular weight gly-
cols1. The initial reaction of sodium
with PEG 400 produces a sodium glycolate
and H,. This reaction can be written as:
2 Na
H H
2 H-O-C-C-0'
HH
H H
& I i
o-c-c-o-
'
H
2 Na
The proposed mechanism for a PCBs reaction
using (I) is as follows:
A. Disproportionate of (I) - equilibrium
system
V V
2 R-C-ONa ***• R-C-ONa
(II)
RCH2OH
H
Na
74
-------
B. Oxygenninsertion in (II)
"H
R - C - ONa + 02 * R - C - ONa
Na
"0 -
C. Decomposition of (III) into free radicals
H
R - C - ONa -»• R - C - ONa + Na-0
*(IV) 0
"0 - Na •
D. Reaction of (IV) with oxygen
H H
R - £ - ONa + 0, •«• R — 6 - ONa
E. Reaction of (V) with PCB,
R-C*-ONa>frl . _ R-C-0* + NaCl
•^ /i\,\-v •*• \
0-0» (VI)0-0-0
(NOTE: Formation of NaCl is principal
driving force for the overall reaction)
F. Reaction of (VI) with more sodium gly-
colate H H
I i i i
R-C-0* + R-t-ONa -*• R-C-ONa + R-C-0
\ I i i •
0-0-0 H 0-0-0 H
(VII)
G. Decomposition of (VII)
" ONa
R-C-ONa -»• R-CV + OH-0
' » ^0
One can see that there are a variety of
free radicals generated in this process. It
is especially noteworthy that there are two
steps that require molecular 02: the first
(B above) involves an insertion of CL be-
tween a Na-C bond by the disproportionate
of the initial sodium glycolate product; the
second (D above) results in the formation of
a sodium glycolate superoxide complex radical.
The second oxygen reaction is the one which
is crucial for dechlorination to occur since
the first reaction results only in the for-
mation of a stable superoxide ion.
Currently, intensive kinetics studies
are being conducted in order to further sub-
stantiate the reaction mechanism.
THE PRACTICALITY OF THE PROCESS
The Na-PEG process was submitted to our
engineering group for a preliminary cost
evaluation relative to chemical destruction
of neat PCBs on a commercial scale. Work-
ing with the necessary assumptions, the
uppermost of which were: 1) construction
of a complete disposal facility; 2) Na
metal currently selling for 4H/lb; and
3) PEG 400 selling for 38tf/lb; they ar-
rived at a cost of decomposition figure of
about 32tf/lb of PCBs. Taking into account
the recent wide fluctuation in the price of
metallic sodium, reaching a minimum of
about 21£/lb, and the probable reduction
in the cost of PEG 400 when used in very
large quantities, it was estimated that
the low side of the cost could easily reach
10$/lb of PCBs. Furthermore, the recovery
of products such as hydrogen gas, and the
potential usefulness of polyhydroxylated
biphenyls (polymers, antioxidants, novel
chromatography column stationary phases,
and solvents for very high temperature
reactions) would certainly help to guarantee
a lower cost figure (possibly making the
whole process profitable).
Polyhydroxylated biphenyls have been
synthesized containing as many as eight
-OH groups. The melting points of these
compounds are all above 300 C. Tri- and
tetrahydroxybiphenyls are used as antioxi-
dants in foods. However, current methods
of synthesis are extremely expensive. Our
process should yield useful commodities by
the production of large quantities of
polyhydroxylated biphenyls.
Of course the polyfunctionality of
these compounds immediately suggests their
use in the preparation of new classes of
polymers, assuming that the polyfunctionality
is not too high to preclude formation of
polymeric structures with useful physical
properties. The high melting points of the
monomers would point toward the production
of polymeric materials of very high thermal
stability. There has always been a broad-
based need for inexpensive polymers of these
types. Condensation polymerization would
produce highly crosslinked polymers either
by the splitting out of H20 from the monomer
itself or by classical reactions with for-
maldehyde, terephthalic acid, ethylene di-
amine, etc. The crosslinking should also
beneficially enhance the chemical and
physical characteristics of the polymeric
materials.
75
-------
The evolution of hydrogen gas from any
chemical process requires that commonsense
safety measures be exercised in the complete
avoidance of open flame,electrical sparking,
and the use of electric heating elements.
The melting point of sodium metal (97.28 C)
permitted the use of steam as a means for
initiation of the reaction. On a large scale
the hydrogen gas can be drawn off and col-
lected. As a valuable source of energy, it
can contribute to the practicality of the
process in several ways.
Also, with scale-up, large quantities of
Nad will be produced. Direct disposal of
NaCl does not pose any special problems. It
is within the realm of possibility that the
recovered hydrogen gas could be used as a
source of energy to melt the NaCl, and using
electrolysis techniques reproduce sodium metal
and chlorine gas. This would result in a
recycling for the metallic sodium. The cost
of this particular route v/ould have to be
determined.
CONCLUSION
The objectives of this research are
clearly associated with a chemical process
which converts toxic chemical products and
wastes into useable materials, completely
free of the need for external energy sources.
The Na-PEG reaction is not only potentially
applicable to conversion of all types of
halogenated compounds to non-halogenated
materials, but should be equally effective
in reacting with any environmentally toxic
compound which is capable of hydrolysis,
such as the thiophosphoryl pesticides.
To date we know that the reaction pro-
ceeds by a complex free radical mechanism
requiring oxygen for the activation of a
sodium glycolate molecule and, most import-
antly, for dechlorination it is necessary
for the production of a highly reactive com-
plex glycolate-superoxide free radical.
A reactive sodium glycolate-free radi-
cal solution can be made up beforehand,
stored for long periods of time, and made
effective for dehalogenation, when needed,
by the application of a Ifttle heat.
REFERENCES
1) Brilkiva, T.G., Shushunov, T.G., 1969
Reactions of Organnometallic Compounds
with Oxygen and Peroxides. English
Translation. CRC Press, Cleveland,
Ohio
2) Dennis, E.H., Jr., Cooper, W.J., 1975,
Bull. Envir. Contamination and Toxi-
cology, 14 (6), 738
3) March, J., 1977, Advanced Organic
Chemistry - Reactions, Mechanisms,
and Structure, 2nd Edition, McGraw-
Hill, New York, N.Y.
4) Ohu, A., Yasufuka, K., Kataoka, H.,
1978, Chemistry and Industry, 4,
841
5) Starks, C.M., 1971, J.A.C.S., 93,
1, 195
6) Wilkinson, R*R., Kelso, G.L., Hopkins,
F.C., 1978, EPA-600/2-78-183,
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,
Mo. 64110
76
-------
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
MDLTEN SALT COMBUSTION
Barbara H. Edwards and John N. Pauilin
Ebon Research Systems
Washington, D. C. 20001
ABSTRACT
Ebon Research Systems is investigating new technologies for disposal of hazardous wastes.
These methods are not state-of-the-art but involve new technologies or a novel variation
of an established technology. Some of the processes that have been studied are: fluidized
bed combustion, molten sodium combustion, high energy electron bombardment, ultraviolet
radiation with hydrogen, molten salt combustion, and various combinations of ozonation,
chlorinolysis, and ultraviolet radiation. Molten salt combustion is discussed in detail.
Materials are incinerated, in the presence of oxygen, beneath or on the surface of a pool
of molten salts. Alkali salts such as a mixture of sodium carbonate and sodium sulfate
are usually used, but the salt in the melt can be varied to suit the properties of the
waste. The operation of bench-scale and pilot-plant combustors is discussed. Pesticides,
chemical warfare agents, PCBs, explosives, and propellants are some of the hazardous com-
pounds which have been almost completely combusted using molten salts. Both high levels
of particulates and undesirable emissions from organophosphorous and arsenical compounds
cause, problems in the process.
INTRODUCTION
The quantity of hazardous wastes
generated in the United States exceeds
the capacity of class 1, secured land-
fills. There are probably not enough
environmentally sound facilities to ac-
cept the additional tonnages that are
generated now and that will be gener-
ated in the future (Kieferl6).
Conventional incineration has been a
popular alternative to landfills. How-
ever, most municipal and industrial incin-
erators do not reach a high enough temper-
ature to completely destroy some compounds
such as halogenated organics (Kieferl6).
Ebon Research Systems is investigat-
ing new technologies for hazardous waste
disposal. These methods are not state-of-
the-art but involve a new technique or a
novel variation of an established technol-
ogy. Methodology is analyzed and the
degree of destruction1 assessed. Any as-
sociated problems are also noted.
The new technologies will be com-
pared and ranked according to efficacy
and cost. A survey of user needs will
be the basis for the development of a
matrix that will relate treatment tech-
niques to specific pollutant problems.
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR HAZARDOUS
WASTE DISPOSAL
Novel technologies proposed for
hazardous waste disposal may not solve
every hazardous waste problem. However,
it is possible to highlight some of the
more promising ones.
Fluidized Bed Combustion
The technique for fluidized bed sys-
tems was proposed by C. E. Robinson about
a century ago. Catalytic reactions using
fluid beds have been used in petroleum
refining since the 1920s. Recently, haz-
ardous wastes have been combusted in them.
If a fluid (either a gas or liquid)
77
-------
flows upward through a bed of solid parti-
cles, the fluid exerts a frictional drag
on the particles with a corresponding pres-
sure drop across the bed. As long as the
force exerted by the fluid is less than
the weight of the bed, the particles will
remain esentially motionless, and the fluid
will flow through interstitial passages.
If the fluid velocity is raised, a point is
reached where the drag force just exactly
equals the bed weight. This is the point
of incipient fluidization. As fluid veloc-
ity is increased, the particles are bouyed
up, exhibit great mobility, and behave like
a fluid. The bed is then a fluidized bed
(Yerushalmi and Cankurt ).
A fluidized bed should provide an
ideal environment for thermal oxidation
of most organic waste materials. Waste
is rapidly and thoroughly mixed with the
fluid bed by the boiling-mixing action of
the bed itself. Contained water entering
with the waste rapidly evaporates. Com-
bustible solids and vapors intimately
contact air or oxygen and oxidize in the
presence of the fluidizing medium. Com-
plete combustion of the organic waste
occurs with a minimum of excess oxygen
and temperature because of the turbulent
action (Cheremisinoff et al.^*).
After the waste is combusted, it
transfers heat back to the bed. Thus,
the process incorporates waste disposal
and energy recovery features. This fea-
ture has caused much recent interest in
fluidized bed technology as it relates to
electric power generation, coal gasifi-
cation and furnaces (Bliss and Williams1).
However, only a limited number of haz-
ardous wastes have been combusted.
Nuclear waste was one of the first
hazardous wastes which was treated by
using a fluidized bed. The process has
also been used in the destruction of oil
refinery wastes, carbon black, and spent
pulping liquor (Smithson22). More recent
applications of fluidized bed combustion
of hazardous wastes have resulted in the
almost complete destruction of materials
such as old munitions, (Carroll et al.3),
spent blasting abrasives containing
organotin (Ticker et aJL2^), an organic
dye water slurry (Nichols et al.19),
phenol and methylmethacrylates (Landreth
and Rogers18), and chlorinated hydrocar-
bons, (Eggers et^ al.7, Kamino15, Ragland
and Paul21, Walker^, Ziegler et al.35).
A relatively large number of fluid-
ized bed combustion studies on chlorin-
ated hydrocarbons (mainly polyvinyl
chloride, PVC) have shown that chlorine
can be neutralized by using a substance
such as dolomite for the bed material
(Ragland and Paul21). Chlorine neutral-
ization is enhanced if sodium carbonate
is used for the bed material and the
products of combustion are passed through
a static sodium carbonate bed (Ziegler
et al.36).
Chemical Decomposition By Molten Sodium
Dr. Lewis Pytlewski and associates
at the Franklin Research Center have
found that molten sodium metal, in the
appropriate solvent medium, can function
as a broad based chemical reactant.
Polyethylene glycol (any one of the
commercially available products with
molecular weight from 400-20,000) was
dried over anyhydrous sodium sulfate.
The dried polyethylene glycol was then
mixed with metallic sodium (97.28°C)
and stirred vigorously. The drying
agent can be present in the mixture.
After the dispersion was uniform, neat
PCB was added. This resulted in a high-
ly exothermic reaction where the temper-
ature of the reaction system quickly
reached 180°C. Gas chromatography
aliquots taken thirty seconds after the
addition of PCBs indicated that 95% of
the PCBs had been completely destroyed.
Further analyses showed that the PCBs
were completely converted to polyhydroxy-
lated biphenyls and that NaCl was formed.
(Pytlewski et al.29).
Subsequent tests resulted in the
complete dechlorination of hexachloro-
phene and 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene. The
reaction system is now being used to
study kepone destruction (Pytlewski
et al.20).
The investigators estimated that
comnercial destruction of PCBs by the
molten sodium process would cost about
71 cents per kilogram in 1979. This
includes the cost of the disposal fac-
ility (Pytlewski etal.20).
High Energy Electron Treatment
Destruction of water-dissolved PCBs
and other toxic chemicals by electron
78
-------
treatment was studied at MIT in water-
lipid mixtures ranging from pure water
to pure lipid. In pure water, a 10 kilo-
rad dose produced almost complete PCB ,,
degradation. As the lipid concentration
increased, the effectiveness of the treat-
ment was severely inhibited. In pure hex-
ane, 5 megarads produced 90% degradation.
Monuron, a persistent herbicide of the
urea type, was almost completely destroyed
after treatment with 30 kilorads (Trump
et al.25).
Dehalogenation With Ultraviolet Radiation
in the Presence of Hydrogen
The Atlantic Research Corporation
has developed a process for breaking and
reducing carbon-halogen bonds in wastes.
The compounds are dissolved in methanol
and treated with UV radiation and hydro-
gen without any substantial amount of ox-
idizing agent. Carbon-halogen bonds are
broken, halogen ions are formed, and the
compound is reduced (Kitchens17).
The dehalogenation mechanisms are
operative regardless of the structure
of the compound or the presence of other
molecular components such as nitrogen,
oxygen, sulfur, or metals. The effect
of these substituents is seen primarily
in the energy of the C-halogen bond and
can be compensated for by employing low-
er or higher UV radiation. The UV radi-
ation ranged from 1800 to 4000A. The
shorter wavelengths in the lower range
(up to 2537A) are most effective because
of the higher absorptivity of halogenated
organic compounds at these wavelengths
Kitchens17).
A high percentage of destruction was
reported for kepone, tetrabromophthalic
anhydride, and PCBs (Kitchens I').
Chlorinolysis
Chlorinolysis is another emerging
technology for hazardous waste destruc-
tion. In this vapor phase reaction,
.chlorine is added to compounds such as
DDT, agent orange, or PCB under high
pressure and low temperature or high
temperature and low pressure. A cat-
alyst is not used in the process (SSM2-*).
If the waste consists of only carbon
and chlorine atoms, the reaction product
is carbon tetrachloride. If the molecule
contains oxygen or hydrogen, carbonyl
chloride and hydrogen chloride are also
produced (SSM2^). These byproducts are
undesirable and require clean-up before
release to the environment. Also, 20 ppm
sulfur will poison a Chlorinolysis system
(Landreth and Rogers1**). The severe oxid-
izing and corrosive environment requires
special materials for reactor construction
(SSM23).
A process based on Chlorinolysis cat-
alyzed by ultraviolet light has been used
to treat hydrazine, monomethyl hydrazine,
and unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine found
in dilute concentrations in waste water.
No undesirable products were found in the
waste water at the end of the treatment
process. However, significant amounts of
chlorinated contaminants remained in waste
water which was processed by Chlorinolysis
without UV radiation (Fochtman and Koch1").
Ozonation
In an ozonation process developed by
Wong et. al.28), 60-70% TCDD degradation
was obtained in 12 hours. A relatively
low dose (0.4 mg/min) was used. When the
TCDD solution was ozonated and irradiated
with UV light (300-400 nm) simultaneously,
a 10-15% increase in the rate of degrada-
tion was observed. An increase in ozone
dosage to 2.5 mg/min resulted in 40-50%
degradation after 40 minutes. The effect
of UV light on the reaction with higher
ozone levels is not clear.
A procedure for evaluating chemical
compounds susceptible to ozone oxidation -
was developed by Fochtman and Dobbs .
Water in a 12-liter baffled cylindridal
stirred tank was saturated with ozone.
Ability of the ozone to strip the compound
and the chemical reaction of the compound
with the ozone-saturated water were eval-
uated. Concentrated extracts of the test
solution were analyzed by high performance
liquid chromatography and an ultraviolet
absorption detector.
Chemical Degradation
A new class of chloroiodides was used
to degrade 2,3,7,8,-tetrachlorodibenzopar-
adioxin (TCDD) without light. The chloro-
iodides were prepared by treating aqueous
solutions of quaternary ammonium salt sur-
factants with gaseous chlorine in a slight
excess of iodine. The water solubility of
79
-------
the new chloroiodides was increased lay us-
ing micellar solutions. The micellar solu-
tions were prepared from the same type of
surfactants used to make chloroiodides.
Depending on the chloroiodide used, deg-
radation of TCDD varied from 71-91%
Botre et cd. 2).
A study on the degradation of
diazinon by sodium hypochlorite demon-
strates some of the hazards that are
associated with degradation studies
(Dennis et^ al^ 5). Hypochlorite oxida-
ion degrades diazinon with a common and
relatively inexpensive reagent. However,
the first step in the degradation forms
diazoxon under acidic conditions. This
compound has a cholinesterase inhibiting
activity 4000 times greater than diazinon.
Trichloroacetate and chloroform may also
be formed in the degradation sequence.
Molten Salt Combustion
Theoretical Summary—
Various pollutant species, especially
hydrocarbon derivatives, react with oxygen
at relatively high energies of activation.
Conventional methods used for industrial
incineration of these wastes require rel-
atively high temperatures. Molten salts
can function as catalysts to permit al-
most complete oxidation at temperatures
below those of normal combustion. There
are substantial decreases in the unburned
hydrocarbon products (Greenberg12, and
Greenberg and Whitaker13).
Most non-charged materials are sol-
uble in molten salts. This solubility is
probably related to the crystal structure
of salts in the molten state. Data from
x-rays taken at temperatures above their
melting point indicate that molten salts
still retain a quasi-lattice structure.
The solubility of the inert material
(solute) in the molten salt is based on
the theory that the solute assumes an
electronic charge in the semi-crystalline
melt. This charge gives the solute an
electrostatic orientation similar to the
ionic component of the molten salt. The
process of polarizing or orienting the
normally neutral species results in a
reduction of the energy required to in-
itiate and sustain chemical reactions.
Under these conditions, the solute, when
exposed to oxygen, will oxidize at tem-
peratures lower than those normally
required for oxidation. Because molten
salts dissolve most neutral species and
lower their oxidation temperature, molten
salt combustion is used to destroy hazard-
ous wastes (Greenberg and Whitake?3).
Melts Suitable for the Process—
Molten salts used for the combustion
of hazardous wastes should be stable at
temperatures required for combustion of
the given hazardous substance. A single
salt or mixture of salts may be employed.
Eutectic mixtures are often used as they
provide the greatest efficiency of opera-
tion at lower temperatures (Greenberg-1-2,
and Greenberg and Whitaker13). In a
eutectic mixture, two or more salts are
combined in a ratio where the mixture
melts at a lower point than do either
of the single salts (Findlay^).
The types and combinations of salts
that can be employed in molten salt com-
bustion allow the process to operate at a
large range of temperatures and under var-
ied conditions of oxygen availability.
Active or neutral salts or a mixture
of both can be used in molten salt combus-
tion. Neutral salts require an external
oxygen source and do not react chemically
with the solute (waste) (Greenberg12).
Metallic halides with melting points
in the 50-600°C range are neutral salts
that can be used in molten salt combus-
tion. The eutectic points of various
combinations of these salts have been
determined, and it is possible to chose
from a wide range of salt combinations
in order to obtain a temperature that is
optimal for the destruction of a given
waste. Any metallic halide with a melt-
ing point of 600°C can be used by itself.
(Greenbergl2). Alkali carbonates, alone
or as a eutectic mixture, are also used
as neutral salts (Yosim et al. 30).
Chemically active oxidizing salts are
used to increase the oxygen pressure both
at the surface and within the melt. These
salts donate nascent oxygen and take in
ambient oxygen. An equilibrium pressure
which facilitates oxidation is maintained.
Typical active salts are the metallic ni-
trates, nitrites, sulfates, hydroxides,
oxides, and chlorates. These are usually
used in combinations that give the lowest
melting point (Greenberg12).
80
-------
Oxidizing salt mixtures produce baths
with lower melting temperatures than those
of neutral salt mixtures. It is possible
to further lower the temperature of the
melt by the addition of a lithium salt.
Lithium sulfate rather than the carbon-
ate is reconmended as the sulfate forms
a stable monohydrate that does not con-
tinuously absorb water (Greenbergl2).
Combinations of active salts im-
prove the oxygen-releasing properties
of the salts. If a nitrate salt is
mixed with a nitrite, the nitrate will
more readily release its oxygen. While
neutral salt baths are normally used at
temperatures immediately above their
melting points, oxidizing baths are
commonly used about 93°C above their
melting point in order to facilitate
oxygen release. The lower range of the
bath temperature is limited only by the
melting point of the salt (or mixture of
salts). A temperature of 50°C can be
achieved if a mixture of 50M% thallium
nitrate and 50 M% silver nitrate is
used in the molten salt bath (Greenberg12
and Whitaker13).
Oxidizing baths are in a neutral or
inert state at temperatures below 93°C,
yet they still can be used within the
inert range in order to avoid extreme
temperature rises which may occur when
highly flammable material is added to
the melt. Because molten neutral salt
baths operate at higher temperatures, the
use of an inert oxidizing melt permits
operation at temperatures where exother-
mic reactions are not as likely to cause
undesirable explosions (Greenberg12).
Active salts can be combined with
neutral salts in molten salt combustion
of hazardous wastes. Sodium carbonate
is used with 1-25 wt% sodium sulfate
in partial pyrolysis conditions. In
the process, sodium sulfate is regen-
erated by the following reactions:
Na2SO + 2C —>• Na2S + 2CO (endothermic)
Na2S + 0 —> Na^O^ (exothermic)
where C represents the carbonaceous
portion of the waste (Yosim et al.31).
Hazardous wastes have been combust-
ed at Rockwell International Corporation,
Canoga Park, CA., and at Anti-Pollution
Systems, Inc. (APS), Peasantville, NJ.
Molten Salt Combustion of Hazardous Wastes
at Rockwell International Corporation—
In the Rockwell International pro-
cess, combustible material and an oxygen
source, usually air, are continuously
introduced beneath the surface of a molten
salt bath. Sodium carbonate containing
approximately 10% sodium sulfate is usu-
ally used as the melt. The molten salt is
maintained at temperatures ranging from
800-1000°C (Yosim et al.33,34).
The method of waste addition is
designed to force any gas formed during
combustion to pass through the melt be-
fore it is emitted into the atmosphere.
The system is engineered to render any
gaseous emission into relatively innocu-
ous substances. Theoretically, the in-
timate contact of the waste, melt and air
causes a high heat transfer to the waste
and results in its rapid and complete
destruction (Yosim et^ al.34).
The chemical reactions of the waste
with molten salt and air depend on the
waste composition. Carbon and hydrogen
molecules are converted to carbon dioxide
and steam. Halogens form corresponding
sodium halide salts. Sulfur, arsenic,
phosphorous, and silicon form sodium sul-
fate, sodium arsenate, sodium phosphate,
and sodium silicate, respectively. Any
iron present (from containers) forms fer-
ric oxide. Small quantities of nitrogen
oxides are formed by fixation of nitrogen
in the air. Ideally, the off-gas should
contain carbon dioxide, steam, nitrogen,
and unreacted oxygen. If any particulates
or inorganic salts are present in the off-
gas, they are removed by a scrubber or by
passing through a baghouse (Yosim et
al.34,33). -
Rockwell International Corpora-
tion has carried out most of their haz-
ardous waste destruction studies in four
combustion facilities. Two of these
units are bench-scale combustors with
feed rates of 0.25-1 kg/h. They are
used for feasibility and optimization
studies. A pilot plant unit has a feed
rate of 25-100 kg/h. The fourth combus-
tor is portable and is used for disposal
of empty pesticide containers (Yosim et^
al.3^) Rockwell has also built a
81
-------
Department of Energy-Funded coal gas-
ification process development unit that
has a throughput of 1,000 kg/h of coal
(Grantham elt a]U 11). Most of the haz-
ardous waste combustion studies were
carried out in the bench-scale molten
salt combustors.
The bench-scale combustor contains
about 5.5 kg of molten salt in a 15-cm
internal diameter, 90-cm high alumina
tube. The tube is placed in a stainless
steel vessel which is in turn contained
in a 20-cm internal diameter, four heat-
ing zone furnace. A 3.7 cm internal di-
ameter alumina feed tube is adjusted so
its tip is immersed approximately 1 cm
above the bottom of the combustor. The
waste air mix is forced in a downward
path through the feed tube, outward at
the bottom, finally circulating upward
through about 14 cm of the molten salt
(Yosim et_ al. 34) .
One of the bench-scale units has
been modified for the incineration of
very hazardous waste. The combustor is
located in a walk-in, controlled access
hood. All controls are located outside
the door, and gas from the room is scrub-
bed in an activated charcoal absorber
(Yosim eta^. 33, 34).
The unit can accomodate liquids,
solids, and mixtures of liquid and solid
wastes. Methods for feeding hazardous
wastes into the bench-scale combustor,
as well as a description of the other
combustors, are detailed in Yosim
et
After a combustion test, the off-
gas is passed through a filter to remove
particulates. The particulate-free gas
is then analyzed for nitrous oxides,
carbon monoxide, oxygen, nitrogen, and
unbumed hydrocarbons (Yosim et al.%).
Many different kinds of hazardous
wastes have been combusted in the Rock-
well International bench-scale molten
salt unit. Typical liquid wastes combus
ted were chemical warfare agents, PCBs,
tributyl phosphate, chloroform, trichlor
oethane, monoethanol amine, malathion,
and 2,4,-D. Solids tested were ion
exchange resins, DDT, and para-arsan-
ilic acid. Chemical warfare agents
mixed with container dunnage, a high
sulfur waste refinery sludge, and
perchloroethylene-containing waste are
examples of waste slurries combusted by
molten salts (Dustin et al.6, Grantham
et a^. 11, Yosim et alT^OTll, 32, 33, 34).
Molten Salt Combustion of Hazardous
Wastes at Anti-Pollution Systems—
Anti-Pollution Systems (APS) has devel-
oped an alternative molten salt process.
The system consists of a box within a
box. The inner box (trough) floats on
a 7.6 cm of salt. The floating inner
trough makes ash removal simple and is
designed to preclude problems when water
is introduced directly into the melt.
Liquids (containing water in any concen-
tration or solids are introduced into
the center box and exposed to a flame.
As the waste combusts, the generated
heat is transferred to the salt bed
beneath the combustion chamber. If the
heat of combustion is sufficiently
large, and enough waste is burned, it is
not necessary to premelt the salt bed.
The generated heat maintains the bottom
portion of the combustion chamber at the
melting point of the salt. The exhaust
gases from combustion are pulled through
a series of baffles and bubbled through
the melt before exiting. This provides
a second incineration for toxic, vol-
atile substances and traps particulates
in the melt (Wilkinson27, Greenbergl4).
Suction is supplied by an induced
draft fan which creates a negative pres-
sure on the baffle closest to the exit
side of the system. This causes a rise
in the liquid level with an accompany-
ing drop in the melt level on the exit
side of the baffle. The exhaust gases
impinge on the liquid front created by
the suction. Carbon particulates and
inert materials are removed by a mesh,
stainless steel screen (Wilkinson27,
Greenberg14).
There are currently (1979) three
molten salt units at APS. One is port-
able and can be fueled with propane.
This system has combusted tannery wastes
so that chromium metal could be recover-
ed. The combustor also scrubbed HC1 and
raw halogens generated from the combus-
tion of aluminum chlorohydrate (Personal
communication to B. Edwards from J.
Greenberg, July, 1979). In another ap-
plication of the APS process, textile
manufacturing wastes containing acrylic
82
-------
residue were purified in a melt con-
sisting of the nitrates of potassium
and calcium. The APS molten salt
combustion process uses a wider range
of melts than those employed by Rock-
well International (Greenberg and
Whitakerl3).
An Assessment of Molten Salt Combus-
tion for the Destruction of Hazardous
Wastes—
A wide range of hazardous sub-
stances have been almost completely
destroyed by molten salt combustion.
If a suitable melt is used, the em-
ission of most gaseous pollutants in
significant quantities is eliminated.
However, in studies conducted on the
destruction of nerve gases at Edgewood
Arsenal, intolerable levels of HC1
were reported. The possiblity of
metal volatility from organometallic
metal-based substances during combus-
tion may also be a problem (Dustin et
al.6).
The emission of particulates
presents a problem which requires the
use of a trap, filter, or scrubber.
These additions add to the cost of
the process. Arsenic and phosphorus
containing wastes may emit particu-
lates composed of harmful pentoxides
and arsenates of these elements.
Particulate levels were lower than
those from conventional incinerators
(Dustin et al.6 ).
Wastes with higher than 20% ash
are undesirable since ash levels of
this magnitude may destroy melt fluid-
ity. This necessitates frequent melt
changes. (Yosim et al.34).
In order to prevent excessive
corrosion, the Rockwell International
combustors are lined with alumina
rather than with less expensive steel.
Added protection from corrosion comes
from the film of sodium aluminate
formed during combustion (Yosim et
al.34). in tests on materials for
construction of combustors, it was
learned that corrosion in a stainless
steel combustor is reduced if the melt
is kept in the 750-800°C range.
"Exotic coatings" which can reduce
corrosion are also being investigated.
The alumina combustors that are
employed have a "long life" except when
used to combust wastes with a high fluo-
ride content (Personal coitmunication to
B. Edwards from Rockwell International,
August, 1979).
In the molten salt combustion, water
in the waste is converted into steam. If
the waste contains a large quantity of
water, the efficiency of the Rockwell
International process is reduced. In
some cases, combustion could be supported
by the addition of methanol or some
cheaper material (crank case oil), but
the process is not considered to be suit-
able for the disposal of weak acids
(Personal communication to B. Edwards
from Rockwell International, August, 1979.
Although molten salt combustion is
a reliable, efficient process for the
destruction of most hazardous wastes at
the bench-scale level, little is known
about its potential to process large
amounts of material over an extended
period of time. Estimates have been
made for building molten salt combustion
demonstration units, but no hard figures
are currently available for the cost of
operation.
REFERENCES
1. Bliss, C. and B.M. Williams, eds.
1977. Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on Fluid-
ized Bed Combustion, Washington, D.C.
2. Botre, C. et al. 1979. On the
degradation of 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-
dibenzo paradioxin (TCDD) by means
of a new class of chloroiodides.
Environmental Science and Technol-
ogy, 13(2):228-231.
3. Carroll, J.W. et a^. 1979. Assess-
ment of hazardous air pollutants
from disposal of munitions in a pro-
totype fluidized bed incinerator.
American Industrial Hygiene Associ-
ation Journal, 40:147-158.
4. Cheremisinoff, P.N. et a^. 1979.
Sludge handling and disposal. Pol-
lution Engineering, 8:22-33.
5. Dennis, H.D. et al. 1979. Degrada-
tion of diazinon~~5y sodium hypo-
chlorite. Chemistry and Aquatic Tox-
icity. Environmental Science and
83
-------
Technology, 13(5):594-597.
6. Dustin, D.F. ejb al^. 1977. Applica-
tions of molten salt incineration
to the demilitarization and dispos-
al of chemical material. Edgewood
Arsenal Technical Report, Edgewood
Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground,
Maryland, 55 pp.
7. Eggers, F.W. et^ a!U 1977. Removing
Chlorine-Containing Insulation with
a Fluidized Medium Containing Reac-
tive Calcium Compounds. United
States Patent 4,040,868, assigned
to Cerro Corporation, New York, New
York. 8 pp.
8. Findlay, A. et a^. 1951. Phase
Rule, Dover Publications, New York,
494 pp.
9. Fochtman, E.G. and R.A. Dobbs.
1979. Ozone oxidation of chemical
carcinogens in aqueous solutions.
Presented at the Fourth World Ozone
Congress, Houston, Texas.
10. Fochtman, E.G. and R. Koch. 1979.
Chlorinolysis treatment of hydra-
zine in dilute aqueous solution.
Presented at the Environmental
Chemistry of Hydrazine Conference,
Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida.
11. Grantham, L.F. et^ a!U 1979. Dispos-
al of PCB and other toxic hazardous
waste by molten salt combustion.
In: Proceedings of a National Con-
ference on Hazardous Risk Assess-
ment, Disposal and Management,
Miami, Florida, pp. n.s.
12. Greenberg, J.G. 1972. Method, of
Catalytically Inducing Oxidation
of Carbonaceous Materials by the
Use of Molten Salts. United States
Patent 3,647,358, assigned to Anti-
Pollution Systems, Pleasantville,
New Jersey. 16 pp.
13. Greenberg, J.G. and D.C. Whitaker.
Contaminated Liquid. United States
Patent 3,642,583, assigned to Anti-
Pollution Systems, Pleasantville,
New Jersey. 10 pp.
14. Greenberg, J.G. 1979. The use of
molten salts in emission control.
Paper Presented at the 72nd Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association, Cincinnati, Ohio. 7 pp.
15. Kamino, Y. et aJU 1978. Gasification
of waste plastics. Technical Report
of the Hitachi Ship Building Tech-
nology Research Institute, Japan.
pp. 16-21.
16. Kiefer, I. 1979. Hazardous Wastes.
Sciquest, 52(4):17-22.
17. Kitchens, J.A. 1979. Dehalogenation
of Halogenated Compounds. United
States Patent 4,144,152, assigned to
Atlantic Research Corporation, Alex-
andria, Virginia. 12 pp.
18. Landreth, R.E., and C.J. Rogers.
1974. Fluidized bed combustion of
phenol and methyl methacrylate
wastes. In: Promising Technologies
for Treatment of Hazardous Wastes.
EPA 670/2-74-088, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency/ Cincinnati, Ohio.
pp. 78-87.
19. Nichols, D.G. et al. 1971. Fluidized
bed oxidation of an organic dye-
water slurry. American Institute of
Chemical Engineers Symposium Series,
67(116):182-189.
20. Pytlewski, L.L., et a^. 1979.
Conversion of PCBs and halogenated
pesticides into non-toxic materials
using a new type of alkali metal
reaction. In: Proceedings of the
Eleventh Mid-Atlantic Industrial
Waste Conference, The Pennsylvania
State University, Pennsylvania.
pp. 97-99.
21. Ragland, K.W. and D.P. Paul. 1979.
Fluidized bed combustion of plastic
waste with coal. Presented at the
Fourteenth intersociety Energy
Conversion Conference, Boston,
Massachusetts.
22. Smithson, G.R. 1977. Utilization of
energy from organic wastes through
fluidized bed combustion. In: Fuels
from Waste, L.L. Anderson and
D.A. Pullman, eds., Academic Press,
New York, New York. pp. 195-209.
23. S.S.M. 1974. Emerging technology of
chloroinolysis. Environmental
84
-------
Science and Technology, 8(1):18-19.
24. Ticker, A. et al^. 1979. Study of
the fludiized bed process for treat-
ment of spent blasting abrasives.
Journal of Coating Technology, 34.
49(626):29-35.
25. Trump, J.G. et al^. 1979. Destruc-
tion of pathogenic microorganisms
and toxic chemicals by electron
treatment. Presented at the Eighth 35.
National Conference on Municipal
Sludge Management, Miami, Florida.
26. Walker, W.M. 1973. Fluid bed incin-
eration of chlorinated hydrocarbons.
Australian Mines Development Labora- 36.
bory Bulletin, 16:41-44.
27. Wilkinson, R.R. et a^. 1978. State-
of-the-Art Report, Pesticide Dispos-
al Research. EPA-60012-78-183, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. 225 pp.
28. Wong et_al. 1979. Ozonation of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD) in water. Presented at the
Symposium on the Chemistry of Chlor-
inated Dibenzodioxins, American
Chemical Society National Meeting,
Washington, D.C.
29. Yerushalmi, J. and N.T. Cankurt.
1978. High-velocity fluid beds.
Chemtech., 8(9):564-571.
30. Yosim, S.J. et al. 1973. Non-Pol-
luting Disposal of Explosives and
Propellants. United States Patent
3,778,320, assigned to Rockwell
International, California, 10 pp.
31. Yosim, S.J. et aU 1974. Disposal
of Organic Pesticides. United States
Patent 3,845,190, assigned to Rock-
well International, California,
10 pp.
32. Yosim, S.J. et a^. 1978. Destruction
of pesticides and pesticide contain-
ers by Molten Salt Combustion. In:
American Chemical Society Symposium
Series, No. 73, Disposal and Decon-
tamination of Pesticides, M.v.
Kennedy, ed., pp. 118-130.
33. Yosim, S.J. et aU 1979. Molten salt
destruction of hazardous wastes
produced in the laboratory. 1979.
Paper presented at the American
Chemical Society Meeting, Hawaii,
28 pp.
Yosim, S.J. et_ aU 1979. Disposal
of hazardous wastes by molten salt
combustion. Paper presented at the
American Chemical Society Meeting,
Hawaii, 24 pp.
Ziegler et aU 1973. Fluid bed
incineration. RFP-2016, Technical
Report of Dow Chemical U.S.A.,
Rocky Flats Division, Golden,
Colorado. 13 pp.
Ziegler et al. 1974. Pilot plant
development of a fluidized bed
incineration process. RFP-227,
Technical Report of Dow Chemical
U.S.A., Rocky Flats Division,
Golden, Colorado. 10 pp.
85
-------
Holding and Evaporation of Pesticide Wastes
Charles V. Hall - Project Coordinator
Department of Horticulture
Iowa State University
About ten years ago, a new Horti-
culture Research Center was developed near
Ames, Iowa, including all new facilities.
Fortunately, a unique facility was
designed and constructed for storage of
all pesticides and application equipment,
weighing and mixing, and with an attached
waste disposal pit. All excess wash water
and dilute pesticides generated from
spraying operations and from the mixing
room are discharged into the disposal pit.
Details of the total system are illus-
trated by slides.
Several years earlier, a more
simplified system, which included only an
excavated pit lined with plastic and
filled with soil, was established at the
Agronomy Agricultural Engineering Center
at Ames. This pit had not provided
complete containment and overflow was
evident in surrounding areas.
No detailed research had been done
to determine the effectiveness of either
system as to leakage, chemical buildup, or
biological activity.
In 1976, a joint five-year study
was initiated between the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency and faculty
members from the Department of Agronomy,
Agricultural Engineering, Bacteriology,
Botany, Energy and Mineral Resources-
Research Institute, Entomology and Horti-
culture to determine the environmental
effects of the systems and chemical-
biological activity within each. In
addition, a series of micro-pits were
established to look at similar factors,
but on a much more extensive scale and
with selected compounds. I have served as
coordinator of this research project and
as liasion official between Iowa State and
the E.P.A.
As of October 31, 1979, we will
complete the third year of research and we
are programmed for two years of demonstra-
tion of the research findings. A research
report summarizing the first three years'
data will be submitted to E.P.A. for
publication as of November, 1979. However,
we were informed on October 5 that the
project would not be funded in 1980
the final two years.
During the first three years, modifi-
cations were developed and incorporated
into the systems. These will be included
in the guidelines for future users. The
intent is to provide suggested guidelines
for research and development stations,
commercial applicators, farmers, nursery-
men, greenhouses, etc., to the extent
necessary to provide appropriate safe
systems without specific details.
Our results to date can be summarized
as follows:
1. The concrete pit, along with
pesticide handling systems at the
Horticultural Research Center, has
not created any environmental
problems and has been an effective
system for disposal. There has
been no overflow leakage and it
contains highly active bacterial
populations. This pit is 12' wide
x 30' long, 3' deep on one end and
4* deep on the other. It is filled
to within approximately eight
inches from the top with a layer
of gravel, a layer of soil, and
another layer of gravel. The top
is mobile and activated to close
by rain. Approximately 36 inches
of liquid was evaporated from this
pit between May 1 and October 15,
1979.
86
-------
2. The old plastic lined pit with-
out a cover did not provide
containment and would not, as
constructed, provide adequate
protection of the surrounding
environment.
A similar plastic lined pit,
with a shed cover, was con-
structed in 1977. This system
is being studied and to date, no
recommendations can be made. It
appears that there is sub-
surface leakage, but the extent
is unknown.
3. The following two years are
scheduled to be devoted to
demonstration and further test-
ing of the improved systems as
well as container cleanup and
disposal.
General Summary:
1. Containment with evaporation of
dilute liquid wastes has been a
safe method of disposal at Iowa
State University.
2. With soil and gravel stratified
within the concrete pit, there
is biological activity and
degradation.
3. Chemical degradation occurs in
mixtures of various pesticides.
4. Any such disposal pit should
have a protective cover.
5. Pit size can be estimated based
on climatological data for the
region.
Systems illustrated with slides.
Disposal system at the Horticultural Station.
Disposal pit at the Agronomy-Agricultural
Engineering Station. This pit is plastic
lined.
87
-------
DESIGN OF EVAPORATIVE PITS FOR WASTE PESTICIDE SOLUTION DISPOSAL
Model Development and Progress
Richard P. Egg and Donald L. Reddell
Agricultural Engineering Department
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843
ABSTRACT
Commercial aerial applicators of agricultural chemicals generate a di-
lute chemical waste by flushing the aircraft spray system and washing their
aircraft. Traditionally this waste has been dumped on the aircraft wash pad
or runway resulting in a pollution threat to surface and ground waters.
This paper presents a model for design of evaporative pits for disposal of
this waste. The model considers both roofed and unroofed evaporative pits.
The unroofed pit is for use in relatively dry areas while the roofed pit is
for areas where annual precipitation equals or exceeds annual evaporation.
The paper also discusses the research being conducted to test the mathemati-
cal model and to obtain data for evaporation rates under various types of
roofing materials. Preliminary results of roofing material evaluation are
presented.
INTRODUCTION
Pesticides are an integral com-
ponent of food and fiber production.
These pesticides are generally ap-
plied by professional applicators,
particularly aerial applicators.
These applicators generate dilute
pesticide wastes from several sources
(Avant1). Spray plane systems gen-
erally hold a residual of 0.02-0.04
m3 (5-10 gallons) of dilute pesticide
solution after the pump starts draw-
ing air. When the type of pesticide
is changed-, or at the end of the day,
the pesticide in the system is dumped,
and the system is flushed with water.
This process usually requires from
0.04 - 0.11 m3 (10-30 gal) of water
depending on the system. Also, the
plane is occasionally washed which
uses between 0.04 and 0.08 m3 (10 and
20 gal) of water per plane. T,hus,
it can be seen that from 0.02 to
0.23 m3 (5-60 gal) of waste pesticide
solution can be generated per plane
per application day.
Disposal of these wastes presents
a serious problem to pesticide appli-
cators across the nation. Of the
many possible systems for waste dis-
posal available, the evaporative pit
appears to be the most practical in
terms of cost, safety, and effective-
ness. Figure 1 shows an evaporative
pit system. With this system, waste
pesticides are dumped onto a wash pad
and drained into a pit with an imper-
vious liner. The liquid is then
allowed to evaporate.
Two types of evaporative pits
can be used depending upon the cli-
mate of the area. In dry areas, an
open top pit is recommended. For
areas in which annual precipitation
equals or exceeds annual evaporation,
a transparent roof is needed to pre-
vent rainfall from entering the pit
while allowing maximum solar radia-
tion to penetrate.
-------
MATHEMATICAL MODEL
Figure 1. Schematic of typical
evaporation pit
Design of an open evaporative
pit is a relatively simple process.
Sweeten and Price2 developed design
charts for open evaporative pits on
the Texas High Plains for disposal of
cattle dip solutions at feedlots.
However, very little information is
available on evaporation rates as
affected by transparent roofing mat-
erials.
The Agricultural Engineering
Department at Texas A&M University
is currently conducting research to
develop design parameters for the
design of roofed and unroofed evapo-
rative pits for disposal of the
waste pesticides generated by commer-
cial applicators. Transparent mater-
ials are also being evaluated for
effectiveness as roofing materials
for roofed evaporative pits.
Objectives
are:
The objectives of this paper
1. Present a mathematical model
of roofed and unroofed evapora-
tive pits for waste pesticide
disposal.
2. Discuss the scope and objec-
tives of the current research
project for testing the design
model.
3. Present results of a study
to evaluate the evaporation
rate under various types of
transparent roofing materials.
The mathematical description of
an evaporative pit is complicated.
However, certain assumptions and
approximations were used to simplify
this description resulting in a work-
able design procedure. A simple vol-
ume balance was used to show the
basic operation of the system. The
model was developed for an annual
time period. Daily liquid level
fluctuations in the pond reflecting
daily changes in storage were ig-
nored. The annual change in the
storage of the pit was assumed zero.
Thus, the volume of fluid put into
the pit must equal the volume of
fluid removed. Since the ponds are
lined, the percolation is zero.
Open Pits
For an uncovered evaporative pit,
Q-
w
Qp = Q
where Qw = volume of waste pesticide
put into the pond (m 3) , Qp = volume
of precipitation (m3), and Qe = vol-
ume of waste evaporated (m3).
The volume of waste pesticide is
calculated by
= Na w Da
(2)
where Na = the number of aircraft,
W = the daily volume of waste dis-
charged from each aircraft (m3/day),
and D0 = the number of operating
days.
The volume of precipitation added
is calculated by
qpAtp _ qpAtD
(100)(365l ~ 36500
(3)
where qp = the average annual pre-
cipitation rate (cm/yr), At = top
area of pit (m2) , and D = total time
elapsed in period under considera-
tion (days).
The volume of waste evaporated
is calculated by
89
-------
(4)
(100H365) 36500
where qe = the average annual evapo-
ration rate (cm/yr), Afa = the aver-
age surface area of fluid in the pit
(m2), and D = the total elapsed time
in period under consideration (days).
Substituting Equations 2, 3, and
4 into Equation 1 yields the follow-
ng relationship:
NaWDa
qpAtD
36500
36500
= 0
(5)
This is the basic equation used to
design an evaporative pit. For ver-
tical walled pits At = Af and Equa-
tion 5 can be rearranged to calcal-
ate the required area of the pit by
At =
36500 Nawpa
(qe-qp) D
[6)
Equation 7 is only good when qe > qp.
To obtain the proper size vertical
walled pit, set D = 365 days.
When designing a pit with slop-
ing sides, Afa
t.
Consequently,
Afa and A^- must be evaluated using
an iterative solution for Equation 5.
A£ should be at least 0.6 m above
the maximum fluid level to insure
the facility can contain a 10-year,
24-hour storm and/or wave action.
By assuming the pits are square, A^-
can be determined from Afa by
H/S]
(7)
where H = the height of the pit above
Afa (m) and S = the side slope of
the pit (rise/run). The area of the
pit's base is calculated from
Ab = [/Afa
- 2
where A^ = the area of the pit's
base (m2 ) and d = the depth of the
fluid in the pit (m). The fluid
depth, d, should be greater than
0.3 m.
Using Equations 5, 7, and 8 and
an iterative solution technique, A^
can be obtained for different side
slopes. Values of Afa and At are
substituted into Equation 5 and the
volume of fluid on hand at the end
of the application season (D = Da)
is computed. The first term in
Equation 5 is then set equal to zero
and D is set equal to 365 - Da to
calculate the volume of fluid
removed in the non-application sea-
son. If this quantity of fluid is
less than the volume on hand at the
end of the application season, a
larger pit should be selected. An
iterative process is needed to ob-
tain the proper pit size.
Next, the volume contained be-
low the maximum fluid level Af is
determined from
V = (d/3)(Af + /AfAb + Ab)
(9)
where V = volume of pit (m 3) below
the fluid level. This volume should
be greater than or equal to the vol-
ume on hand at the end of the appli-
cation season. Assume that the base
of the pit is at a reasonable depth
below the maximum fluid level (d >_
0.3m). If the volume below the
fluid level is less than the volume
on hand at the end of the applica-
tion season, select a greater depth
and recalculate the volume to deter-
mine the proper pit depth.
Roofed Pits
In areas of high precipitation
and low evaporation, the above
design procedure cannot be used
since inflow will be greater than
outflow. Therefore, the pit must
be covered by a transparent roof to
prevent precipitation from entering
the pit. The above procedure for
designing the open pits can be modi-
fied to design roofed evaporation
pits by setting qp = 0 and reducing
qe by a factor R to account for the
reduction of solar radiation caused
by the transparent roof. Prelimin-
ary results from field evaporation
models indicate that the evaporation
reduction for most transparent mat-
erials is about 25 percent.
90
-------
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
,„.,,;_ "*, vs. • " . , •'"•.-£ ,_ _ : '.,
The overall scope of the on-
going evaporation project at Texas
A&M University is to quantify the
evaporation of waste pesticide solu-
tions from evaporative pits, both
roofed and unroofed, for climatic
conditions that range from high
evaporation - low precipitation to
low evaporation - high precipitation.
Prom this, guidelines will be devel-
oped for designing effective evapo-
rative pits for waste pesticide dis-
posal .
Objectives
Specific objectives of the pro-
ject are:
1. Develop a model for design-
ing evaporative pits used to
dispose of waste pesticide solu-
tions,
2. Field test the recommended
design from the model,
3. Evaluate several transpar-
ent materials under field con-
ditions for use as roofing mat-
erial for evaporative pits, and
4. Prepare final guidelines
for designing evaporative pit
to dispose of waste pesticides
from aerial applicators.
Methods
There are essentially three
phases to this research. The first
phase which has been completed was
to evaluate transparent materials
under field conditions for their
effectiveness as roofing materials.
Seven materials were tested as roofs
over evaporation pans, and the evapo-
ration rate under each roof was com-
pared with the evaporate rate from
an uncovered pan. One of the covered
evaporation pans is shown in Figure
2. From the results of this study,
two roofing materials were selected
for further testing in the second
phase of the project.
The second phase of the project
is a physical model study to evaluate
Figure 2. Physical model evaporation
pan and roof.
the two most promising transparent
roofing materials and to develop
data on evaporation under transpar-
ent roofs. This phase of the pro-
ject is currently underway. The
same type of evaporation pans as
used in the first phase of the pro-
ject are being used. This phase of
the study consists of two treatments.
The first treatment consists of four
roofing materials, (1) no roof, (2)
corrugated steel, (3) corrugated
fiberglass, and (4) a polyethylene
film. The second treatment consists
of three types of fluid, (1) clear
water, (2) a pesticide solution, and
(3) muddy water only in the "no
roof" treatment.
The third phase of the project
includes a prototype study at two
locations. One location is a high
rainfall - low evaporation area
(Beaumont, Texas) and the other loc-
ation is a low rainfall - high eva-
poration area (Vernon, Texas).
Evaporation pits will be constructed
at an aerial applicator's facilities
in these two areas.
In the Beaumont area, only a
covered pit will be constructed
since rainfall exceeds evaporation
in that area. At Vernon, both a
covered and uncovered pit will be
constructed. The Vernon facility
is currently under construction.
91
-------
The estimated cost for the Vernon
facility is $5,000. A schematic for
the Vernon facility is shown in Fig-
ure 3.
PUMP
Figure 3. Schematic of Vernon
prototype facility.
The evaporation pits will be
lined with a reinforced hypalon
liner to prevent percolation. Meas-
urements will be made of daily pre-
cipitation, fluid level in the pits,
and volume of waste added to the
pits.
This phase of the project will
be used to verify the design model
presented in this paper. The evapo-
ration data from the evaporation
pans in the physical model study will
be compared with the evaporation
data from the prototype pits to
determine the correlation between
the pan data and the full scale pit
data.
After developing and verifying
the final mathematical model, final
guidelines will be developed for
designing evaporation pits to dis-
pose of waste pesticides from aerial
applicators. Although guidelines
will be based on data obtained under
climatic conditions in Texas, they
will be applicable in other areas of
the United States. They could be
easily modified to reflect the local
needs of individual states.
TRANSPARENT MATERIAL EVALUATION
In the first phase of the pro-
ject seven transparent materials
were evaluated for their effective-
ness as roofing materials for evapo-
rative pits. These materials were
then used to construct roofs over
evaporation pans. Evaporation data
were collected from the pans under
the different roofing materials and
from an uncovered pan. Data were
collected from 9 June - 29 August,
1.979.
Evaporation data for the differ-
ent transparent materials is shown
in Table 1, along with the approxi-
mate cost and life expectancy of the
different roofing materials. Over-
all, the evaporation rate was reduced
by about 20 to 30 percent from the
uncovered pan for the various mater-
ials tested, with little difference
among most of the materials. Over
the course of the study the evapo-
ration reduction gradually increased
for all the roofing materials. This
was apparently due to a gradual
accumulation of dust on the roofs
which tended to decrease the solar
radiation transmittance. Although
the data presented was taken over
a relatively short period of time,
it appears that an evaporation reduc-
tion of 25 to 30 percent would be
valid for use in designing a roofed
evaporative pit.
Based on the data presented in
Table 1, two materials were selected
TABLE 1. EVAPORATION CHARACTERISTICS OP TRANSPARENT ROOFING MATERIALS
Roof Type
Average Daily a . b
Approximate Expected Evaporation Evaporation
Cost ($/m^) Life (yr) (cm) Reduction (%)
No Cover
Flexigardc
Acrylic
Polycarbonate
Polyethylene Film
Flat Fiberglass
Corrugated Fiberglass
Corrugated Fiberglass
(Tedlar Coated)
-
4.
16.
6.
0.
4.
4.
6.
—
09
47
.88
.43
84
.95
03
—
10
Indefinite
Indefinite
3
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.668
.546
.511
.498
.480
.475
.472
.457
0.
18,
23.
25.
28,
28,
29,
31.
,0
.3
,6
.5
.1
.9
.3
.6
a. Evaporation data is for period 9 June - 29 August, 1979.
b. Percentage evaporation was reduced from the "no cover"
evaporation rate.
c. Flexigard is a composite polyester and acrylic film manufactured
by 3M Company.
92
-------
for additional testing in the second
phase of the project. The polyethy-
lene film was selected essentially
for its low cost. Although it has
a life expectancy of only three
years, a facility could be roofed
for a relatively low initial cost.
The facility could be re-roofed
several times before the cost would
approach that of any of the other
more durable materials. Polyethy-
lene film is also widely available
from companies selling greenhouse
supplies.
The second material selected
for further testing was the corru-
gated fiberglass. This was selected
for durability, ease of construction,
and availability. It was felt that
these two materials would offer
aerial applicators a choice between
a low cost roof requiring periodic
maintenance and a more expensive
but durable roof that is essentially
maintenance-free. Either type of
structure would be simple to construct,
SUMMARY
A mathematical model was devel-
oped for designing evaporative pits
for disposal of waste pesticide sol-
utions generated by aerial applica-
tors. The model can be used for
designing both roofed and unroofed
systems. Research being conducted
to verify the model and to evaluate
transparent materials for use as
roofs over evaporative pits was
described. Preliminary results indi-
cate that the evaporation rate under
a transparent roof is about 25-30
percent less than evaporation from
open water.
REFERENCES
1. Avant, Robert V. 1977. Guide-
lines for waste pesticide control
systems for aerial applicators.
Report of the Agricultural and
Environmental Sciences Division,
Texas Department of Agriculture,
Austin, Texas, 24pp.
2. Sweeten, John M. and J.D. Price.
1974. Evaporation ponds for feed-
lot pesticide reduction on the
Texas High Plains. Miscellaneous
Publication MP-1126, Texas Agri-
cultural Extension Service, Col-
lege Station, Texas, 11 pp.
93
-------
DETOXIFICATION OF CAPTAN-TREATED SEED CORN*
Joel R. Coats and Paul A. Dahm
Department of Entomology, Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50011
ABSTRACT
The development of a process for removal and degradation of captan from seed corn is pre-
sented. An alkaline aqueous solution was utilized to exploit the instability of captan
in a basic medium. Addition of detergents improved the efficiency of removal by increas-
ing solubilization of the captan. Optimization of conditions is discussed for various
parameters: strength of base, concentration of detergent, time, volume, lasting capacity,
agitation methods. The fate of captan in the detreatment bath was investigated.
INTRODUCTION
The disposal of pesticide-treated seed
corn has presented a problem for over 25
years. The fungicide captan has been wide-
ly used as a seed protectant but has
caused difficulties in disposing of left-
over seed corn. As the result of over-
production, obsolete hybrids, or decreased
viability, two million bushels of seed
corn are earmarked for disposal annually.
Because of the captan treatment, the left-
over corn cannot be fed to livestock nor
burned for fuel. Landfill is currently
the only legal recourse for its disposal.
In an attempt to recover a valuable re-
source, this project was launched to
develop a captan detreatment process for
leftover seed corn.
Although captan is not acutely toxic,
it has been shown to be mutagenic (Mar-
shall4 et al. 1976; DeBartoldi2 et al.
1978), carcinogenic (Bishun1 et al. 1978),
and teratogenic (Martin5 et al. 1978) in
certain organisms.
The instability of captan in an alka-
line medium is well established (Wolfe6
et al. 1976). The present study attempts
to exploit that susceptibility to hydro-
lysis in a basic solution to degrade the
chemical and markedly reduce residues on
the seed corn. The procedure uses inex-
pensive reagents and is effective in re-
moving 99.9 percent of the captan on the
seed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Pioneer Hybrids of Johnston, Iowa, pro-
vided: technical captan (92.5%); captan
5001 Seed Protectant Slurry (32% a.i.);
treated seed corn. Ortho division of
Chevron Chemical Company (Richmond, Cali-
fornia) provided: analytical grade captan
(99+%); technical grade captan (96%);
Orthocide 75W Seed Treater (75%) with rho-
damine dye. Standards of 4-cyclohexene-
1,2-dicarboximide and 4-cyclohexene-l,2-
dicarboxylic acid were purchased from
Aldrich (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) and Chem
Services (West Chester, Pennsylvania),
respectively.
The analytical method used for the
detection of high concentrations of captan
was modified from the Kittleson3 (1952)
colorimetric method. The procedure re-
quired that captan be extracted from the
corn (using reagent grade benzene) and the
seed be decolorized using a mixture of
charcoal, celite, and anhydrous sodium
sulfate. The extract and resorcinol were
heated in a 135° C oil bath. Acetic acid
was added to the residue and, when cool,
was read at 425 millimicrons.
For low-level residues a gas-liquid
chromatography method was adapted from
that of Wolfe6 et al. (1976) using a
Varian 3700 series GLC equipped with a
Ni-electron capture detector. The column
was 137 cm long with a 4-mm ID and was
*Journal Paper No. J-9755 of the Iowa Agric. and Home Econ. Exp. Sta., Ames, IA 50011,
Project No. 2216. Mention of a brand name or product does not imply endorsement.
94
-------
packed with 3% SE-30 on 80/100 mesh Supel-
coport. The temperatures of operation
were: injection port, 170° C; column oven,
160° C; detector, 230° C. The carrier
gas, prepurified nitrogen, was utilized at
a flow rate of 25 cc/minute. The limit of
detection for captan was 15 picograms; for
the imide and acid degradation products,
it was approximately 50 nanograms.
Extractions used reagent grade benzene
for the colorimetric assay and nanograde
benzene for the GLC analyses.
Teflon®-coated stirring bars and Lab-
line's® Multi-magnestir provided the
needed agitation for corn samples (25 g)
in beakers containing 50 ml alkaline solu-
tion. A rolling technique was developed,
using a jar roller to simulate an auger
more closely than a magnetic stirring unit
might.
All data are means of 6 replicates
except where indicated otherwise.
Each detreatment was followed by a 5-
minute rinse in 50 ml of clean water.
RESULTS
Base and Base Strength
Three bases, KOH, NaOH, and NaHC03,
were compared for efficiency of captan
detreatment at alkaline strengths of 0.1
N and IN. A 5-minute 0.1 N wash of 25 g
treated seed corn in 50 ml of alkaline
solution resulted in low levels of captan
remaining after hydroxide wash while the
bicarbonate wash removed less of the
fungicide (Table 1). The pH of the wash
solution dropped only slightly in each
case. The 1 N hydroxide baths produced
quite low levels while the bicarbonate
ALKALINE/DETERGENT DETREATMENT (0.5N NaOH)
again was less efficient and the pH's were
again only slightly depreciated (Table 2).
Effect of Time
Preliminary experiments with alkaline
washes were carried out for several time
intervals: 5, 10, 20, and 30 minutes, in
0.1 NaOH, KOH, and NaHC03 as well as 1 N
NaHC03- The 5-minute wash yielded residues
nearly as low as the other washes.
An alkaline wash using 1 N NaOH for
various time intervals also was run. The
washes of 1 and 2 minutes gave high results.
(3.17, 1.64 ppm) while the differences in
the remaining time trials probably were
not significant (Table 3).
A wash of 0.5 N NaOH and 0.05% Dreft
was tested at different times. A 10-min-
ute wash still was found to provide resi-
dues reliably below 1 ppm, while 5-minute
and 2-minute washes did not always give
acceptable residues (Table 4).
Effect of Detergents
The effect of detergents was deter-
mined by adding them to the alkaline bath
as well as adding them to a water bath.
The 1 N hydroxide bath produced low levels
while the water was less efficient. The
detergents improved removal/degradation of
captan by 4.8- to 15-fold (Table 5).
To find the most efficient wash, fur-
ther testing was conducted by varying the
percentage detergent or the normality of
NaOH. The normality of NaOH was held con-
stant at 0.5 N, and the percentage of de-
tergent was varied as shown in Figure 1.
Conversely, the concentration of detergent
was held constant at 0.05% (Dreft®), and
ALKALINE/DETERGENT DETRE'.TMLNT EC5-, DRcMJ')
.01 .025 .05 .5
•/» detergent
Figure 1. Influence of detergent concen-
tration on the detreating efficiency of a
0.5 N alkaline bath.
Figure 2. Influence of normality on the
detreating efficiency of a 0.05% detergent/
alkaline bath.
95
-------
the strength of alkalinity was varied as
shown in Figure 2. Detergent and NaOH
were applied either sequentially (deter-
gent solution first) or as a mixture of
50 ml to 25-g corn samples.
On the basis of these results, a mix-
ture of 0.5 N NaOH and 0.05% Dreft was
chosen as the most efficient wash for
further study.
Effect of Bath Volume
Bath volume was another variable to be
optimized. Comparison of 50-, 100-, 150-,
and 200-ml volumes resulted in no signifi-
cant differences in captan residues left,
so the 50-ml volume was considered opti-
mal.
Lasting Capacity of Bath
The lasting capacity of the selected
alkaline wash was tested in a scaled-up
experiment using a larger sample size and
greater volume than usual (Table 6).
Effect of Agitation
A rolling technique was developed,
using a jar roller to simulate an auger
more closely than the magnetic stirring
unit did. Rolling resulted in higher
residues than stirring. Variation in roll-
ing speed resulted in improved detreatment
as agitation was increased (Table 7).
Detreatment with no agitation for
various times and normalities of NaOH re-
sulted in a decrease of residues the long-
er the agitation took place (Table 8).
Degradation Products in Bath
Captan was degraded rapidly to 4-cyclo-
hexene dicarboximide, which was slowly
degraded further (Table 9). The corres-
ponding acid, 4-cyclohexene dicarboxylic
acid, may be a relatively stable degrada-
tion product. Quantification of this acid
was less than satisfactory by our extrac-
tion and GLC methods, but it was confirmed
to be present in the 24-hour analysis of
the bath.
TABLE 1. DETOXIFICATION EFFECT OF 5-MINUTE WASH
WITH 0.1 N SOLUTIONS OF THREE BASES
Base
KOH
NaOH
NaHC03
Captan
residue (ppm)
6.7
3.8
23.8
Beginning pH
of wash
12.6
12.6
8.2
Final pH
of wash
12.5
12.5
8.0
TABLE 2. DETOXIFICATION EFFECT OF 5-MINUTE WASH
WITH 1 N SOLUTIONS OF THREE BASES
Base
Captan
residue (ppm)
Beginning of pH pH of base
of wash after wash
KOH
NaOH
NaHC00
1.9
1.8
14.5
13.8
13.6
8.5
13.7
13.6
8.6
96
-------
TABLE 3. EFFECT OF TIME IN BATH
Captan residues (ppm) after washing 25-g corn samples
with 50 ml 1.0 N NaOH for indicated time.
Time (minutes) Residue
1 3.17
2 1.64
5 .94
10 .44
15 .94
20 .96
TABLE 4. EFFECT OF TIME IN BATH
Captan residues (ppm) after stirring 25-g corn samples
with 50 ml of a solution of 0.05% Dreft in 0.5 N NaOH
for indicated time (means of 3 trials).
Time (minutes) Residue
0.5 2.30
1 1.96
2 .95
5 1.12
10 .56
TABLE 5. EFFECT OF DETERGENTS OR EMULSIFIERS
Captan residues (ppm) after washing 25-g corn samples
for 10 minutes with 50-ml of solutions.
in HO in 1 N NaOH
1% Tide 3.6 .34
1% Dreft 2.0 .42
1% Triton X-100 3.6 .24
97
-------
TABLE 6. LASTING CAPACITY OF BATH
Captan residues (ppm) and pH of alkaline bath after
consecutive 10-minute stirrings of 100 g of corn in
400 ml of a solution of 0.05% Dreft in 0.5 N NaOH
(means of 4 replicates)•
Batch
Residue pH of base after
wash
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.06
.11
.15
.29
.27
.31
.41
.40
1.0
.85
1.9
2.9
13.4
13.4
13.1
13.0
12.9
12.9
12.9
12.6
12.5
12.2
11.9
11.5
TABLE 7. EFFECT OF ROLLING VS. STIRRING
Captan residues (ppm) after washing 25-g corn samples
for 10 minutes with 50 ml of a solution of 0.05% Dreft
in 0.5 N NaOH by stirring and by rolling.
Method
Residue
Stirring
Rolling (speed)
5
7
10
.15
1.80
1.20
1.00
98
-------
TABLE 8. EFFECT OF NO AGITATION
Captan residues (pptn) after washing 25-g corn samples for
various times with 50 ml of 0.5 N NaOH (means for 3
samples).
Captan (ppm)
Time (min)
0.5 N
1 N
2 N
15
30
60
5.0
.95
.31
1.2
.12
<.10
.82
.37
<.10
TABLE 9
Time-course study of concentrations (ppm) of captan and
4-cyclohexene dicarboximide, in a detergent alkaline
bath (10-minute detreatment).
Time
Captan
Imide
1 min
2 min
5 min
10 min
30 min
60 min
4 hour
24 hour
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
6.9
1.9
.1
.1
551
442
340
274
279
162
77
80
DISCUSSION
This research has determined that
captan can be removed from seed corn and
degrades rapidly in the alkali/detergent
solution. The optimizing of conditions
for the detreatment process indicated that
a strong base (e.g., sodium hydroxide) is
more efficient than sodium bicarbonate at
removal/degradation. Addition of deter-
gent enhanced the detreatment efficacy
considerably. The conditions chosen as
optimal were 0.5 N NaOH with 0.05% laundry
detergent. Agitation improved efficiency
of detreatment as well. The optimal
removal/degradation conditions resulted in
0.1 to 0.2 ppm captan residue remaining on
the corn. It was possible to make up for
reductions in agitation by using longer
times in the detreatment bath. Likewise,
the weaker base was effective when used at
greater strengths.
The primary breakdown product of cap-
tan was 4-cyclohexene-l,2-dicarboximide.
It was slowly degraded further as the
alkaline solution was allowed to stand for
24 hours.
The method is suitable for detoxifica-
tion of captan-treated seed corn; the
disposal of the spent bath should present
no problem from toxic products, although
adjustment to a neutral pH would be
advisable; the materials employed are in-
expensive and easily obtainable. It is
hoped that this research will allow for
the recovery and use of leftover seed
corn or, at least, alleviate the disposal
problem.
99
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Kathy Crist for her
able technical assistance. This research
was supported in part by EPA Supplemental
Grant No. R-804533-02.
REFERENCES
1. Bishun, N., N. Smith, and D. Williams.
1978. Mutations, chromosome abbera-
tions and cancer. Clin. Oncol., 4(3):
251-263.
2. DeBartoldi, M., R. Barale, and M.
Giovannetti. 1978. Mutagenicity of
pesticides evaluated by means of gene
conversion in ;S_. cerevisiae and A_.
nidulans. Mutat. Res., 53(2): 174-
175.
3. Kittleson, A. 1952. Colorimetric
determination of N-trichloromethyl-
thiotetrahydrophthalimide. Anal.
Chem., 24:1173.
4. Marshall, T. C., H. W. Dorough, and
H. E. Swin. 1976. Screening of
pesticides for mutogenic potential
using Salmonella typhimurium mutants.
J. Agric. Food Chem., 24(3):560.
5. Martin, D. H., R. Lewis, and F. D.
Tibbitts. 1978. Teratogenicity of
the fungicides captan and folpet in
the chick embryo. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol., 20(2): 155-158.
6. Wolfe, N. L., R. C. Zepp, J. C. Doster,
and R. C. Hollis. 1976. Captan
hydrolysis. J. Agric. Food Chem.,
24:1041-1045.
100
-------
STUDY OF CURRENT LABEL STATEMENTS
ON PESTICIDE DISPOSAL AND STORAGE
Janet Brambley and Dimitrios Kollias
Systems Research Company
Philadelphia, PA 19104
ABSTRACT
As part of an EPA contract to develop data requirements and testing protocols
for better evaluation of specific disposal arid storage recommendations on labels of
pesticide products, to develop new and improved label directions for proper storage
and disposal of excess pesticides and pesticide containers, and to identify label
statements that will be readily understood by applicators, a survey was undertaken
to determine what information and instructions are currently given on pesticide
labels for the storage of the pesticide and the disposal of the container and excess
pesticide. The information was obtained from pesticide labels, specimen labels or
product manuals supplied by pesticide manufacturers. This report provides a summary
of storage and container and excess pesticide disposal recommendations for 241
single pesticide formulations and 143 mixed formulations.
INTRODUCTION
The introduction of pesticides
into the environment can result in
adverse effects on man and other
non-target species. When pesticides
are used safely, the problems of safe
storage and the disposal of empty
containers remain. The USEPA under
40-CFR-162 has proposed guidelines for
registering pesticides in the United
States. The guidelines state the
conditions under which specific data
would be required to support the
registration of a product, specify the
standards for acceptable testing,
provide references to test protocols
in the scientific literature, and
describe the format for reporting
data. Under CFR Section 162.62-13
environmental chemistry data are
required to support pesticide label
statements on disposal and storage of
registered manufacturing use products
and all formulated products. The
object of this contract is to generate
data requirements and testing
protocols for better evaluation of
specific disposal and storage recom-
mendations, with particular attention
being paid to the development of
improved label directions for proper
storage and disposal of excess pesti-
cides, controlled release pesticides,
and pesticide containers.
METHODS
In January 1979, the authors
contacted 98 pesticide manufacturers
either by phone or by letter, reques-
ting sample labels from their pesti-
cides or their technical manuals. By
15 March 1979, we had received replies
from 58 manufacturers. Of these, 49
manufacturers supplied labels or
product or technical manuals for their
pesticides. The remaining 9 manufact-
urers reported that they were no
longer manufacturing pesticides or
were unable to supply label information
at this time.
The pesticides were categorized
into seven groups, following the
classification developed by Lawless,
Ferguson and Meiners in "Guidelines
for the Di.sposal of Small Quantities
101
-------
of Unused Pesticides". The seven
groups are: I-Inorganic and
Metallo-organic Pesticides,
II-Phosphorus-containing Pesticides,
III-Nitrogen-containing Pesticides,
IV-Halogen-containing Pesticides,
V-Sulfur-containing Pesticides,
VI-Botanical and Microbiological
Pesticides, and Vll-Organic Pesticides
Not Elsewhere Classified. This report
analyzes the disposal recommendations
for containers and for excess pesticides,
and recommendations for storage based
on the labels of the responding
manufacturers.
RESULTS
Information was obtained for 241
single compounds. These were
categorized into the seven groups as
follows:
Group I
Group II
Group III
Group IV
Group V
Group VI
Group VII
27
45
109
37
2
3
18
Information was also obtained
for 143 mixed formulations, contain-
ing two or more pesticides from the
same or different groups.
Disposal
Pesticide Containers -
Table 1 is a presentation of the
container disposal recommendations by
pesticide group. Many of the pesti-
cide labels have recommendations for
disposal by more than one method;
others have none. Container disposal
recommendations were recorded for 236
pesticides. The label recommenda-
tions are written as they appear on
the labels, as given by the
manufacturers.
Burial, usually specifying in a
safe place away from water supplies,
is the most frequently recommended
disposal method, for a total of 174
or 73.7% of the pesticides for which
information was offered. It is also
the most recommended method for each
group of pesticides with the excep-
tion of Group VII pesticides; the
most recommended method for this
group is destruction. Destruction is
the second most frequently recommend-
ed method, given for 91 pesticides,
38.6% of the total.
Burning is recommended for 79
pesticides or 33.5%, while incinera-
tion is recommended for only 19 or
8.05%. Landfill disposal, either
sanitary or specifically for pesti-
cides, is recommended for 43 or 18.2%
of the containers. The other
destructive methods, disposal with
trash, and discarding with no other
instructions, account for 8 and 38
recommendations, respectively, or
3.39% and 16.1%. "Discard" frequent-
ly includes the instruction "in a
safe place".
The non-destructive methods -
reconditioning, use for scrap steel,
recycling, and returning to the
manufacturer - are recommended for
36, 2, 24, and 3 containers respec-
tively, or 15%, 0.85%, 10.2%, and
1.27%. Approved procedures, with no
other details given, are recommended
for 8 containers, or 3.39%, always as
a choice among other methods.
As for the single compounds, the
labels for the mixtures may recommend
more than one disposal method, or
none. The recommended methods for
disposal of containers that held
mixtures of pesticides and their
frequency are as follows: bury 72,
destroy 46, recondition 25, burn 24,
discard 17, landfill 14, trash 5,
incinerate 5, return to manufacturer
4, and recycle 3.
Excess Pesticides -
Figure 1 summarizes the disposal
recommendations for excess pesticides.
Again, many of the pesticide labels
have recommendations for disposal by
more than one method and others have
none. The recommendations given are
based on information given for 98
pesticides. Fewer than half of the
pesticide labels give any information
for disposal of excess pesticides.
As with containers, burial is
the most frequently recommended
disposal method; it is recommended
102
-------
TABLE 1. PESTICIDE CONTAINER DISPOSAL RECOMMENDATIONS
TAKEN FROM LABELS OR PRODUCT MANUALS
Pesticide Burn Bury Inciner-
Grouping ate
I Inorganic
and
Metalloorganic 9 18
II Phosphorus
-Containing 18 42 1
III Nitrogen
-Containing 36 73 13
IV Halogen
-Containing 11 30 4
V Sulfur
-Containing ... 2 ...
Recondi- Return Land
tion to
Manufac-
turer
3
7 ... 6
14 1 22
10 1 11
1 ... 1
VI Botanical
and
Microbiological
VII Organic
Not Elsewhere
Classified
TOTAL
4
79
8
174
1
19
1 1 2
36 3 43
(continued)
103
-------
TABLE 1. (CONTINUED)
Pesticide
Grouping
Discard Trash
Destroy Scrap
Steel
Approved
Procedure
Recycle
I Inorganic
and
Metalloorganic 10
II Phosphorus
-Containing 9
III Nitrogen
-Containing 6
IV Halogen
-Containing 8
V Sulfur
-Containing
VI Botanical
and
Microbiological 1
VII Organic
Not Elsewhere
Classified 4
TOTAL
38
9
12
40
18
9
91
4
10
9
24
for 87 pesticides, or 88.8% of the
pesticides examined giving informa-
tion. Disposal of excess pesticides
in a landfill is recommended for 33
pesticides, or 33.7%. Incineration
is recommended for only 3 pesticides
or 3.06%, and burning for 1 or 1.02%.
Chemical reprocessing and returning
to the manufacturer account for 27
and 1 of the recommendations,
respectively, or 27.5% and 1.02%.
Approved procedures with no other
details given, are recommended for 3
pesticides, or 3.06%.
There are only three methods
recommended for the disposal of
excess pesticide mixtures, burial,
chemical reprocessing and landfill
disposal. Each method is recommended
for 37, 9, and 10 pesticides, respec-
tively, as shown in Figure 2. Only 38
or 26.6% of the labels give any
information for disposal of excess
pesticides.
Storage
The storage recommendations and
precautions by pesticide group are
summarized in Table 2. Storage
information was recorded for 194
pesticides. The six most frequently
occurring instructions - away from
heat, fire and sparks; away from
seeds, feeds and foodstuffs; away
from seeds, feeds, fertilizers,
insecticides and fungicides; above
32°F; cool dry place; and dry - are
given 100, 86, 42, 44, 34, and 26
times, respectively.
The numbers of pesticide labels
providing temperature requirements or
restrictions are shown in Table 3.
Twenty different levels were record-
104
-------
TOTAL PESTICIDES
LABELS WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS
TOTAL
PESTICIDE MIXTURES
MO
Figure 1. Disposal ol excess pesticides -
recommendations
Figure 2. Disposal ol excess pesticide mixtures
recommendations
ed, 14 being for the lowest permissi-
ble temperature, 6 for the highest.
Instructions occurring less
frequently are: keep in original
container, 13; away from herbicides,
9; away from toys, dishes, cosmetics,
clothing and furniture, 7; in a
ventilated area, 7; and maximum of
two containers per pallet, three
pallets high, 2. The remaining
instructions occur once only: away
from drafts; away from food, medicine
and household cleaning materials; not
in tightly sealed containers; and
away from combustible containers.
Almost one fifth, 19.5% of the
pesticides had no storage
recommendations or precautions.
Storage recommendations for
pesticide mixtures are comparable
with those for individual pesticides.
Table 4 shows the frequency of each
recommendation: away from heat, fire
and sparks, 61; away from seeds,
feeds and foodstuffs, 34; away from
foods, feeds, insecticides and fungi-
cides, 23; above 32°F, 7; keep cool
and dry, 23; dry, 13; keep in origi-
nal container, 7.
Fewer temperature restrictions
are given for the pesticide mixtures
than for individual pesticides.
Those that are given are shown in
Table 5. No storage information was
given for 23, or 16.1% of the pesti-
cide mixtures.
DISCUSSION
Disposal of Pesticide Containers
A great variety of pesticide
containers are in use, ranging in
size from 55 gallon drums to contain-
ers of a few ounces or less, and made
of metal, plastic, paper and glass.
This range is reflected in the number
of disposal methods recommended.
Burial of pesticide containers,
as the most freqently indicated means
of disposal, has distinct advantages.
105
-------
TABLE 2. MOST FREQUENTLY SUGGESTED STORAGE CONDITIONS FOR PESTICIDES
Pesticide
Grouping
Away from
Heat, Fire
and Sparks
Away from
Seeds,
Feeds, and
Foodstuffs
Away from
Seeds, Feeds
Fertilizers,
Insecticides
Fungicides
Above
32°F
Cool
and
Dry
Dry
I Inorganic
and
Metalloorganic
II Phosphorus
-Containing
III Nitrogen
-Containing
IV Halogen
-Containing
V Sulfur
-Containing
VI Botanical
and
Microbiological
VII Organic
Not Elsewhere
Classified
6
31
36
22
5
20
36
19
5
20
16
5
24
10
11
16
5
18
TOTAL
100
86
42
44
34
26
It requires no special equipment or
chemicals, no trip by the user to a
collection point, and is without the
immediate pollution hazards of
burning. Its disadvantages are long
term, in that containers always
contain some residual pesticide.
Triple rinse procedures reduce this
amount, but the rinse instructions
are not always given. The long term
risk is to water supplies. Most of
the labels recognize this hazard, and
suggest burial away from water
supplies.
The smoke and fumes from burning
containers and the pesticide residue
present hazards to the person super-
vising the burning and to surrounding
wildlife and plants. The labels
routinely warn the user to stay out
of the smoke and fumes. Increased
restrictions on open burning raise
further doubts about the continued
use of this method.
A number of studies of the
incineration of pesticides and their
containers has shown its feasibility
for a variety of pesticides. Most of
the studies have involved small-scale
or pilot-level incinerators, and the
results cannot necessarily be extra-
polated to a full scale incinerator.
106
-------
TABLE 3. TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS FOR THE STORAGE OF PESTICIDES
Not Below °F
-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 0.0 3.0
Total
Pesticides 1 11115 1
10.0
20.0
32.0
Not Below °F
40.0 50.0
55.0
65.0
Total
Pesticides
10
44
90.0
100
110
Not Above °F
120 130
140
Total
Pesticides
Precautions must be taken to deal
with toxic gases and ash produced in
the process. The costs of and hazards
involved in shipping containers to
suitably equipped incinerators may
inhibit their use.
Reconditioning has the advan-
tages of reuse of the pesticide
containers, but the disadvantages of
shipping. It is, however, recommen-
ded for 15.2% of the containers, and
this percentage could probably be
increased. The same advantages and
disadvantages apply to returning
containers to the manufacturer,
sending the containers for scrap
steel, or recycling with no subse-
quent use specified.
Landfill disposal is recommended
for only 18.2% of the pesticide
containers. Provided that metal
containers are rinsed prior to dis-
posal, that the landfill is properly
sited and maintained, and that ade-
quate safety measures are taken to
protect both the pesticide operator
and the landfill personnel, this
would seem to be a safe means of
disposal for containers of the less
hazardous pesticides.
Discard and destroy are recom-
mended for 15.9% and 36.4% of the
pesticide containers, even though
107
-------
TABLE 4. MOST FREQUENTLY SUGGESTED STORAGE CONDITIONS FOR PESTICIDE MIXTURES
Away from
heat, fire
and Sparks
Away from
Seeds,
Feeds and
Foodstuffs
Away from Above
Foods, feeds 32°F
Insecticides
Fugnicides
Cool
and
Dry
Dry
In
Original
Container
61
34
23
23
13
these are vague terms. Even when
qualified by "in a safe place" there
is room for considerable judgement
and interpretation of what consti-
tutes a suitable disposal site.
Disposal with trash is suitable
only for, and is generally only
recommended for, small containers of
pesticides intended for household
use.
When approved procedures are
recommended it is as the last choice
of several methods. They are recom-
mended only eight times, three of
which are for the Group I pesticides,
which pose the greatest detoxifica-
tion problems.
The container disposal methods
for pesticide mixtures are comparable
with those for single compounds, with
the exception of reconditioning,
recommended more frequently, and
landfill and discard, recommended
less frequently. Thirteen of the 143
pesticide mixtures gave no instruc-
tions for the disposal of containers.
Disposal of Excess Pesticides
Burial of excess pesticides, the
most recommended method, usually adds
the caution to avoid water supplies.
The effectiveness of this disposal
method depends on several factors,
including pesticide degradation by
soil microorganisms, soil texture,
TABLE 5. TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS FOR THE STORAGE OF PESTICIDE MIXTURES
10.0
Not Below °F
20.0 32.0
Total
Pesticide
Mixtutes
40.0
50.0
Not Above °F
130 140
108
-------
temperature, water and organic matter
content, and the concentration of the
pesticide. The interrelationships of
some of these factors have been
studied for a limited number of
pesticides.
Landfill disposal of pesticides
requires that the landfill be sited
safely, and that safety precautions
are taken to protect the landfill
operators and those involved in the
transport of the pesticide.
Chemical reprocessing may be
applicable to more pesticides than
the 27 for which it is recommended.
It is a method which involves the
hazards of repacking and shipping.
Only one pesticide, currently for
experimental use only, gives specific
directions for its return to the
manufacturer.
Incineration, perhaps the most
promising method for disposal of
large quantities of pesticides, is
recommended for only three. Work on
the incineration of pesticides is
mainly at the scale model or
pilot-scale stages, although there
are a few incinerators active, hand-
ling large amounts of pesticides.
As with the containers, approved
procedures are suggested as one of a
choice of methods for the disposal of
excess pesticides.
Chemical reprocessing and land-
fill disposal of excess pesticides
when they are recommended, are always
given as alternatives to burial. The
chemical reprocessing of mixed
pesticides may not be practical for
many mixtures; each mixture will have
to be evaluated individually. Almost
all research to date has involved
single compounds evaluated
separately.
Storage of Pesticides
Because of the variety of
pesticide containers, different
storage conditions are suggested for
the same pesticide. The variety of
pesticide formulations using the same
active ingredient with different
inert ingredients increases the
number of storage recommendations.
The majority of pesticides are
organic compounds and are to greater
or lesser degree flammable and the
formulations frequently include a
flammable organic solvent. These
factors are recognized in that the
greatest number of recommendations
are for pesticides to be stored away
from heat, fire and sparks.
Keeping pesticides away from
seeds, feeds and foodstuffs, and away
from seeds, feeds, fertilizers,
insecticides and fungicides so as to
avoid contamination, are recommended
86 and 42 times, respectively. These
recommendations also mention avoid-
ance of transport of pesticides with
these same materials.
Storage temperature is an im-
portant factor in the safe storage of
pesticides, and a total of 94 pesti-
cides give an indication of maximum
and/or minimum tolerable temperature.
Very few pesticides indicate an
acceptable temperature range.
Keeping pesticides above freezing is
the most frequently recommended
condition, with fewer recommendations
towards the temperature extremes.
The instruction to keep the
pesticide cool was invariably asso-
ciated with "dry" and was recorded in
this form, a total of 34 times, while
"dry" alone occurred 26 times.
The instruction of keeping the
pesticide in its original container
addresses a number of problems - the
hazard of putting the pesticide into
an unlabeled container, of putting
the pesticide into an inappropriate
container, i.e., one unsuitable for
the pesticide or a soft drink
container, and the presumed loss of
instructions, precautions and safety
information. However, it only occurs
13 times among the 194 pesticides.
The less frequent instructions
deal with the specific properties of
the individual pesticide.
CONCLUSIONS
Pesticide Containers
The great variety of pesticide
containers currently in use requires
109
-------
a number of different methods of
disposal. For specific instructions,
the type of container and the nature
of the pesticide must be considered.
Specific, positive instructions are
necessary; five of the 241 pesticides
surveyed had no instructions for the
disposal of containers.
For the large metal containers
which have potential for reuse as
containers or as scrap metal it
should be possible to balance the
factors involved to make some re-
cycling worthwhile. The factors
involved are safe transport to a
recycling or pick-up center, detoxi-
fication of the drums, acceptability
for reuse, and sufficient economic
incentives at each stage.
As air pollution controls tighten,
open burning should and will become a
more limited option for the disposal
of flammable containers. This option
will be taken over by incineration,
with the incinerators being appropri-
ately modified to control toxic
gases.
Landfill and burial options
should remain available, subject to
precautions against water pollution.
Disposal in the trash is
probably the only disposal method
likely to be followed by householders
using small amounts of pesticides
intended for home use.
Excess Pesticides
Only 98 of the 241 pesticides
surveyed had any instructions for the
disposal of excess pesticide. Ideally,
the user will estimate how much
pesticide is required, purchase that
amount and use it up. Because ideal
conditions are seldom achieved, some
specific, positive recommendations
for the disposal of excess pesticide
should be included on the label.
Chemical reprocessing should be
investigated for more pesticides,
both as a means of pesticide detoxi-
fication, and as a means of resource
conservation.
Incineration should be made more
readily available to dispose of those
pesticides which are unsuited for
chemical reprocessing.
Landfills can safely be used for
the disposal of the less toxic
pesticides.
Burial, following appropriate
precautions to prevent contamination
of water supplies, continues to be a
practical disposal method, particu-
larly for use strength pesticides.
The lack of research on the safe
disposal of mixtures would suggest
that until the necessary research is
done, the mixture should be disposed
on the basis of the most toxic and/or
most refractory materials contained
in the formulation.
Storage
The variety of pesticides and
their containers requires a variety
of different storage instructions.
Specific instructions are necessary
depending on the nature of the
pesticide, the inert ingredient and
the container. Currently, 47 of 241,
or 19.5% of the pesticides have no
storage instructions. The safe
temperature range for storage instead
of only a maximum or minimum should
be used.
Pesticide mixtures require
specific storage instructions appro-
priate to the mixture; 23 of 143, or
16.1% have no instructions what-
soever.
The survey was based on the
labels and product manuals of the
manufacturers who responded to our
request for information. The basis
for the disposal and storage instruc-
tions is not known and they may be
present because of mandatory require-
ments rather than being environmen-
tally sound practices. Different
manufacturers give different disposal
or storage instructions for essential-
ly the same pesticide and container.
This may reflect the use of different
inert ingredients or different ratios
of active to inert ingredients, but
it is clear that some labels are much
more informative than others.
110
-------
REFERENCE
Lawless, E.W., T.L. Ferguson, and
A.F. Meiners. 1975. Guidelines for
the Disposal of Small Quantities of
Unused Pesticides. EPA-670/2-75-057,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH. 331 pp.
111
-------
WINDMILLS, INCINERATORS AND SITING
Frank C. Whitmore
Versar Inc.
Springfield, Virginia 22151
Richard A. Games
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
ABSTRACT
The public reaction to proposals for the siting of hazardous waste disposal facilities
results largely from fear and from distrust of technologists. Several case histories
are presented with inferences drawn as to possible future actions to reduce the problem.
INTRODUCTION
It is our purpose here today to dis-
cuss some of the problems that are assoc-
iated with the siting of a hazardous waste
disposal facility and to illustrate some
of these difficulties in terms of our
personal experience in attempting to site
an experimental facility. It is unfortu-
nate that we cannot offer a prescription
for success, but perhaps by revealing
some of the pitfalls into which we have
strayed our experience might help others
in the future.
In order to obtain a data base
sufficient to allow the establishment of
reasonable and safe standards for the
incineration of a number of industrial
waste streams, the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency awarded Versar a contract to
conduct a series of test burns. The
system to be used, which includes a rotary
kiln and afterburner with appropriate air
pollution control equipment, is probably
the most heavily instrumented incinerator
in the world. It was planned that the
system be located in the middle of a large
area west of Washington, D.C., that has
been for years zoned for research and
light manufacturing. The total area,
encompassing some 350 acres, is surrounded
by fencing and has very limited access.
Even though the feed rate and the
nature of the proposed operations are such
that permitting was not required, applica-
tion for a permit in Virginia was made.
The permit was issued without alteration
to the plan but with the admonition that
it would not be necessary to contact the
county officials since the proposed site
was already zoned for research. After
several months, during which the needed
facilities modifications and leasing
arrangements were being made, there was a
request from the County Commissioners for
an informal, non-public meeting with the
principals of the program. This meeting
was devoted to the very reasonable request
for information about the possible impact
of the research program on available county
resources—fire, police, and medical. The
meeting was very amicable, and the program
went forward. Somehow, however, there
developed an undercurrent of public concern
that led the Commissioners to request a
formal meeting in executive session.
The "executive session" was, in fact,
an unannounced public meeting which was
attended by the press. Since there had
been no prewarning that there would be
press coverage, no preparations had been
made to brief the press properly. The
112
-------
upshot of that meeting was a series of
newspaper articles that presented a very
distorted picture of the proposed opera-
tions. Examples of some of the headlines
are shown in (the next several slides)
Figures 1 and 2.
These rather inflamatory headlines
and the accompanying text served to create
considerable public reaction. The nature
of this reaction is best shown by the
hand-lettered sign that appeared in a local
chain grocery store as shown in (the next
slide) Figure 3. In view of this reaction,
the lessor, in order to maintain his local
good image, withdrew the lease. The pro-
gram has still not been successfully sited
at this writing.
It is the purpose of this paper to
attempt to analyze the above situation and
to determine, if possible, what course of
action might have been taken to avoid such
an outcome.
THE PUBLIC HEARING
In the common understanding of the
democratic process, it is essential that
there be a suitable forum for the expres-
sion of shades of opinion on any matter
that affects, or that is preceived to
affect, the common welfare of the commu-
nity. It is in this spirit that most
political jurisdictions have instituted
the public hearing process when faced with
making a decision that could have wide
influence on the community. In particular,
this mechanism is widely used in matters
that concern the local zoning laws. For
example, when considering the siting of
a new shopping mall or an extension of the
interstate highway system, the public is
invited to express its opinions as to the
probable iinpact of the new mall. In
large measure, this is a natural result of
an evolutionary process brought about by
the complexity of the decisions that public
officials are required to make. In order
to dilute the ultimate responsibility,
the public is invited to share in the
decision-making process.
The quasi-judicial public hearing pro-
cess has then been developed as a mecha-
nism by which parties with opposing views
may come together in an orderly fashion
to present their individual views, to
discuss their differences, and to reach
a concensus. The petitioner is expected
to present his case for the facility,
including the costs and the benefits to the
community. The public participants, who
are not infrequently opposed to the pro-
posal, are expected to listen and under-
stand the case presented by the petitioner
and then to present their position on the
matter. In the dialogue that should follow,
the points of differences should be
accurately defined and subsequently re-
solved by compromise. There is a necessity
for mutual respect and understanding based
on a common language if agreement is to be
reached through public hearings.
The difficulties that are inherent in
this process are well illustrated by the
problem that arises when the petitioner is
presenting the case for a new or modified
chemical waste disposal facility. He is
expected to present his case in terms of
the technical details of the operation of
the proposed facility and the provisions
that will be taken to reduce the hazard
associated with transport to the facility
and of accidents within the facility. In
addition, he is expected to discuss the
nature of the procedures to be instituted
for dealing with an accident. The public
reaction to such a proposal is generally
negative since the possible benefits are
completely overshadowed by the possible
deleterious effects of an accident, how-
ever improbable that eventuality might be.
In view of the general lack of accurate
information on the part of the general
public and the very general distrust of
technologists, there is no real possibil-
ity of dialog and thus no possibility of
compromise.
TECHNICAL LANGUAGE AND TECHNOLOGY
A major deterrent to essential commu-
nication arises from the very specialized
vocabulary characteristic of most of
modem technology. This language, which
is specific to each of the disciplines
involved, serves a very important function
in that it allows very precise communica-
tion among practitioners. Even when used
in the manner for which it was created, the
very nature of this language serves to
confuse and therefore frighten the general
public. Many examples of this problem
might be cited; the arcane distinction
between hazardous and toxic will serve to
illustrate the point. The precise dis-
tinctions are often lost on the lay public
113
-------
WEDNESDAY JULg. 1079
Poisonous Chemicals
To Be Burned Here
Officials Say Toxic Tests To Be Harmless
Bv tIAVP RflMAV "
By DAVE ROMAN
JMSUff Writer
FIGURE 1
NEWSPAPER HEADLINES AFTER INITIAL HEARING
-------
MONDAY JULY 30.1979
Residents
Protesting
Burning
TUESDAY JULY SI. 1979
OFFICIAL SAYS
Burning of Toxic Waste
Could Be Permanent
WEDNESDAY AIICI'ST I. l
SUPERVISORS...
.Receptive to Versar Protestors
FIGURE 2
MEWSPAPER HEADLINES AFTER PUBLIC REACTION
115
-------
o>
FIGURE 3
-------
with the result that there is no canton
language so that consensus, based on mutual
understanding, is actually not possible.
A second problem that has arisen in
the use of the technical jargon can be
illustrated by a quotation from Orwell1
taken from his essay, "Politics and the
English Language." A quote from Ecclesi-
astes is as follows:
"I returned and saw under the sun,
that the race is not to the swift, nor the
battle to the strong, neither yet bread
to the wise, nor yet riches to men of
understanding, nor yet favour to men of
skill; but time and chance happeneth to
them all."
Here it is in modern English:
"Objective consideration of contempo-
rary phenomena compels the conclusion that
success or failure in competitive
activities exhibits no tendency to be com-
mensurate with innate capacity, but that a
considerable element of the unpredictable
must invariably be taken into account."
Although the "modern English" version is
something of a parody, we are all very
familiar with many examples of this kind
of turgid writing by which the author
succeeds in completely obscuring his
meaning and intent. The very general ten-
dency of technical writers to use com-
licated syntax coupled with highly
specialized terminology tends to render
technical literature inaccessible to even
the interested lay reader.
Further examples of poor communication
are those given in the recent award of the
"1979 Doublespeak Award"2 to the Nuclear
Regulatory Comnission for its explanations
during the Three Mile Island incident,
Figure 4. Clearly, these examples repre-
sent a deliberate attempt to confuse the
public by the use of obscure technical
euphemisms to describe real physical
events. Such a use of the language serves
to further erode the credibility of
technology and of technologists.
When the case for the safety of a pro-
posed waste disposal facility is dis-
cussed in a public hearing, the emphasis
is always on the nature of the monitoring
and on-line safety equipment that will be
used. Tacit in the discussion is the
assumption that the operators will be re-
sponsible and that they actually know of
what they speak. The public perception of
this is not always what we technologists
would have it be. The point can again be
illustrated by the Three Mile Island
incident. All too often in the past,
nuclear technologists have blandly assured
the public that there are no dangers in
their technology, and since all is under
their control in their very capable hands,
there is no cause for alarm. The recent
events at Three Mile Island clearly showed
that all was not well, that things were
not in control, and that there were, indeed,
unforseen dangers. The net result of these
lapses has been a general erosion of public
confidence, not so much in technology but
rather in technologists.
PUBLIC INFORMATION
A second aspect of the complexities of
technical language is the fact that, be-
cause of the many disciplines that are
involved in problems of the environmental
effects of chemical wastes, the technical
literature is simply not available to the
concerned lay public. In view of this
fact, the only viable source of informa-
tion is through the media. Unfortunately,
most of the media presentations in the
past have been of poor practices. Many,
if not most, of the media presentations
tend to the spectacular with gross over-
simplification. Few of the commentators
are sufficiently knowledgeable in chemical
or toxicological technology to adequately
appraise the actual situation. This fact,
coupled with the short attention span of
both writers and readers, leads to the
use of buzz words rather than the more
unfamiliar technical terms. Examples of
this effect are shown in Figure 5 (next
slide).
It would appear that at least some of
the more vocal members of the general
public have reacted to such sources of
information by perceiving a
chemical waste disposal facility somewhat
as Don Quixote in Cervantes3 perceived
the windmill:
"Engaged in this discourse, they came
in sight of thirty or forty windmills which
are in that plain; and, as soon as Don
Quixote espied them, he said to his squire,
'Fortune disposes our affairs better than
117
-------
EXPLOSION = ENERGETIC DISASSEMBLY
FIRE = RAPID OXIDATION
ACCIDENT = NORMAL ABERATION OR PLANT TRANSIENT
THE REACTOR VESSEL IS CONTAMINATED WITH PLUTONIUM =
PLUTONIUM HAS TAKEN UP RESIDENCE IN THE REACTOR VESSEL
FIGURE 4
DOUBLESPEAK - AN EXAMPLE OF TECHNOLOGICAL LANGUAGE2
TOXIC POISONOUS
HAZARDOUS EXPLOSIVE
WASTE POISONOUS
REMOTE ARIZONA
ISOLATED ARIZONA (UTAH)
EXPERIMENTAL FAdLITY PERMANENT INSTALLATION
LIMITED OPERATION CONTINUOUS OPERATION
FAIL-SAFE DANGEROUS
EMISSIONS BILLOWING CLOUDS
EMISSION STANDARDS CONTAMINATED NEIGHBORHOOD
NON-HAZARDOUS GASOLINE, PROPANE, ETC.
FIGURE 5
VOLABULARY
118
-------
we ourselves could have desired; look
yonder, friend Sancho Panza, where thou
mayest discover somewhat more than thirty
monstrous giants, whom I intend to
encounter and slay and with their spoils
we will begin to enrich ourselves; for it
is lawful war, and doing God's good service
to remove so wicked a generation from off
the face of the earth."
The mere mention of the possibility
that a chemical waste disposal facility is
contemplated in their vicinity seems to
evoke images of the turn of the century
industrial city. Great belching stacks
filling the skies with rolling billows of
greasy black smoke, obscuring the bright
blue skies, killing the vegetation for
miles around, causing happy children to
choke and to be convulsed with pain,
causing the good citizens to die like flies
from the noxious furres—these are the
visions conjured up by the mention of an
incinerator. The mention of a secure
landfill site evokes the vision of a vast
desert covered with rusting drums and
abandoned industrial equipment; here and
there are foul pools of oily water and
over all hangs a miasma of poisonous fumes.
In view of such visions of the nature of
the chemical waste disposal facilities,
it is indeed "a lawful war, and doing God
good service to remove so wicked a genera-
tion from off the face of the earth."
APPLICATION TO VERSAR SITING HEARING
The gap between languages became
apparent in the case of the above mentioned
public hearing in questions dealing with
the nature and magnitude of possible
emissions. When it was explained that the
only source of emissions would be the
stack and that the latter would be moni-
tored on a continuous basis during each
and every experiment, the response was,
"If there will be no emissions, why is
it necessary to monitor the stack?" It
was further pointed out that there would
be a network of ambient air monitors and
high volume monitors in operation, again
the question, "Why, if there will be no
emissions?" Attempts were made to explain
that only by monitoring could one be
assured that there were no emissions; these
uniformly failed. It was also observed
that, because of the fact that the only
hard information available to the pro-
testing public was from the media, there
seemed to be no sense of trying to hear
and understand our case; "Why bother, our
minds are made up!"
What became abundantly clear during
the hearing was the fact that, by the use
of common buzz words, the press had
stirred up emotions and fear. The business
of rejecting this abomination became, in
the minds of a small but vocal minority,
"doing God good service." Clearly, by the
time of the hearing, the technical staff
of the program had so little credibility,
there was no possibility of a dialog. The
damage had been done before the hearing.
FUTURE COURSE
Not all recent attempts to site waste
disposal facilities or to carry out test
burns have failed because of public re-
action. It will be instructive to examine
one such successful attempt in order to
determine the factors that led to success.
In the aftermath of the kepone disaster in
Virginia, it was decided that co-incinera-
tion offered the best approach to the
disposal of the contaminated sludge that
was stored in the Hopewell lagoon. A
facility available in Toledo, Ohio,
appeared to be the most conveniently
arranged for a series of test burns to
establish the necessary conditions for a
large scale disposal operation.
After a number of private meetings
with concerned local, state, and regional
officials in Ohio, a comprehensive
publicity and public information program
was prepared. Specifically, a very de-
tailed Kepone Fact Sheet1* was prepared
for the purpose of briefing the interested
press (and other media) in as detailed and
factual a manner as possible. All terms
that might lead to substitutions of buzz
words carefully defined. In addition, the
precise details of the proposed experi-
ments were spelled out, as were the safety
precautions to be taken. This information
was made widely available some six months
before the proposed start date of the test
burns. The principals of the technical
staff were on call to answer any questions
that arose during the pre-burn period.
The availability of accurate, detailed
information enabled all media to present
a knowledgeable explanation of the pro-
posed experiments. There was no concerted
public outcry, and the experiments were
carried out in an atmosphere of candor and
119
-------
public acceptance. (It should perhaps be
pointed out that the experiments were
carried out in the dead of winter, a factor
that perhaps dampened the ardor of persons
who otherwise might have been tempted to
protest more vigorously.)
Every attempt to site a facility that
is rejected by public reaction serves to
harden position on future attempts. This
chain reaction effect makes it imperative
that there be a national program to assist
every attenpt at siting. What is
urgently required is a careful examination
of the present situation with respect to
waste disposal and the development of an
adequate and candid discussion of past
mistakes, both of commission and of
omission. When such an appraisal has been
completed it will then be essential that
an educational program be undertaken to
upgrade the general understanding of the
problem of hazardous industrial wastes,
their sources, and the safe and effective
means for dealing with them. Only in
terms of an enlightened public can the
necessary steps be taken to avoid future
Love Canals.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Orwell, George 1946. Politics and the
English Language. In: A collection of
Essays, Doubleday, New York, 1954.
2. Smith, R.J. 1979. Science, 206;1163.
3. Cervantes, Miguel. Don Quixote.
1605-1614. Chapter 8.
4. Bell, B.A. and F.C. Whitmore. 1978.
Kepone Incineration Test Program.
EPA 600/2-78-108.
120
-------
HIGH TEMPERATURE DECOMPOSITION OF
ORGANIC HAZARDOUS WASTE
D. S. Duvall, W. A. Rubey, and J. A. Mescher
University of Dayton Research Institute
300 College Park
Dayton, Ohio 45469
ABSTRACT
A sophisticated laboratory system has been designed and assembled with the objective
being to provide fundamental thermal decomposition data on a wide variety of organic
materials. This thermal decomposition analytical system (TDAS) is a closed system con-
sisting of a versatile, highly instrumented thermal decomposition unit which is connected
to a gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer-computer. With the TDAS, gases, liquids, and
solids (including polymers), can be subjected to thermal decomposition studies.
Thermal decomposition tests were conducted with the TDAS on polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and on "Hex" wastes. The PCBs were found to have high thermal stability in air.
Furthermore, in oxygen-deficient atmospheres their thermal stability is increased by at
least 200°C over that experienced in air. "Hex" wastes also demonstrated a high degree
of thermal stability. Several chlorinated, aromatic compounds were still present after
exposure to 800°C. Further increases in temperature to 1000°C decomposed all compounds
except for low levels of hexachlorobenzene.
INTRODUCTION
The safe disposal of highly toxic or-
ganic wastes is a very serious problem in
many parts of the world. One of the best
methods for permanent disposal of these
wastes is high-temperature incineration.
However, in the interest of safety, it is
necessary that knowledge of the thermal
decomposition properties of a toxic or-
ganic substance be attained before large-
scale incineration is conducted.
In response to this need, a sophisti-
cated laboratory system has been designed
and assembled by the University of Dayton
Research Institute (UDRI). This thermal
decomposition analytical system (TDAS) is
a closed, continuous system which consists
of a versatile thermal decomposition unit
followed in-line by a dedicated gas
chromatograph-mass spectrometer-computer
(GC-MS-COMP). The objective of this labo-
ratory system is to provide fundamental
thermal decomposition data on a wide
variety of organic materials.
In the TDAS, precisely controlled
thermal exposures are conducted in a nar-
row-bore, quartz tube reactor. Subsequent-
ly, products of thermal decomposition are
collected in an adsorptive, cryogenic trap.
The products are thermally desorbed; sub-
jected to high-resolution, gas chromato-
graphic separation; and then identified by
mass spectrometric analysis. A dedicated
minicomputer is utilized for reducing the
analytical data. Product analyses conduct-
ed at a selected series of temperature ex-
posures can provide a profile of the ther-
mal decomposition properties of an organic
substance.
This paper presents experimental data
determined by the UDRI on two major types
of hazardous wastes, polychlorinated bi-
phenyls (PCBs) and "Hex" wastes. The in-
troduction of PCBs to the world market was
made in 1929. Now the problem of global
environmental contamination by PCBs has
121
-------
been well documented. Comprehensive re-
views have reported the existence of sig-
nificant quantities of PCBs in atmosphere,
soil, water, sediment, fish, wildlife, and
even in samples of human blood and tissue."
"Hex" wastes, a mixture of industrial wastes
containing chlorinated organic compounds,
have been major contributors to environ-
mental pollution. In addition to the Love
Canal tragedy where "Hex" wastes were a
part of the problem, an illegal dumping of
these wastes in Louisville, Kentucky in
March, 1977 forced the closing of their
sewage treatment pi ant.3 Subsequently, un-
treated sewage was dumped into the Ohio
River for about four months, while clean-
up and reactivation of the sewage treatment
system was performed.
CONCEPT AND BASIC DESIGN OF IDAS
The rationale behind the design concept
of the TDAS has basically not changed from
that of the earlier discontinuous system.5
The sample is still inserted into the
system, and then gradually vaporized in a
flowing carrier gas. The vaporized com-
pounds are subsequently subjected to a con-
trolled high-temperature exposure. The
components that emerge from the high-tem-
perature environment are then collected and
analyzed by instrumental techniques. With
respect to the TDAS, this same thermal
analysis format has been employed; however,
each operation within the system is much
more sophisticated, thereby producing
greatly increased experimental versatility.
The major design changes over the
earlier system are centered around the de-
sign of the reactor, the closed continuous
system concept, and also the vastly in-
creased analytical capability which is now
provided by an in-line gas chromatograph-
mass spectrometer-dedicated computer (GC-
MS-COMP). Numerous refinements have also
been designed into the TDAS, and these are
detailed elsewhere.7
There were many design objectives asso-
ciated with the development of the TDAS.
This system must be capable of conducting
precise thermal decomposition tests. More
precisely, it should be capable of experi-
mentally determining the effects of the
five prominent thermal decomposition
variables, which are listed in Table 1.
TABLE 1. THERMAL DECOMPOSITION VARIABLES
THERMAL DECOMPOSITION VARIABLES
EXPOSURE TEMPERATURE
COMPOSITION OF ATMOSPHERE
PRESSURE
MEAN RESIDENCE TIME
RESIDENCE TIME DISTRIBUTION
122
-------
In addition, the IDAS should be able to
accommodate almost any type of organic
material; it should be capable of analyzing
the thermal decomposition effluent products;
and it should be capable of dealing with
HIGH TEMPERATURE TRANSFER
toxic materials. Finally, the IDAS should
be capable of generating data on a quick
response basis. Figure 1 shows a block
diagram, and Figure 2, a conceptual drawing
of the IDAS.
CAPTURE
OF
EFFLUENT
PRODUCTS
*////////
CONTROLLED
HIGH
TEMPERATURE
EXPOSURE
'///////
(//////I
IN-LINE
GAS CHROMATOGRAPH
(HIGH RESOLUTION)
SAMPLE
INSERTION
AND
VAPORIZATION
PRESSURE AND
FLOW REGULATION
COMPRESSED GAS
AND PURIFICATION
COUPLED
MASS
SPECTROMETER
(MAGNETIC)
COMPUTER
SYSTEM
NIH-EPA
CHEMICAL
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
ANALYSIS OF EFFLUENT PRODUCTS
Figure 1. Block diagram of IDAS.
EXTERNAL
DATA BASE
INTERFACE
MASS GAS THERMAL
SPECTROMETER CHROMATOGRAPH DESTRUCTION
UNIT
MINICOMPUTER
FOR
DATA REDUCTION
ITHEHMAI DECOMPOSITION ANALYTICAL SYSTEM)
Figure 2. Conceptual drawing of IDAS.
123
-------
EXPERIMENTS WITH PCBs
A selected group of PCB isomers were
subjected to a series of thermal decompo-
sition experiments using the thermal decom-
position analytical system (TDAS). Spe-
cifically, experiments were conducted with
2,2',6,6' -tetrachlorobiphenyl, 2,2',5,5'
-tetrachlorobiphenyl, 2,2',4,5,5' -penta-
chlorobiphenyl, and 2,2',4,4'5,5' -hexa-
chlorobiphenyl.
Much of the early work was conducted
with the 2,2',6,6' - tetrachlorobiphenyl,
as this particular PCB isomer had previously
been reported to yield significant levels of
chlorinated dibenzofurans,2 and some of our
earlier work corroborated these findings.5
The most recent work has been done with the
three remaining isomers, and Table 2 shows
TABLE 2. EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON DECOMPOSITION
Compound
Exposure Temperature* ( C)
550 650 675 700 725 750 775
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
(2,2',5,5')
Pentachlorobiphenyl
(2,2',4,5,5')
Hexachlorobiphenyl
(2,2',4,4',5,5')
100 92 74 57 21 0.14
100 98 80 53 9.3 0.05 0.007
100 100 73 26
<0.005
* - All determinations at 2 sec residence time in an environment of flowing air
+ - Values are weight % remaining after exposure
the data corresponding to their decomposi-
tion when subjected to 2.0 second exposures
in air. It is observed from these data that
these PCB isomers exhibit approximately the
same thermal stability in air. In addition,
Figure 3 shows the thermal decomposition of
the 2,2',4,4',5,5' isomer along with for-
mation profiles of some of its thermal de-
composition products. In practically every
case where the thermal decompositions of
PCBs were studied in air, the maximum con-
centrations of the individual thermal de-
composition occurred at the temperature
corresponding to the greatest rate of
thermal decomposition of the parent sub-
tance. Also, there were many high
molecular weight thermal reaction products
formed during the decomposition of the PCB;
however, in most cases these products were
relatively low in concentration (e.g., 0.1
to 0.2 percent).
Further experiments were conducted with
the 2,2',4,5,5' -pentachlorobiphenyl. Se-
lection of this isomer was made because it
is commonly found in most of the commercial
PCB mixtures and is still a prevalent con-
taminant in the environment. Thermal de-
2,2,4.4,5.5-
HEXACHIOROBIPHENYL
IN AIR
TETRACHLOROBENZENE
EXPOSURE
TEMPERATURE
CO
Figure 3. Decomposition of Hexachlorobiphenyl
124
-------
composition profile experiments were con-
ducted using a variety of gaseous atmo-
The data from the thermal decomposition
studies with the 2,2',4,5,5' -pentachloro-
spheres: (1) 40 percent oxygen in nitrogen; biphenyl are tabulated in Table 3 and
(2) compressed air, (3) 2.5 percent oxygen
in nitrogen; and, (4) nitrogen. Two tests
were also conducted in helium, and these
are also reported as they presented some
interesting results.
plotted in Figure 4. It is apparent from
TABLE 3. EFFECT OF ATMOSPHERE ON THERMAL DECOMPOSITION
Flowing Atmosphere
40% Oxygen in Nitrogen
Air (^ 21% 02)
2.5% Oxygen in Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Helium
* o
Exposure Temperature ( C)
550 600 650 675 700 725 750 775 800 825 850 875 900 925 950
+
100 85 65 27 110 05
98 80 53 930 05 0 007
100 97 91 83 37 12 0 40 -
_. _ inn R9 f\f\ ^ A ACI IR A n
76 44
* - All determinations at 2 sec residence time (except helium which was 1.2 sec)
+ - Values are weight % remaining after exposure
100
o
z
< 10
UJ
(E
UJ
o
tr
UJ
°- 10
O.I
0.0
HELIUM
50
tr -2.00 SEC
2.5% OXYGEN
IN NITROGEN
THERMAL DECOMPOSITION
OF
2,2',4,5,5'- PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL
IN
DIFFERENT GASEOUS ATMOSPHERES
_L
J_
"500 550 600 650 700 750
EXPOSURE TEMPERATURE °C
Figure 4. Effect of atmospheres.
125
800
850
900 950
1000
-------
these data that the percent of oxygen in
the reactor atmosphere has a profound ef-
fect on the thermal stability of the PCB.
A comparison of the results with 40 percent
oxygen and with air (^21 percent oxygen)
shows only a slight effect caused by the
higher oxygen level. However, the testing
with 2.5 percent oxygen required tempera-
tures nearly 100°C higher than those with
air to achieve thermal decomposition.
Further, when a nitrogen atmosphere was
present, temperatures of well over 900°C
were required for decomposition; this
temperature exceeds that required in air by
over 200°C.
Another way of viewing these thermal
stability data is presented in Figure 5,
where exposure temperature is plotted rel-
ative to the oxygen content of the reactor
atmosphere. The plotted 100 ppm oxygen
value is an approximate level of trace
oxygen in nitrogen gas. (This value agrees
with our previous experience with bottled
nitrogen carrier gases). When this 100 ppm
data point is plotted along with the other
oxygen concentrations, it is interesting to
note the resulting linearity of the semi-log
graphing, and again the effect of oxygen
content. The two tests that were conducted
in flowing helium are also interesting in
this respect, as the helium gas flowing into
the TDAS is .xtremely oxygen-free (less than
1.0 ppm). It should be noted, however, that
the tests conducted in helium had a shorter
residence time, specifically the mean resi-
dence time was approximately 1.2 seconds.
2,2,4.5,5- PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL
1000
900
EXPOSURE 800
TEMPERATURE
700
600
tr-2.00 SEC
0.001 0.01 o.l 1.0
10
100
CARRIER OXYGEN
(Volume Percent)
Figure 5. Effect of Oxygen content.
To sum up the thermal decomposition be-
havior of this particular PCB isomer, it is
evident that it has immense thermal stabil-
ity in oxygen deficient atmospheres. Fur-
ther, oxygen content of the flowing gas
seems to dictate on an orderly basis the
extent of thermal decomposition at tempera-
tures above 600°C.
Decomposition Products
The major decomposition products formed
from the thermal stressing of 2,2',5,5'
-tetrachlorobiphenyl, 2,2',4,5,5' -penta-
chlorobiphenyl, and 2,2',4,4',5,5' -hexa-
chlorobiphenyl at 725°C in flowing air for
2 seconds residence time are itemized in
Table 4. The general fragmentation
126
-------
TABLE 4. COMPOUNDS FORMED FROM DECOMPOSITION OF PCB ISOMERS
Isomers
Compounds* 2,2' ,5,5' 2,2' ,4,5,5'
trichlorobenzene + +
biphenyl +
tetrachlorobenzene + 2 isomers
monochlorobiphenyl + +
chlorinated compound MW204+ +
dichlorobiphenyl + +
pentachlorobenzene - +
chlorinated compound MW230+ 2 isomers
trichlorobiphenyl 2 isomers +
dichlorodibenzofuran +
tetrachlorobiphenyl 2 isomers +
pentachlorobiphenyl 2 isomers +
trichlorodibenzofuran + +
hexachlorobenzene - +
chlorinated compound MW264+ - 3 isomers
tetrachlorodibenzofuran - 2 isomers
hexachlorobiphenyl - +
heptachlorobiphenyl
pentachlorodibenzofuran
chlorinated compound MW288+
+ = tentative identification
- = not found
2,2',4,4",5,5'
Flowing air, 725 C, and residence time of 2 sec.
pattern of PCB isomers features successive
expulsion of both chlorine atoms and mole-
cules. 8 Due to the known variability of ion
intensities produced with different mass
spectrometers, no attempt was made to dis-
tinguish between various isomers by their
primary ion mass spectra. Thus, the names
used to identify the products indicate the
total number of chlorine atoms present
rather than their positional notation. The
various PCB species were readily identifi-ed
on the basis of intense molecular ions
(M+), intense (M-70)+ ions, and unusually
abundant doubly-charged molecular ions.
A major concern of this work was to con-
firm the formation of chlorinated dibenzo-
furans (PCDFs) from the thermal oxidation
of PCBs. As is seen in Table 4 several
PCDFs are generated. These include di-
chlorodibenzofuran and trichlorodibenzo-
furan from the tetra-PCB isomer, tri-
chlorodibenzofuran and 2 isomers of the
tetrachlorodibenzofuran from the penta-PCB
isomer, and pentachlorodibenzofuran from
the hexa-PCB isomer. These results agree
with those obtained by other workers?»9
except in the case of the hexa-PCB isomer.
Other workers have shown the formation of a
tetrachlorodibenzofuran and 2 isomers of the
pentachlorodibenzofuran from the hexa-PCB
isomer. The chlorinated dibenzofurans were
identified on the basis of calculated
chlorine isotope ratios, 1 intense molecular
ions (M+), molecular ions minus the loss of
the COC£ group (M-63)+, and minor charac-
teristic fragment losses.
All of the PCB samples were directly
analyzed by repetitive scanning of complete
mass spectra (mass range 30-492 amu) utiliz-
ing a computer data system. After data
acquisition the mass spectra (up to 800/run)
were searched for PCBs, PCDFs, and other
possible reaction products by examining
individual mass spectra and by plotting
single ion chromatograms of known fragment
ions. Individual mass spectra were compared
with reference library spectra if available.
127
-------
Otherwise, manual interpretation of the
spectra was performed.
"HEX" WASTES STUDIES
Thermal decomposition tests were con-
ducted with the TDAS on a "Hex" waste sam-
ple supplied by the U.S. EPA. The com-
plexity of this mixture is evidenced by the
chromatogram shown in Figure 6. Specif-
ically, the major constituents of this
sample consist of hexachlorocyclopentadiene
(HCCPD), octachlorocyclopentene (OCCP),
pentachlorobenzene (PCBZ), and hexachloro-
benzene (HCB). The balance of this sample
includes a conglomerate of unsaturated con-
jugated diene systems, both chlorinated and
nonchlorinated, as well as chlorinated
benzenoid systems, and a variety of mostly
aromatic organic compounds. Aliquots of
this Hex mixture were subjected to a series
of thermal decomposition tests at 100°C
intervals between 300°C and 1000°C, each at
a residence time of 2.00 seconds in flowing
Jvl
PCBZ
Jl/U——
UCCP
HCB
_J
I—
40
T~
50
T~
10
1
30
TIME, minutes
Figure 6. Chromatograph of Hex wastes.
128
-------
air. The chromatographic data resulting
from these thermal exposure tests are pre-
sented in the form of log-skeletal chroma-
tograms as shown in Figure 7.
Careful examination of these chromato-
grams reveals several significant findings.
Among these include the fact that the
chlorinated conjugated diene systems (OCCP
10,000
1,000
100
INTEGRATED
CHROMATOGRAPHIC 10
RESPONSE
(mm2) 1.0
0.1
0.01
HCCPD
•
C
PC
"i
)CCP
HCB
30
10 20 30 40
RETENTION TIME, minutes
HCB
I
t RETENTION TIME
Figure 7. Decomposition profile of Hex wastes.
129
-------
and HCCPD) are thermally labile in compari-
son to the chlorinated benzene systems
(PCBZ and HCB). In addition, other com-
pounds are formed in the decomposition pro-
cess which have greater thermal stability
than either OCCP or HCCPD. Mass spectral
inspection of certain of these intermediate
compounds discloses the incorporation of
oxygen from the flowing air stream in the
reactor into certain of these molecules to
yield products of enhanced thermal resis-
tance. These 'new' species are subsequently
destroyed at higher thermal exposure temper-
atures.
Perhaps one of the more profound obser-
vations is the fact that there is a definite
increase in the concentration of HCB after
the first few thermal exposures as compared
to its concentration in the 'non-decomposed'
sample (300°C exposure). To verify this
phenomenon, a plot of the relative con-
centrations of HCB from the various
chromatograms versus exposure temperature
was prepared and is presented in Figure 8.
UJ <
z F
Ul H
N Z
Z UJ
UJ O
m z
S °
S o
UJ
cr
200
150
100
50
-0-
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
EXPOSURE TEMPERATURE,°C
Figure 8. Concentration of HCB.
From previous work^, it was shown that HCB
is formed as a decomposition product from
several different chlorinated compounds, in
particular, Kepone and Mi rex. In this case,
a sample of HCCPD, a representative major
constituent of Hex waste, was subjected to
a 600°C thermal decomposition test. The re-
sult of this test showed HCB as a major pro-
duct arising from the thermal decomposition
of HCCPD.
The high degree of thermal stability of
HCB in air has been shown in previous
work5. The same study also pointed out the
strong influence of residence time on the
thermal destruction of HCB. In this current
study of Hex waste it is seen that temper-
atures as high as 1000°C are required for
the virtual destruction (99.9980 percent)
of Hex waste. Even at that temperature, HCB
remains at a level of approximately 20 ppm
of the starting sample. It follows, then,
that the possible formation of highly sta-
ble intermediates as well as highly stable
initial materials be considered in specify-
ing conditions for ultimate disposal of
organic waste.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was carried out under Grant
No. R805117-01-0 from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. The authors wish to
acknowledge the support and encouragement
of the EPA project officers: Mr. R. A.
Carnes of the Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory and Dr. L. Weitzman of
the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory. Many colleagues at the Uni-
versity have contributed to this research
effort; however, special thanks are extend-
ed to Mr. R. A. Grant for his skill in
fabricating the quartzware system, and to
Mr. J. M. Aulds for his expertise in solving
many electronic problems.
130
-------
REFERENCES
1. Beynon, J. H. Mass Spectrometry and Its
Applications to Organic Chemistry.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1960.
2. Buser, H. R. and H. P. Bosshardt,
"Identification of polychlorinated
dibenzofuran isomers in fly ash and PCB
pyrolyses", Chemosphere 5:419-29 1978.
3. Chemical Week, p. 24, June 15, 1977.
4. Duvall, D. S., W. A. Rubey, and R. A.
Carnes, High temperature destruction of
kepone and related pesticides. Present-
ed at 173rd American Chemical Society
National Meeting held in New Orleans,
March, 1977.
5. Duvall, D. S. and W. A. Rubey 1977.
Laboratory Evaluation of High-Tempera-
ture Destruction of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls and Related Compounds.
EPA-600/2-77-228, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
63 pp.
6. Polychlorinated biphenyls, report pre-
pared by committee on assessment of
PCBs in the environment, National Re-
search Council 1979.
7. Rubey, W. A., "Design Considerations
Associated with Development of a Ther-
mal Decomposition Analytical System
(TDAS)", UDR-TR-79-34 May, 1979.
8. Safe, S. and 0. Hutzinger. Mass
Spectrometry of Pesticides and
Pollutants, CRC Press, Inc., Cleveland,
Ohio 1973.
9. Vos, J. G. et al "Identification and
toxicological evaluation of chlorinated
dibenzofuran and chlorinated
naphthalene in two commercial
polychlorinated biphenyls". Fd. Cosmet.
Toxicol. 8:625-33, 1970.
131
-------
SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Graham C. Taylor
Industrial Economics Division
University of Denver Research Institute
Denver, Colorado 80208
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a methodology for analyzing the economic and social effects of
alternative approaches to hazardous waste management. The methodology recognizes the role
of sociological factors in decision-making, and overcomes some of the difficulties that
may be encountered if conventional economic analysis for pollution control is applied to
hazardous wastes. The methodology involves the generation of a series of environmental
"threat scenarios" that might arise from the use of different hazardous waste management
techniques, and utilizes a simple interaction model that links policy, technological and
socioeconomic aspects of waste management alternatives. A key element in the methodology
is identification of "parties-at-interest" to the various waste management techniques.
By examining how the parties-at-interest are affected by alternative approaches to haz-
ardous waste management, it is possible to make decisions that are based on economics,
but which recognize sociological factors including equity and public attitudes towards
risk-taking. It is shown that while the methodology simplifies the decision-maker's
task, the ultimate decision will depend on the degree of risk aversion favored, and may
require subjective judgements.
Use of the methodology is illustrated by some results from a case study of hazardous
waste management alternatives for Oregon.
INTRODUCTION
This paper outlines and illustrates a
methodology for making hazardous waste man-
agement decisions that is based on econon-
ics, but is cognizant of sociological
factors. A complete procedure for utiliz-
ing the methodology, together with exten-
sive supporting data, will be published
shortly (Taylor^).
It is believed that the work described
here meets the needs of analysts and
decision-makers for a simple methodology
for analyzing a variety of hazardous waste
management problems. The methodology is
adaptable to specific situations, is firmly
based on economic principles and recognizes
the sociological factors involved. When
necessary, it can be used with compara-
tively limited information, but it can
exploit more sophisticated data when these
are available. Ultimately, however, it re-
quires a human decision-maker to choose
among screened alternatives.
The methodology could be applied to
the choice among alternatives for the
treatment or disposal of a specific waste
stream, or it could be used to help in the
development of a waste management plan for
a geographic area or region. Other poten-
tial applications include analysis of
alternatives for the treatment or disposal
of a particular category of waste at the
regional or national level, and as an aid
to comparing the non-technical aspects of
promising new disposal techniques with
existing ones. Furthermore, the method-
ology could be extended to assist in a wide
variety of decision-making situations (not
necessarily related to waste management)
where costs, risks and benefits cannot
readily be compared, and where sociological
considerations are important.
BACKGROUND
The analysis of the special features
of hazardous waste management that led to
the development of the methodology has
already been published (Taylor and
Albrecht:10 also see Taylor^) and will only
be summarized here. A basic characteristic
of hazardous wastes is that they pose far
stronger threats to man or the environment
than common wastes or pollutants. Because
of the strength of these threats, manage-
ment techniques that may be acceptable for
non-hazardous wastes, such as using the
132
-------
assimilative properties of the environment,
are not suitable for hazardous wastes, and
techniques that are intended to minimize
the exposure of these wastes to the envi-
ronment must generally be used. Conse-
quently, when analyzing the potential
damages from hazardous wastes, the econo-
mist or decision-maker is largely concerned
with threats or risks (e.g., from the
failure of waste management techniques)
rather than with predictable environmental
impacts.
Many hazardous wastes are non-
degradable or persistent. This implies
that environmental effects may be irrevers-
ible, c.rd that it could be necessary to
consider management techniques that provide
for the "perpetual care" of these wastes.
Some hazardous wastes are biologically
magnified or have cumulative effects on
organisms. Waste stream compositions are
subject to substantial variation, and when
the wastes contain multiple components,
antagonistic and synergistic effects can
occur. Although the latter characteristics
may also be found in non-hazardous wastes,
they are particularly significant to the
analysis of hazardous waste management
alternatives, as they make it difficult to
precisely define the threats that are posed
by hazardous wastes.
Because of the special characteristics
of hazardous wastes, traditional approaches
to the economic analysis of pollution
control (e.g., see Freeman, Haveman and
Kneese^) may not be appropriate, and
comprehensive cost-benefit or risk-benefit
studies may be neither feasible (due to
data limitations) nor warranted for many
hazardous waste problems. Instead, the
author has developed a methodology for the
analysis of hazardous waste management
alternatives that is comparatively simple
to apply and which has modest data require-
ments. At the same time, the methodology
encourages a decision-maker to examine the
sociological aspects of a situation and to
evaluate the effects of whatever degree of
risk aversion that he favors. Since the
methodology builds on a cost-benefit
foundation it could also be used to supple-
ment a cost-benefit study in order to take
account of those effects that are difficult
to quantify.
Determining control costs for hazard-
ous waste management presents no special
problems; the major analytical difficulty
lies in the uncertainties associated with
damage functions. Conventional analysis
of environmental damages starts by deter-
mining pollutant emissions, evaluates
exposures and consequent effects on orga-
nisms, and then attempts to place a dollar
value on these effects (Fisher and
Peterson^). Instead, a central feature of
the author's methodology is the use of
environmental "threat scenarios." These
scenarios could be derived from modeling
studies, but they can also be based on
previous experience, public fears or worst
case assumptions. Some of the effects of
these threat scenarios may readily be
valued using well established techniques,
but others may prove difficult to translate
into dollar terms.* However, the mere
description of plausible threat scenarios
is valuable because it helps to identify
the "parties-at-interest," discussed below.
THE SOCIOECONOMIC INTERACTION PROCESS
Another key feature of the methodology
is its explicit recognition of the role
of social factors in hazardous waste man-
agement decision-making. Figure 1 illus-
trates a simple conceptual model that was
developed to enhance our understanding of
the relationships between hazardous waste
management policies, what may physically
happen to the wastes and the effects that
this has on society. The model is divided
into three sections, or levels. These are
the policy level, the technical level and
the socioeconomic level.
The policy level is concerned with the
philosophy of how hazardous wastes are to
be managed. Policy objectives, dealing
with normative issues, are considered to
be an exogenous input to the model, while
approaches to hazardous waste management
represent strategies or plans for the
control of hazardous waste which are con-
sistent with the policy objectives.
*A technique for identifying possible
threats, a bibliography of documented
"incidents" (i.e., threats that have ma-
terialized) and a discussion of the valua-
tion of environmental effects are included
in Taylor.^ Major threats associated with
the various hazardous waste management
techniques are listed in Taylor^ and in
Taylor and Albrecht.l°
133
-------
POI
lev
PW
Oft
l£V
SO
lev
ICY
El
/ POtlCY \
\OBJECTIVES/
APPROACHES
to haiardoul
^ :^_
TECHNIQUES OUTCOMES
for the manogemant (1. a. what physically
of hazardous watte happen*) •*.
^\_ ^.^^ DISPOSITION
fSICAL , E
TECHNICAl
•I
NVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
{'threat*,' etc.)
__tr^='-
ECONOMIC AN(
SOCIAL EFFECTS
of technique*!
\(
ClOfCONO/HIC \
) RESPONSES
of the portiei-
at - interest
^
' PARTIES- X
AT - INTEREST
^ (thote affected) J
?
rrtCTC £ IMPAfTC:
- control coil*
- environmental cottt
- social impacts
Figure 1. Interaction model for
hazardous waste management.
Decisions at the policy level are
largely responsible for determining what
occurs at the technical level, which deals
with what physically happens to the wastes
and to the environment. Thus, selection
of an approach will favor the use of cer-
tain techniques, i.e., the physical methods
(e.g., treatment, landfilling) that may be
used to manage or control hazardous wastes.
The use of a given technique will cause
environmental impacts. These are the phys-
ical effects, or potential effects, that
could arise from the use of various hazard-
ous waste management techniques. As noted
above, they occur largely in the form of
"threats."
Actions at the technical level have
effects at the socioeconomic level, i.e.,
on society. The economic and social
effects are the effects that the techniques
have on man. Effects such as control costs
follow directly from the use of techniques,
while others arise indirectly via environ-
mental impacts (e.g., the threat of land-
fill leaching, leading to groundwater con-
tamination). The economic and social
effects will affect different groups of
individuals or enterprises in different
ways. Each group that is relatively
homogeneous in terms of its interests and
attitudes, and in the way that it is
affected by the economic and social effects
of the techniques constitutes a party-at-
interest. The various parties-at-interest
will respond to the economic and social
effects in ways that will be determined
by their interests and attitudes. Re-
sponses could include opposing or support-
ing a plan or policy, moving to another
location to avoid an adverse effect, etc.
There is feedback from the socioeco-
nomic level to the technical level. Out-
comes represent what physically happens
in terms of hazardous waste management,
allowing for the interactions and linkages
that exist in practice. Thus outcomes
include waste stream changes and disposi-
tions, the responses of the parties-at-
interest and the environmental impacts that
occur or are threatened. Once outcomes are
predicted, they can be examined for con-
formity with policy, and if necessary the
approaches can be modified to provide
results acceptable to the decision-maker.
OUTLINE OF THE METHODOLOGY
Use of the methodology involves three
phases, as follows:
I. Obtain prerequisite infor-
mation for analysis
II. Apply the analytical
framework
III. Decision-making
The steps involved in each of these
three phases are listed in Table 1, and
discussed below.
Prerequisite Information for Analysis
(Phase I)
Definition of the Scope of the Study
(Step I.I)--
There are two aspects to the scope of
the study: the geographic scope, and the
types of wastes to be considered. The
geographic scope will usually be dictated
by the terms of reference of the study,
and is likely to correspond to a political
division or unit, such as a state or a
planning region. If any choice is possi-
ble, it is desirable that the area chosen
be geographically isolated, as otherwise
wastes crossing the study area boundaries
could cause complications.
134
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF THE METHODOLOGY
PHASE I OBTAIN PREREQUISITE INFORMATION
1. Define scope of study.
• geographic area
• types of wastes
2. Inventory existing waste situation.
3. Determine how wastes are currently controlled.
4. Ascertain policy objectives.
PHASE II APPLY ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
1. Develop alternative approaches for hazardous
waste management. (Consider status quo as a
base case.)
For each approach under consideration:
2. Allocate wastes to techniques.
3. Develop threat scenarios, list other impacts
(resource use).
4. Determine economic and social effects.
5. Determine impacts on the parties-at-interest.
6. Project responses of the parties-at-interest.
7. Predict physical outcomes, including future
wastes.
8. Enumerate costs and impacts (discount as
appropriate).
9. Reiterate steps 2 to 8 until each approach
has been suboptimized. Design new approaches
if appropriate.
PHASE III DECISION-MAKING
1. Array alternatives.
2. Eliminate subservient approaches.
3. Check approaches against policy objectives
(e.g., for equity).
4. Examine trade-offs between known costs and
threats.
5. Select an approach, using an appropriate
level of risk aversion.
Two aspects of waste type need to be
considered. These are: the source-related
categories of waste, and within these cate-
gories, the choice of a definition of haz-
ardous waste. Because different categories
of wastes may be amenable to different
control approaches, it is often useful to
distinguish between wastes from different
sources; e.g., industrial process wastes,
radioactive wastes, hospital wastes (patho-
logical), chemical laboratory wastes, sur-
plus pesticides, pesticide containers,
obsolete explosives, etc. Thus, radio-
active wastes are already subject to dif-
ferent regulations than chemical wastes,
while regulations developed to deal with
industrial process wastes might be very
cumbersome if applied to small quantities
of laboratory wastes, or to pesticide
containers.
In many cases, definition of what
makes a waste hazardous will be established
by legislation or some other external
dictate. In these situations, the problem
may become that of predicting which wastes
would test out as hazardous. In other
situations, the analyst must choose a
135
-------
definition of hazardous waste. This is by
no means a simple matter, and reader is
referred to the literature. (Criteria for
determining hazard are reviewed by Taylor;9
also see Kohan.^)
Inventory the Existing Hazardous Waste
Situation (Step 1.2)—
Before detailed analysis can be com-
menced, it is necessary to obtain a general
understanding of the existing hazardous
waste situation within the study area. The
information required will depend upon the
objectives of the study, but for a broad
planning study it would be appropriate to
obtain the following data:
• Sources of wastes (SIC categories
and locations)
• Types of wastes (emphasizing the
hazardous components)
• Annual quantities
• Current dispositions of wastes
Many waste surveys also include esti-
mates of future waste generation. This can
be particularly important when new air and
water pollution controls are expected to
lead to additional wastes for disposal
(e.g., scrubber and water treatment
sludges), or where process technology is
undergoing change.
Determination of Existing Control of
Hazardous Wastes (Step 1.3)—
The existing situation or status quo
(of hazardous waste generation and disposi-
tion) makes a useful "base case" against
which to measure changes that might result
from various alternative approaches.
Hence, it is necessary to determine how
hazardous wastes are currently controlled.
In addition to explicit controls (such as
mandating that for ultimate disposal,
certain wastes must go to a chemical land-
fill or other approved facility), there
may be indirect controls which should be
identified. For example, regular landfills
in the study area might be restricted or
prohibited from accepting industrial
wastes. It is therefore necessary to
examine rules and regulations, licensing
requirements and practices to seek out
indirect ways in which hazardous wastes
are controlled.
Ascertain Policy Objectives (Step 1.4)—
The final prerequisite is to ascertain
the policy objectives that will cover the
approach to hazardous waste management that
is adopted. Policy objectives generally
deal with normative issues, and it is not
infrequent that optimization of a given
approach, or choice between approaches,
will require trade-offs between achieve-
ment of different objectives. The goal of
economic efficiency in the allocation of
resources (i.e., striving towards a poten-
tial Pareto optimum) is often assumed
without question (for example, see Haveman
and Weisbrod;^ Planning Branch, Treasury
Board Secretariat^), even though it may
not be realizable in practice. Other
policy objectives might cover the following
topics:
(i) What is regarded as equitable and
to what extent can departures
from an equitable situation be
tolerated.
(ii) The extent to which policies
should reflect risk aversion.
(iii) Preferences for the use of taxa-
tion and economic incentives as
policy tools.
(iv) The degree to which government
should prescribe and regulate,
as opposed to relying on market
forces backed up by the judicial
process for determining liability
questions.
(v) The degree of autonomy permitted
to relevant individual jurisdic-
tions, agencies, etc.
Some policy objectives may not be specifi-
cally laid down, but will constitute a
tradition of that agency, or may reflect
the mores of that society.
Application of the Analytical Framework
(Phase II)
Application of the analytical frame-
work involves a series of steps that large-
ly follow the interaction model already
described (Figure 1).
Development of Alternative Approaches
for Hazardous Waste Management
(Step II.1) —
Each approach represents a general
philosophy or actual strategy for managing
hazardous wastes that is broadly consistent
136
-------
with the policy objectives. For example,
one approach could be to require all haz-
ardous wastes either to be detoxified or
to be disposed of in a chemical landfill.
Another example could be an incentive ap-
proach to encourage disposal at chemical
landfills by subsidizing their operation.
Different definitions of hazardous waste
and what constitutes detoxification, or
different levels of subsidy, would be con-
sidered as falling within one approach.
Thus an approach is a general strategy,
rather than a detailed plan.
Each of the remaining steps in Phase
II must be applied to every approach.
Allocation of Wastes to Techniques
(Step II.2) —
As a preliminary action it is neces-
sary to determine which waste management
techniques should be considered. Tech-
niques can be ruled out for a variety of
reasons, including local infeasibility
(e.g., evaporation lagooning in wet cli-
mates), technical infeasibility (e.g.,
biological treatment when there are no
biodegradable wastes), conflict with pol-
icy (e.g., the use of ocean dumping), or
excessive cost (e.g., disposal into space).
However, some environmentally unacceptable
techniques, such as surreptitious dumping,
may occur.
The next action is to try to predict
what techniques will be used to control
which wastes. Each approach will have a
different influence on the techniques that
are used. In the absence of any specific
requirements about waste disposal, firms
will favor disposal or treatment techniques
that minimize their costs. However, the
techniques that are actually used will be
influenced by the actions of the various
parties-at-interest, and the firms' desires
to avoid risk. At this stage in the
evaluation process only a tentative alloca-
tion of wastes to techniques is possible,
as outcomes have yet to be predicted.
Development of Threat Scenarios,
Etc. (Step II.3) —
To proceed with the analysis, it is
necessary to identify one or more threats
for each technique being considered. In
many cases it will be possible to establish
that, for a given technique, one threat is
of far greater import than all others. In
this event, a scenario for that threat
should be developed as fully as possible,
while other less significant threats could
merely be identified. However, an attrac-
tive feature of the methodology is that it
provides a flexible framework for analysis
that can readily accommodate inputs from a
variety of sources. For example, if it
becomes apparent that the public is largely
concerned with a particular threat, an
appropriate threat scenario can readily be
included.
In addition to threats, "pervasive
effects" that relate to resource use may
be of interest. Thus, although the eco-
nomic aspects of energy or materials con-
sumption attributable to the use of a given
technique are accounted for via the control
costs, these topics may also be of interest
in their own right, as may land use.
Determination of Economic and
Social Effects (Step II.4) —
The economic and social effects are
the effects that use of the techniques have
on man. These effects include costs and
impacts (i.e., control costs, environ-
mental costs and social impacts) which are
an important output from Phase II of the
methodology (see Step II.8).
Determination of Impacts on the
Parties-at-Interest (Step II.5)—
Determination of the economic and
social effects leads directly to identifi-
cation of the parties-at-interest. Table 2
provides some generalizations about atti-
tudes and behavior of the parties-at-
interest, based on the author's experience
and a survey of research on attitudes
towards the environment (Taylor and
Avitable11). These data can be used to
predict the nature and degree of impact
that a waste management technique may have
on a party-at-interest.* In many situa-
tions it may be more appropriate to con-
duct a parties-at-interest analysis in
terms of approaches (which could encompass
more than one technique), rather than
techniques.
*General matrices of waste management
techniques vs. impacts on parties-at-
interest are presented in Taylor,' and
Taylor and Albrecht.10 A matrix for spe-
cific alternatives is included later in
this paper.
137
-------
TABLE 2. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE ATTITUDES
AND BEHAVIOR OF THE PARTIES-AT-INTEREST
1. Firms desire to minimize their internal costs, including management costs.
2. Wastes are a "nuisance" to manufacturing firms which, in most cases, will not
devote much effort to their disposal, unless this represents a significant
cost to them, or if there is a significant risk of public opposition to the
firm or its products because of its waste disposal practices.
3. In selecting a waste disposal technique, firms will tend to favor those in
which they can dispose of the responsibility for the waste along with the
waste.
4. Large firms are the most likely to be environmentally responsible, as they
have high public visibility. Smaller ones are more variable in their concern
for the environment.
5. Workers are concerned with their own physical safety and with security of em-
ployment. Often, however, the latter outweighs the former in determining
their actions.
6. Local government and environmental officials prefer to adopt policies that
minimize the risk of adverse incidents (i.e., they are strongly risk-averse).
7. Wastes are politically negative, local politicians prefer them to go elsewhere.
8. Residents are concerned with property values. They fear that nearby waste
processing or disposal sites will depress property values.
9. Residents are generally uneasy about wastes. They often object strenuously
to wastes from another jurisdiction, especially another state.
10. Residents have some interest in local employment, tax base, etc.; but the
strength of this interest tends to depend on the employment history in
the area. Local politicians and businessmen often have strong interests
in these areas.
11. Environmentalists wish to minimize all environmental risks and tend to
resist change, with only limited concern about costs.
12. Environmentalists exhibit high "existence values" and may claim that no
compensation would be great enough to justify some adverse environmental
impacts.
13. The public has become cautious about new technologies, especially those
that they do not understand. They are more accepting of established tech-
nologies (hence, the "chemical industry" is less threatening than nuclear
power). Public credulity towards scientific expertise is declining.
14. In some cases, those close to a facility that is perceived to be hazardous
are less concerned about it than those that are somewhat farther away.
15. The public favors conservation and recycling. Most, but not all, accept
the need to dispose of some wastes. However, few individuals are
prepared to go to great lengths to promote their ideals.
138
-------
Projection of Responses of the
Parties-at-Interest (Step II.6)—
grow, the quantities of wastes requiring
disposal may not increase at the same rate.
Responses include a variety of ac-
tions, ranging from raising the price of a
product to cover increased hazardous waste
management costs, to public protest about
potential adverse environmental effects.
Individual responses can, to an extent, be
predicted from a knowledge of the situation
and the parties-at-interest. In evaluating
approaches, it is useful to note possible
responses even if these are not certain.
Some responses are in the nature of
threats; for example, requirement of costly
disposal techniques increases the threat
of illicit disposal (dumping) of wastes.
Prediction of Outcomes (Step II.7)—
Physical outcomes include the waste
dispositions, and some of the responses of
the parties-at-interest, such as household-
ers moving to avoid threats or actual pol-
lution. Waste dispositions (including the
non-disposal options such as process
change and resource recovery) are largely
determined by the initial allocation of
wastes to techniques. If there were no
socioeconomic interactions, simple cost
minimization should determine the ways in
which firms choose to distribute their
wastes among the available techniques.
However, the responses of the parties-at-
interest may also affect the outcomes. For
example, some parties-at-interest might
oppose the use of certain techniques, and
these actions might thereby render these
techniques unavailable to the waste
generators, or cause them to become less
attractive than others. Hence waste dis-
positions other than those based directly
on generator's cost minimization may be
chosen.
At this stage in the analysis, it is
also appropriate to consider how the quan-
tities of wastes will change in the future.
It can be expected that the quantities
generated will exhibit some response to
price, and that increased disposal costs
will encourage in-plant treatment, volume
reduction and resource recovery. Known
plans for new plants or expansions of
existing ones can be factored in at this
stage, but it should be noted that these
will probably use state-of-the-art tech-
nology, in some cases replacing less
advanced systems. Hence, even if economic
activity in the study area is expected to
Environmental threats can also be con-
sidered outcomes. Of course, only those
that materialize constitute actual physical
outcomes, but it seems inappropriate to
segregate definite (though ill-defined)
outcomes such as groundwater system modifi-
cation due to deep well injection, from
those that are probabilistic in nature,
such as lagoon overflow. All are possible
outcomes, while few, if any, are clearly
defined.
Enumeration of Costs and Impacts
(Step II.8) —
Once the waste dispositions are pre-
dicted, it is possible to list all the
costs associated with that approach to
hazardous waste management. These include
generators' costs associated directly with
the disposition of the wastes, and other
costs of control, e.g., administrative
costs, and "social costs" such as subsidies
given for some forms of disposal. In addi-
tion to these costs, there may be some
definite environmental costs or social
impacts that can be specified, such as
changes in property values or noise insult
to residents along a road leading to a
landfill. However, many of the environ-
mental costs and social impacts will be
associated with threats. These should be
listed as part of each threat scenario,
which should also include an estimate of
the probability of the threat occurring—
if a reasonable estimate can be made. For
example, transport accident statistics are
widely available, whereas estimation of
the probability (and consequences) of
landfill liner failure would be much more
difficult.
Reiteration of the Procedure (Step II.9)—
Once the above procedure (Steps II.2
through II.8) has been carried out, and the
outcomes, costs and impacts associated with
any approach are predicted, feedback to
the policy level is possible. An analyst
can examine the results for each approach,
can test them against the policy objectives
and can modify the approaches to improve
the results. In this way he can eubopti-
mize within a given approach. For example,
the analyst could change the number and
location of landfills in order to arrive
at a least-cost land disposal solution, or
139
-------
he could modify the levels of taxes or
subsidies to enhance effectiveness of a
situation. However, changes made at this
step are intended to be comparatively
deterministic in nature; trade-offs involv-
ing judgement are better made in Phase III
when the results of all the approaches are
compared.
Decision-Making (Phase III)
Once the application of the analytical
framework (including any suboptimization
within each approach) is reasonably com-
plete, the decision-maker can compare the
results among approaches. There are a
number of actions, detailed below, that can
simplify the decision-maker's task.
Arraying the Alternatives (Step III.l)—
Although the methodology presented
here draws strongly on the techniques of
cost-benefit and risk-benefit analysis, it
is the author's view that reducing all data
to dollar terms (which would involve using
"expected values" for risks) suppresses too
much information for environmental plan-
ning. Instead, the recommended approach
is to use a "balance sheet" format in which
costs, threats, etc., and their effects on
the partics-at-interest, together with the
latters1 possible responses and the physi-
cal outcomes, are set out for each ap-
proach. The decision-maker is then in a
position to make his own trade-offs between
approaches.
Elimination of Subservient
Approaches (Step III.2)—
There may be some situations in which
one approach can be unequivocably eliminat-
ed from further consideration by compari-
son with another. Consider, for example,
two projects A and B that are designed
to achieve the same objective (e.g., dis-
posal of a waste). If the net monetary
control costs of A exceed those of B, and
the environmental costs of A clearly exceed
those of B (even though the environmental
costs are not quantified), then approach B
is said to dominate approach A, as A is
higher on both types of cost. Hence, as-
suming that the only factors that enter
into the comparison of the two approaches
are the monetary control costs and the
environmental costs, approach A is sub-
servient to B and can be discarded. Analy-
sis for dominance can be a useful way of
eliminating approaches without needing to
fully evaluate some of the costs (Fisher
and Peterson2).
Comparison of Approaches with
Objectives (Step III.3)—
Although the policy objectives may
have been considered during individual
approach suboptimization (Step II.9), a
more detailed scrutiny is appropriate at
this stage, when all the approaches can
be compared. It is possible that no ap-
proach will fully satisfy all the objec-
tives, and that trade-offs between objec-
tives will be necessary. Since these
trade-offs will call generally for the
exercise of some judgement, the decision-
maker should be involved.
For example, decisions about equity
are normative, as there are no established
standards of what is equitable. The
identification of the parties-at-interest
is a particularly useful tool for consider-
ing equity aspects, as it is comparatively
easy to compare the effects of alternative
approaches on each of the parties-at-
interest. By examining the way in which
costs and impacts fall on different
parties-at-interest, the decision-maker
can judge the acceptability of the results.
If appropriate, he could then devise
mechanisms to render a given approach
equitable by finding ways to shift some
of the costs and impacts from one party-
at-interest to another. This process
might compromise some other objective
(e.g., administrative simplicity), calling
for a judgement on the acceptability of
the compromise.
Examination of Cost/Threat Trade-Offs,
and Selection of an Approach
(Steps III.4 and III.5) —
In the final analysis, the decision-
maker will usually find that he has some
comparatively well established costs, and
a series of ill-defined threats. These
costs, and threats (and any other factors,
of importance, such as resource use) will
differ from alternative to alternative.
One approach to decision-making is to make
a series of paired comparisons among the
approaches, examining the trade-offs
between changes in costs and different
environmental threats, or changed probabil-
ities that given threats will materialize.
A complicating aspect of this decision
140
-------
situation is that the known costs may be
borne by one party-at-interest, while the
risks may fall on another.
A decision-maker should remember that
if individuals feel threatened (even if the
threat does not materialize), then their
welfare is reduced; i.e., feeling threaten-
ed is a cost. Practically everybody is
risk-averse to a lesser or greater degree,
and the decision-maker needs to reflect an
appropriate degree of risk aversion in his
choice among alternatives. There is a
growing body of research (which has been
reviewed by Taylor9) on the public accept-
ability of different types of risk, and
this does provide some background informa-
tion for such decisions. For example, a
number of workers have examined how "ac-
ceptable risk" is related to perceived
benefits, as a function of the nature of
the risk. The results are illustrated in
Figure 2, which includes Starr's? well-
known result to that voluntary risks are
ACCEPTABLE
RISK
LOW BENEFIT HIGH
ACCEPTABLE
RISK
ACCEPTABLE
RISK
LOW BENEFIT HIGH
LOW BENEFIT HIGH
ACCEPTABLE
RISK
LOW BENEFIT HIGH
LOW BENEFIT HIGH
Source: Slovic and Fischhoff°
Figure 2. Determinants of acceptable risks.
more acceptable than involuntary ones, and
which also shows that controllable, famil-
iar and known risks are more acceptable
than uncontrollable, new and unknown risks.
A particularly interesting (and possibly-
surprising) finding is that the public
finds that risks with immediate conse-
quences are, ceteris paribus, more accept-
able than those that have delayed conse-
quences (e.g., the dangers of aviation vs.
those associated with pesticides). One
effect of these preferences is to favor
established technology over new technology
(Fischhoff, et al.l).
At present, however, the research on
risk evaluation does not offer specific
guidance on the degree of risk aversion
that should be incorporated into environ-
mental decisions. Hence with the present
state of our knowledge, selection of an
appropriate degree of risk aversion remains
the responsibility of the decision-maker,
who must subjectively incorporate public
feelings into his judgement. However, by
comparing the costs of alternative ap-
proaches, he can assess the known economic
penalty for the choice of one risk (or set
of risks) in preference to another.
CASE STUDY
The author has demonstrated the use of
the methodology by application to two
widely differing situations. In one case,
a decision-maker is required to choose
between alternative techniques for the
disposal of a single high-volume waste
stream (Taylor;9 also see Taylor and
Albrechtl0).
The second demonstration involves a
case study of hazardous waste management
alternatives for Oregon, and some excerpts
from this study are presented here to
illustrate certain aspects of the method-
ology's application. These excerpts do
not constitute a complete demonstration
of the methodology, and even the full case
study (Taylor^) would not be sufficiently
detailed or comprehensive to provide defin-
itive planning guidance to the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality. Fur-
thermore, it should be emphasized that some
of the options considered might not be
acceptable under either the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or Oregon
environmental laws, while the definitions
used to establish whether or not a waste
was hazardous do not coincide with current
regulations.
141
-------
Alternative Approaches for Hazardous
Waste Management in Oregon
Figure 3 provides an overview of four
possible approaches to hazardous waste man-
agement in Oregon, and links these ap-
proaches to the waste management techniques
that may be involved. The four approaches
are arranged, as one moves down Figure 3
from Market Forces to .Regulation by Indus-
try (SIC), in increasing comprehensiveness
and complexity of regulation. Depending on
precisely how the approaches are specified,
this could also correspond to an increasing
degree of risk aversion on a decision-
maker's part, or to increasing anticipated
environmental quality.
The Market Forces approach would
essentially allow waste generators to de-
cide what they wished to do with their
wastes (subject to normal legal remedies
for abuses). This would open up the pos-
sibilities of ocean dumping and deep well
injection-, and might cause changes in
waste streams and resource recovery (the
latter relationships are shown dashed in
Figure 3).
The Status Quo approach, i.e., contin-
uation of the circa 1977 approach to haz-
ardous waste management in Oregon, is used
as a "base case." The emphasis in the
Status Quo is on responsible land disposal.
Regulation by Pathways is intended to
be similar to the approach that the Envi-
TECHNIOUES
*Treatment includes incineration.
Figure 3. Approaches for hazardous
waste management in Oregon.
ronmental Protection Agency is adopting
under RCRA. The concept is to rigorously
control the "paths" that the wastes can
take, but not to mandate any special forms
of treatment technology, etc. The general
effect of this approach would be to enhance
the security of land disposal with respect
to the Status Quo. Economic forces could
tend to cause changes in waste streams and
increase resource recovery.
If wastes were Regulated by Industry
(SIC), this could involve specifying the
control or treatment technology, and/or
the means of disposal for each industrial
category. This approach could be arranged
to give a higher or lower expected level
of environmental quality than Regulation
by Pathways, depending on the levels of
treatment required and the wastes encom-
passed. However, this approach is extreme-
ly complex in terms of the degree of
regulation required. This complexity was
judged to be unjustified when measured
against the achievable benefits, and conse-
quently the approach was discarded, without
detailed evaluation.
Waste Disposal Under Different Approaches^
Analysis showed that, even if accept-
able, the techniques of ocean dumping and
deep well injection were not likely to be
used for economic reasons. The quantity
of suitable wastes generated in Oregon is
too small to make incineration a viable
proposition, and it appears unlikely that
any approach would cause much change in
the extent to which wastes are subjected
to resource recovery. (There is already
a high degree of resource recovery from
hazardous wastes in Oregon.) Other than
for one major industry (primary aluminum
production) it was not feasible to analyze
in-plant waste stream changes, and hence
the analysis centered on examining the costs
and risks arising for the use of various
alternative landfills and lagoons.
Most of Oregon's wastes arise in the
Willamette Valley, a wet area of the state.
Disposal possibilities considered included
the use of "local" landfills (largely in
the Willamette Valley) which would not
provide groundwater protection, and use of
the existing secure disposal site at
Arlington (located in a dry part of the
state, where groundwater protection is not
a problem, but which is some 200-300 road
kilometers from the Willamette Valley). In
142
-------
addition, two other possibilities were con-
sidered, i.e., allowing generator's secure
landfills in the drier portions of the
state, and establishment of a chemical
landfill in the Willamette Valley which
would utilize leachate collection and
treatment facilities and which would accept
only solids and sludges.
Three different schemes were developed
for the .Regulation by Pathways approach.
Details of these are given in Table 3,
which also lists the principal threats
associated with each approach. Table 4
shows an analysis of the impacts of the
different approaches on the parties-at-
interest, while Table 5 compares the five
approaches. By making a series of compari-
sons, the author reduced the final choice
to two approaches, the Status Quo and the
Scheme III of Regulation by Pathways which
utilizes the chemical landfill in the
Willamette Valley in addition to the Ar-
lington secure disposal site. Note, how-
ever, that this step called for the exer-
cise of some judgement (assisted by the
composite parties-at-interest score, shown
in Table 4) since no approach could be
rigorously eliminated because it was sub-
servient to others.
Comparison of Two Approaches
Whereas the elimination of three of
the approaches was reasonably straight-
forward and comparatively non-controversial
(for the data assumed), choice between the
remaining two approaches is more difficult.
Table 6 presents a comparison of these
approaches, using more detail than Table 5.
If it is assumed that, should threats
materialize, they will do so after ten
years (in which event new methods of dis-
posal would be required), then the numerate
part of the decision-maker's choice is
between a present value (PV) of control
costs of $2.3 million for the Status Quo,
and $3.7 million for Scheme III of Regula-
tion by Pathways, a difference of $1.4
million. This is offset by threats (of
unknown probabilities) which would have
PV's of $1.4 million and $0.2 million re-
spectively on materialization. If both
threats were taken as certain to materi-
alize after ten years, the difference
would be $1.2 million, suggesting that
the Status Quo would be the preferred
choice if those were the only factors
involved, and the decision-maker was
not risk-averse. If neither threat
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF APPROACHES
Approach
Waste Dispositions
Principal Threats
Status Quo
Market Forces
Regulation by Pathways
Scheme I
Scheme II
Scheme III
Use of Arlington secure dis-
posal site, and local land-
fills/lagoons
Greater use of local land-
fills than under Status Quo
All wastes to Arlington
secure disposal site
Wastes to Arlington, or gen-
erator's secure landfills
As Scheme II, but Willamette
Valley solids and sludges
sent to chemical landfill
in the Valley
Leaching from local land-
fills, overflow from
lagoons; leading to fish
kills, etc.
As above, but more severe
Washout of disposal site
(unlikely)
Washout of disposal sites
As above, plus Willamette
Valley chemical landfill
liner failure; leading
to limited fish kills,
etc.
143
-------
TABLE 4. IMPACTS OF DIFFERENT HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
APPROACHES ON THE PARTIES-AT-INTEREST
l-l
o
4-1
O
cd
60
4J
•a
•H
01
Qc
Waste Management
M
CU CU
Party-at-Interest
to
8
jj
£
•u
1
Q
O
CO
3
4J
•U
e
V
O
CO
W
3)
>
CU ^-»
iH H
« -H
& *4-l
3 'Major generators of hazardous
waste
2 Minor generators of hazardous
waste
1 Competing firms (different
process)
1 Waste transport sector
1 Firms generating wastes deemed
to be non-hazardous
2 Operators of sanitary landfills
3 Residents/land owners adjacent
to sanitary landfills
2 Operator(s) of chemical land-
fill(s)
2 Residents/land owners adjacent
to Willamette Valley chemical
landfill
1 Resource recovery interests
2 Water supply officials
2 Anglers
2 Environmentalists
5 General public
-2
-3
-1
-3
-3
-1
-3
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
-1
1
1
2
-1
1
1
2
-1
-
-2
-3
-2
-3
-1
-
-1
-1
-1
-2
0
-
2
3
2
3
1
-
1
2
2
2
1
-2
0
0
1
1
1
Composite score -22 -7
17
15
144
-------
TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF FIVE APPROACHES
APPROACH
Market
CONTROL COSTS (dollars per year)
Generators' costs* 98
Administrative costs 50
Total Control Costs 148
THREAT SCENARIOS (ranked by significance
A Transport accidents
B Illicit dumping
C Leaching from local land-
fills and lagoons
D Lagoon overflow
E Odor problems
F Arlington site washout
J Liner failure at Willamette
Valley chemical landfill
OTHER EFFECTS
Transportation distance*
(thousand kilometers)
Parties-at-interest :
composite impact score
Ranking in terms of incentive
for resource recovery
(l=most, 5=least)
Forces
,200
,000
,200
across
5
5
1
1
1
5
NA
40
-22
5
Status Quo
270,200
100,000
370,200
approaches, l=most
4
4
2
2
2
4
NA
120
-7
4
Regulation by Pathways
Scheme III Scheme II Scheme I
306,400
300,000
606,400
significant,
3
3
NA
3
3
3
1
116
6
3
474,400
300,000
774,400
5=least)
2
1
NA
3
4
2
NA
203
15
2
536,500
300,000
836,500
1
1
NA
3
4
1
NA
214
17
1
NA = Not Applicable.
*Excluding materials sent for resource recovery (taken as uniform across approaches).
-------
TABLE 6. COMPARISON OF TWO APPROACHES
APPROACH
Status Quo
Regulation by Pathways
Scheme III
CONTROL COSTS (dollars)
Generators' Annual Costs
Annual Administrative Costs
Total
PV of total control costs3
over 10 years discounted
at 10% per year
As above, over 30 years
THREAT SCENARIOS
Major Threat Scenario
At risk
Dollar estimate
Additional risks
Other Threat Scenarios
A Transport accidents
B Illicit dumping
C Leaching from land-
fills, etc.
D Lagoon overflow
E Odor problems
F Arlington site washout
OTHER EFFECTS
Resource recovery
Energy use: diesel fuel
consumption in trans-
portation
Composite score for impact
on parties-at-interest
(range for 5 approaches
evaluated -22 to +17)
270,200
100,000
370,200
2,274,700
3,489,800
C: Leaching from local
landfills and lagoons
Partial loss of fishing
valued in total at $9.8
million/year.15
Aesthetic damages.
10% loss of fishing
($980,000/year) from
years 11 through 15.
PV=$1,432,100.
306,400
300,000
606,400
3,726,100
5,716,500
J: Liner failure at
secure landfill in
Willamette Valley
Minor loss of fishing
valued in total at $9.8
million/year."
Aesthetic damages.
Counterpumping cost of
$200,000 in year 11.
Fishing loss of $100,000
in years 11 through 15.
PV=$223,200.
Contaminant concentrations might locally become
high enough to render well water unsafe. If
threat occurs, cost of providing alternative
water supply would be involved.
Very minor threat. Very minor threat.
No significant difference anticipated.
(See above)
Judged a minor threat,
c.f. threat C.
Can be controlled to be
a minor threat.
Very minor threat.
Judged very minor threat.
Judged very minor threat.
Can be controlled to be
a minor threat.
Very minor threat.
65 cu.m.
-7
Little difference in incentive.
63 cu.m.
Excluding wastes shipped for resource recovery.
This is the annual value of fishing on the relevant portions of the Willamette River
system.
'Incentive is reduced for Willamette Valley solids and sludges and increased for other
wastes.
146
-------
materialized, the difference in the PV's
over a 30 year technological life would
be $2.2 million, providing an indication
of the direct cost of making the less risky
choice.
In actually making the choice, there
are, however, many other factors to be con-
sidered, some of which are indicated in
Table 6. Also, it must be remembered that
although the threats may not materialize,
if they do, it is possible that they could
cause greater damage, or materialize ear-
lier, raising the PV's given above. If
one examines the impacts on the parties-at-
interest, it will be seen that .Regulation
by Pathways appears more desirable than
the Status Quo (composite score 6 vs. -7).
This might well be significant enough to
cause a decision-maker to prefer the Regu-
lation by Pathways approach, especially if
he is relatively risk-averse and is con-
cerned about the additional unquantified
risks (e.g., of water supply contamination)
which would be greater for the Status Quo.
How the decision-maker weights the
many factors involved in choosing between
these alternatives is (in absence of any
specific agency policy guidance) up to
him, although he should try to reflect
public attitudes towards risk-taking in
his judgement. Any decision should also
be tested to see how sensitive it is to
the various assumptions, particularly those
like the threat scenarios that are somewhat
arbitrary or based on inadequate data.
However, the author hopes that by care-
fully arraying and examining these
difficult-to-quantify and subjective
aspects, the decision-maker will be helped
to make good decisions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported in part by
Grant //R804661 from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and the author is
pleased to acknowledge the encouragement
and assistance of his Project Officer,
Oscar W. Albrecht. Dr. Fred Bromfeld of
the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality gave considerable help in connec-
tion with the Oregon case study, while
many members of the University of Denver
Research Institute contributed in diverse
ways.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, S. Lichten-
stein, S. Read and B. Combs. How
Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric
Study of Attitudes Towards Technologi-
cal Risks and Benefits. Report //76-1,
Decision Research, Eugene, Oregon,
1976. 29+ pp. [Also published in
Policy Sciences. 9, 1978. pp. 127-
152.]
2. Fisher, A.C., and F.M. Peterson. "The
Environment in Economics: A Survey,"
Journal of Economic Literature, 14(1):
1-33, 1976.
3. Freeman, A.M. Ill, R.H. Haveman and
A.V. Kneese. The Economics of Environ-
mental Policy. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York, New York, 1973.
198 pp.
4. Haveman, R.H., and B.A. Weisbrod. "The
Concept of Benefits in Cost-Benefit
Analysis: With Emphasis on Water Pol-
lution Control Activities." In: Cost
Benefit Analysis and Water Pollution
Policy, H.M. Peskin and E.P. Seskin,
eds. The Urban Institute, Washington,
D.C., 1975. pp. 37-66.
5. Kohan, A.M. A Summary of Hazardous
Substance Classification Systems. EPA/
530/SW-171, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975.
59 pp.
6. Planning Branch, Treasury Board
Secretariat. Benefit-Cost Analysis
Guide. Information Canada, Ottawa,
Canada, 1976, 80 pp.
7. Slovic, P., and B. Fischhoff. "How
Safe is Safe Enough? Determinants of
Perceived and Acceptable Risk." In:
The Management of Nuclear Wastes,
L. Gould and C.A. Walker, eds. Yale
University Press, n.d. [Draft.]
8. Starr, C. "Social Benefit Versus
Technological Risk: What is Our
Society Willing to Pay for Safety,"
Science. 165(3899):1232-1238, 1969.
9. Taylor, G.C. Economic Analysis of
Hazardous Waste Management Alternatives:
Methodology and Demonstration. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio [in press]. 305 pp.
147
-------
10. Taylor, G.C., and O.W. Albrecht. "A
Framework for Economic Analysis of
Hazardous Waste Management Alterna-
tives." In: Land Disposal of Hazard-
ous Wastes, D.W. Shultz, ed. EPA-600-
9-78-016, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978.
pp. 55-73.
11. Taylor, G.C., and N.S. Avitable.
"Attitudes to the Environment," Appen-
dix D in Economic Analysis of Hazard-
ous Waste Management Alternatives:
Methodology and Demonstration, op.
cit.
148
-------
THE USE OF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Robert C. Anderson and Roger C. Dower
Environmental Law Institute
1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
ABSTRACT
Hazardous waste management poses special problems to decision makers interested
in structuring an effective and efficient regulatory policy. This paper addresses
the applicability of cost-benefit techniques as tools for assisting regulatory policy
development for hazardous wastes. The underlying assumption is that regulatory
strategies based on considerations of costs and benefits will improve resource allocation.
The paper is divided into two main sections. First, we outline the important
characteristics of cost-benefit analysis and its variations. Most notably risk-
benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. We stress some obvious difficulties in
applying these techniques to issues of environmental, health and safety risks; such
as uncertainty over health effects and economic costs, questions of inter- and intra-
generational equity and the proper value for human life. Where possible, these
important issues are illustrated with examples from actual federal rulemaking pro-
cesses. Undoubtedly, the same issues will arise in using cost-benefit techniques for
hazardous waste management.
Second, we offer some tentative observations on current command and control
approaches to hazardous waste management and the potential for improvement that could
be achieved from viewing regulatory alternatives in a cost-benefit perspective. For
example, a dearth of information on the location and hazard characteristics of many
sites and the lack of incentives for private provision of this information may severely
limit the effectiveness of the regulatory approach. Creating incentives to reveal
information and to reduce the flow of hazardous wastes into the environment should
improve the cost effectiveness of hazardous waste management programs.
INTRODUCTION
A major environmental problem con-
fronting the nation over the coming decade
is the proper government response to the
management of hazardous wastes. It has
been estimated that over 30,000 hazardous
waste dump sites exist nationwide of which
several hundred pose immediate health haz-
ards, and that the costs of upgrading all
sites to acceptable standards could be as
high as $50 billion. The magnitude of the
costs and the severity of the problems
require that every effort be made to in-
sure that resources aimed at the problem
are utilized in an effective and productive
manner.
EPA has structured a preliminary
response to several aspects of this prob-
lem. The Agency is developing and imple-
menting regulations under Subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) to place technological and perfor-
mance standards on all currently active
hazardous waste disposal sites as well as
other activities in the generation, trans-
portation and disposal of hazardous wastes.
In terms of inactive or active sites that
are defined emergency situations, litiga-
tion action against current owners can be
taken under Section 311 of the Clean Water
Act or Section 7003 of RCRA. While no
strict regulatory structure exists for
coping with presently safe inactive sites,
efforts to identify sites, disposed
materials and disposal methods are under-
way.
This paper examines these regulatory
problems facing EPA from a cost-benefit
perspective and discusses the extent to
which such methodologies can be used to
aid EPA in its response to the problems of
149
-------
hazardous waste management. The implicit
question underlying the analysis is whether
the regulatory strategies are or can be
structured so that resources are allocated
efficiently. Our research effort has been
divided into two phases; first, a review
of a number of federal regulatory decisions
regarding health, safety and environmental
risk within the general framework of cost-
benefit analysis, and second, the applica-
tion of insights gained in this review to
the special problems of managing hazardous
waste sites. As of this writing, the first
component of the research is sufficiently
complete to permit a fairly detailed dis-
cussion here. .Much work remains to be done
in the second component of the study, and
consequently, only a few tentative hypothe-
ses can be offered at this writing.
I. CHARACTERIZATION OF COST-BENEFIT, RISK-
BENEFIT AND COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
Cost Benefit analysis is the single
most important perspective for evaluating
proposed public expenditures. Its corner-
stone, the principle of economic efficiency,
is stated clearly in the Flood Control Act
of 1936. This act requires that only those
projects for which the "benefits to whom-
soever they accrue exceed their costs"
shall be submitted for congressional action.
Stated in other terms, this principle
asserts that if the beneficiaries of a
project had to bear the entire cost of the
project, they would consider it worthwhile.
The criterion that benefits exceed
costs applies to entire projects as well
as their constituent parts and to small
modifications thereon. Thus, one must
consider both marginal costs and marginal
benefits as small' changes are made in a
project plan and compare these incremental
changes with the relevant alternatives.
In a cost-benefit analysis, all con-
sequences are converted to a common unit
of measurement, most often dollars but
conceivably other measures such as lives
saved or environmental quality could be
used as well. When applied to the manage-
ment of hazardous wastes or other environ-
mental, health and safety risks, cost-
benefit analysis runs into the delicate
and controversial issue of the prices to
be placed on various outcomes. For example,
what price should be placed on a change
of one percent in the risk of an individual
developing cancer? Or what price should
be attached to the preservation of a given
level of water quality in a stream?
Benefits are normally measured by the
amount that beneficiaries would be willing
to pay to obtain the goods and services
that flow from the program. In the case
of health, safety and environmental risks,
the beneficiaries frequently are not iden-
tifiable individuals. Rather, the benefits
typically flow to larger populations and
are best expressed as a reduction in the
statistical probability of incurring an
adverse health effect.
Many government decision makers would
reject the notion that health, safety or
environmental risks should be valued at
the amount individuals are willing to pay.
They would prefer to use their own judg-
ments of a program's value, giving little
regard to numerical estimates of benefits
at costs. A basic premise of our research
effort is that actions and decisions made
in this manner without consideration of
benefits and costs will tend to be waste-
ful of resources and will lead to end
results that are not as highly valued by
society.
Unfortunately, a number of difficulties
arise when one attempts to employ cost-
benefit analysis for the management of
hazardous wastes. First, rarely does
scientific information permit a full deter-
mination of the health and environmental
risks posed by hazardous wastes. Not only
will information on the constituents of
the site be incomplete, but also, in the
case of abandoned sites, location and the
magnitude of release of various substances
to the environment may be equally uncertain.
Moreover, the actual human and environmen-
tal exposure and ultimate risk may be poor-
ly known, even when the actual releases
of various substances can be monitored.
Second, even if the precise health
and environmental risks were known, one
would still need a means of valuing those
risks. This requires in essense that one
place dollar values on small changes in
the probability of such adverse outcomes
as cancer, heart disease and ecosystem
disruption. These risks present quite a
different situation from more traditional
uses of cost-benefit analysis such as
water resource planning. Health and
150
-------
environmental risks are not traded on mar-
kets, though sometimes they may be a com-
ponent of market transactions — as when
wage premiums are paid for risky employ-
ment. But unlike water, not everyone is
participating in these transactions. Some
individuals would not accept risky forms
of employment even with wage premiums
ten or twenty times as large as those which
exist. Thus, inferences based upon market
transactions, even where possible, may
understate the value of health, safety and
environmental risks to certain, perhaps
large, segments of society. The alterna-
tive of directly questioning individuals
about their preferences for risk encounters
another difficulty. The individuals have
little or no experience in acquiring and
consuming the commodity, "reduction in risk
to life." And how many can evaluate the
significance of small changes in probabili-
ties for the adverse outcomes? In fact,
experimental evidence of human behavior
indicates that individuals underrate, in
an expected value sense, the losses from
low probability low cost outcomes, but
overrate very low probability and highly
adverse outcomes. (For an interesting
treatment of common biases in the inter-
pretation of statistical information see
reference 8. This specific bias is also
discussed in reference 5.)
Although valuing health effects
involves difficult questions of the appro-
priate methodology and assumptions, the
underlying philosophy of. cost-benefit
analysis, that any group should pay for
goods and services the amount that they are
worth, forms a guiding principle for haz-
ardous waste management. So, for example,
if an additional unit of risk reduction,
through regulation of hazardous waste sites,
is valued at $10 and it costs only $8 to
produce that reduction in risk, resources
should be devoted to that program. To the
extent that exact valuation of the risks
cannot be undertaken, variants of cost-
benefit analysis, discussed below, may
be implemented that at least approximate
the solution ideally obtained through a
more rigorous framework.
Risk-benefit analysis starts from the
same initial point as cost-benefit analysis
in evaluating all consequences of an action.
However, risk-benefit analysis stops short
of a total aggregation of consequences,
choosing instead to divide consequences
into two or more categories such as risks
to health, safety and the environment on
one hand and economic benefits on the
other hand. These two categories of
consequences would then compete against
one another in the decision process. In
general it is not necessary to place a
value on the risks imposed.
Hazardous waste management decisions
may be more complex than many of the
familiar risk-benefit situations. For
example, information must be obtained
concerning the existence and magnitude
of hazard posed by abandoned waste disposal
sites. How much information to seek is
a complex issue and is even further
complicated by the fact that in some
instances the acquisition of information
through physical sampling may increase the
risks of subsequent releases to the environ-
ment.
As noted, in risk-benefit analysis
one seeks to quantify all of the conse-
quences of a regulatory decision, trading
one group of consequences off against a
second (or third) group of consequences.
One feature is that the final decision on
how to trade risks off against benefits
is not resolved explicitly. In this mode
of analysis, certain alternatives can be
shown to dominate others, thereby narrow-
ing the range of decisions to be considered.
However, one usually cannot eliminate
alternatives by simply comparing the ratio
of benefits to risks since choices based
on ratios are appropriate only when pro-
jects can be extended in scale. Some of
these points are illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1
RISK-BENEFIT TRADEOFFS
Increasing
Risks
Increasing Benefits
Alternative A is preferred to B be-
cause it offers less risk for the same
level of benefits; likewise C is preferred
to B. Alternative A is preferred to D
151
-------
only if A can be extended in scale, dou-
bling to A* where it now offers greater
benefits and less risk than D. If scale
expansion is not possible, one cannot
choose easily between A and D.
Cost-effectiveness analysis is a
generalized version of which risk-benefit
analysis is the special case. Here, the
consequences are aggregated into categories
but there is no attempt to compare the two.
Cost-effectiveness analysis sets the con-
straint that for a given level of control
(or risk reduction) the costs of achieving
that goal are minimized. Alternatively
this can be expressed as maximizing the
amount of control (or risk reduction) for
a given level of expenditure. It is possi-
ble, therefore, that costs could exceed
benefits in a cost effective solution. As
in the case of risk-benefit analysis, cost-
effectiveness techniques do not strictly
require the valuation of risk reduction,
only the measurement of the amount by
which risks are reduced.
This approach can be extremely useful
in choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches or controls to meet a set
standard for emission or some other environ-
mental parameter. For example, when the
Occupational Safety and Health Administra-
tion (OSHA) promulgated the cotton dust
and coke oven emission standards, which
were primarily technology based regula-
tions, questions were raised as to whether
other types of controls, such as personal
protection devices, would provide the same
level of risk reduction at a significantly
lower cost.
Other Approaches
One criterion that provides a tempting
alternative to cost-benefit approaches is
"minimax" regret under which decision
makers minimize the chance that the worst
thing can happen. This approach provides
a comfortable rationale for the decision
maker who wants to protect against a major
failure but is not concerned about a steady
stream of small, possibly unpublicized
losses as a consequence. For example, by
mandating extensive testing for new drugs,
an agency may protect against a very harm-
ful drug reaching the market, but only at
the expense of blocking the approval of
many other beneficial new drugs if their
total safety cannot be demonstrated con-
clusively. Such decisions would likely
meet with opposition from a fully informed
public, for if the worst outcome is highly
improbable it is likely that most individ-
uals would not seek such expensive insur-
ance.
Another alternative to cost-benefit
analysis that has recently been suggested
involved soliciting public views on the
value of risk reduction in general. (This
concept was discussed in a presentation
by Edna Loehman of the Stanford Research
Institute at the American Economics Asso-
ciation's 1979 Annual Meeting in Atlanta.)
This information, as well as other char-
acteristics of a specific regulatory pro-
gram (such as level of control, who is
affected, costs, etc.) is placed within
the framework of a political decision
model that predicts whether the public
would vote to undertake the particular
program. An interesting aspect of the
model is that voter response is not a
function of net benefits but of the ratio
of costs to benefits. While the required
socio-economic survey and benefit infor-
mation for this technique may be costly
to obtain, it represents an intriguing
alternative to the other more standard
approaches.
This introductory discussion suggests
that the use of cost-benefit analysis and
its variants can provide improvements in
the manner in which society allocates
resources for the reduction of environ-
mental, health and safety risks. For
example, hazardous waste managers review-
ing inactive disposal sites often face
situations where there is a small pro-
bability that a serious pollution incident
could result (e.g., a Love Canal) and a
large probability that the wastes will
remain safely contained. If waste manage-
ment practices are all geared to prevent
the next Love Canal, a serious misalloca-
tion of resources could result. That is,
the health, safety and environmental im-
provement purchased by guarding against
future Love Canals may provide these
improvements at significantly greater
cost than if resources were devoted to
improvements in other areas. This point
is dramatized in Table 1, which provides
estimates of the cost per life saved in
several environmental, health and safety
programs supported, operated or mandated
by the government.
152
-------
The very large differences in cost per
life saved indicate the great potential
for using resources more effectively.
Were OSHA to abandon its plans to protect
so fully against occupational exposures to
coke oven emissions and acrylonitrile and
permit some of the money to be spent in
areas where lives are saved more cheaply,
hundreds of additional lives could be saved.
For example, if $10 million could be di-
verted from the protection of coke oven
workers, where the average cost per life
saved is probably at least $5 million, to
the elimination of railroad crossings,
where the cost per life saved is more like
$100,000, giving up two coke oven worker
lives might save the lives of one hundred
motorists.
Table 1
ESTIMATES OF COST PER LIFE SAVED
Cost per Life Saved
Program (dollars)
Medical expenditure
Kidney transplant 72,000
Dialysis in hospital 270,000
Dialysis at home 99,000
Traffic safety
Recommended for cost-
benefit analysis by the
National Safety Council 37,500
Estimate for elimination
of all railroad grade
crossings 100,000
Military policies
Instructions to pilots
on when to crash-land
airplanes 270,000
Decision to produce a
special ejector seat
in a jet plane 4,500,000
Mandated by regulation
Coke oven emissions A,500,000 to
standard, OSHA 158,000,000
Proposed lawn mower
safety standards, 240,000 to
CPSC 1,920,000
Proposed standard for
occupational exposure
to acrylonitrile, 1,963,000 to
OSHA 624,976,000
Source: Reducing Risk to Life, Martin J.
Bailey, American Enterprise Institute, 1979.
One of the most significant underlying
reasons for these large differences in cost
per life saved in Table 1 is that OSHA
and other regulatory agencies typically
have been given strict legislative man-
dates that limit the flexibility for more
effective agency decision making. As a
case in point, promulgation of the coke
oven emission standard was directed by
Section 655(b)(5) of the Occupational,
Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) which
states in relevant part
The Secretary...shall set the
standard which most adequately
assures, to the extent feasible,
on the basis of the best avail-
able evidence, that no employee
will suffer material impairment
of health or functional capacity
even if such employee has regular
exposure to the hazard dealt
with by such standard for the
period of his working life...
In addition to the attainment of
the highest degree of health and
safety protection for the employee,
other considerations shall be the
latest available scientific data
in the field, (and) the feasi-
bility of the standards.... 29
U.S.C. §655fb)(5) (1970).
It is clear that the Agency is to give
greater emphasis to reducing health
effects than it is to costs. Although
feasibility is required, the term has been
loosely defined by the courts to include
technological feasibility (currently in
use or "looming on the horizon") and
economic costs (allowing some firms to
go out of business but not to force "mas-
sive dislocation"). While there is a
legal question as to whether OSHA must
explicitly weight costs and benefits,
current Agency interpretation dismisses
this requirement. The OSH Act provides
little leeway to the OSHA if a substance
is known to be toxic; it must regulate
up to the point of economic and technologi-
cal feasibility, regardless of the rela-
tionship between costs and benefits.
A similar but distinct example
involves the Food and Drug Administration's
(FDA) handling of saccharin and aflatoxins
under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act
(FDCA). Both substances are known to be
potential carcinogens in humans, saccharin
very weak and aflatoxins relatively
strong. Because the FDCA distinguishes
153
-------
between food additives such as saccharin
and naturally occuring substances such as
aflatoxin, placing much greater emphasis
on additives, FDA is forced to regulate
saccharin closely while limited action is
taken against aflatoxin.
In general, legislative mandates
affect the extent to which regulatory
resources can be allocated. Although sev-
eral recent acts have been passed or
amended with language that permits or
requires an Agency to compare in some
fashion the costs and benefits of proposed
regulations, nothing in present regulatory
laws calls for an integrated strategy
across agencies to produce the greatest
improvement in health, safety and the
environment for the resources that are used.
(We note, however, that in recent sessions
a number of bills have been introduced that
would mandate some form of cost-benefit
analysis for social regulations.)
II. DIFFICULTIES WITH THE COST-BENEFIT
APPROACH
The case has been argued that a care-
ful consideration of the costs and benefits
of proposed governmental actions may lead
to better decisions. It is now appropriate
to reflect upon some of the difficulties
with the approach, several of which have
already been alluded to. In reviewing
these problem areas it is important to
recognize that decision mechanisms other
than cost-benefit analysis are plagued
with problems that are at least as serious.
Therefore, the difficulties in the cost-
benefit approach might best be viewed as
areas where future attention should be
devoted, rather than an indictment of the
whole approach.
Scientific Evidence
The area that has been singled out by
the EPA Science Advisory Board as most
damaging to the cost-benefit mode of
analysis for health, safety and environ-
mental regulations is the paucity of hard
scientific evidence on most of the sub-
stances the EPA will be regulating. The
Science Advisory Board, on which sit a
number of prominent environmental and
resource economists, concluded recently
that the poor quality of much of the
scientific information on releases, ex-
posures and ultimate human health impacts
of man}- environmental pollutants renders
virtually useless the direct application
of cost-benefit analysis for many of the
regulatory decisions that EPA will be
facing.
The weakness of much scientific
information regarding pollution and the
environment is clearly illustrated by the
controversy over evidence on the cargino-
genic properties of saccharin. At the
time of the proposed rules, a series of
epidemiological and animal (rat) studies
on saccharin were available to FDA. The
epidemiological studies were inconclusive
as to whether saccharin caused an in-
creased risk of bladder cancer among the
consuming population. The animal studies,
on the other hand, showed, in general, a
statistically significant increase in
bladder tumors among second generation
male rats. All of these studies were
plagued by general methodological con-
cerns (for example, the ability of epidemi-
ological studies to detect low level health
risks) as well as questions more applicable
to specific tests (such as the purity of
saccharin used.
In the face of conflicting and un-
certain evidence, FDA chose to heavily
rely on the results of a two-generational
animal study in concluding that saccharin
is carcinogenic. Even then, questions
were raised as to how these results could
be used to estimate the decrease in the
risk of developing bladder cancer among
consumers that could be attributed to the
proposed regulation. Different techniques
for extrapolating results from rats to
humans as well as different techniques for
extrapolating the high doses fed to rats
to the low doses consumed by humans lead
to remarkably divergent estimates of risk
reduction. Although FDA finally estimated
a reduction of between 0 and A lifetimes'
risk of developing bladder cancer per
100,000 people would result from banning
saccharin, this estimate of the health
benefits of regulation is highly uncertain
and depends crucially on several signifi-
cant assumptions.
With such uncertainty surrounding
the benefits from controlling a substance
for which extensive testing has been done,
the outlook may appear bleak for benefit
estimation on substances for which little
evidence is available. Such a conclusion
154
-------
would cast considerable doubt on the wisdom
of pursuing a benefit analysis of future
regulatory actions. If the scientific data
base is weak, how can benefits be estimated?
In fact, there are many situations where
some benefits can be fairly accurately
measured because the scientific and engi-
neering data are reasonably good. A case
in point is the upcoming EPA regulation on
corrosive water. While the adverse health
impact of corrosive water is still open
to speculation and doubt, the damages to
municipal water supply systems are quite
well known. Cost-benefit analysis can
be used to determine the optimal treatment
of drinking water to protect supply systems
and any health benefits can simply be
viewed as an unquantified benefit. While
the actual level of corrosivity reduction
that is chosen may be somewhat less than
ideal, were all factors known and con-
sidered fully, the regulatory decision will
at a minimum be guaranteed to produce sig-
nificant net benefits to society. If
decision makers can be certain of produc-
ing positive net benefits, they can act
with much greater confidence than at
present where allegations are frequently
heard that the benefits of many of the
nation's health, safety and environmental
regulations are outweighed by the costs
of achieving compliance.
Even when the scientific data base
does not permit accurate estimation of the
human health effects from a substance being
considered for regulatory action, there
exist a number of methods, some of which
have already been mentioned in reference
to saccharin, for making informed guesses
as to effects. One of the more appealing
is the use of subjective probability
assessments provided by experts on the
issue. (A recent example of this type
of analysis is found in reference 9.)
In such a procedure, the several steps from
release and exposure to ultimate health
effects are carefully described. A panel
of experts is convened to evaluate the
parameters for each step. The resulting
range of opinion can be used both as
a measure of the central tendency of
expert opinion and as an index of the
dispersion of uncertainty inherent in
that body of opinion.
When scientific data is better, a
number of other approaches may be used.
Where data permit it, a popular approach
for assessing the possible long run
human health effects from exposure to a
suspect substance is to use multiple
regression analysis, expressing possible
adverse health effects as the dependent
variable and exposures to suspect sub-
stances as the independent variables.
(See references 2 and 6.) In such an
assessment, it is critical to control for
other variables that may also affect
health — such as income, occupation, age
and smoking, eating and drinking habits
of the population. Most criticisms of
the epidemiological approach, especially
from the scientific community, center
around the inadequacy of these control
variables and the failure to specify the
models according to well-formulated
scientific hypotheses. While these'
criticisms are. certainly valid and point
out the limitations of epidemiological
studies in general, there remains the
fact that epidemiological approaches can
provide useful if imprecise information
on the linkages between past exposures
and current health effects.'
A related approach termed an epi-
sodic study can be used to measure short-
run health impacts from current exposures
to a substance. In episodic studies
multiple regression analysis may again be
used to explain hospital admissions, for .
example, with data on current or recent
population exposures to various air
pollutants. Such approaches reveal little
or nothing about long run impacts, but
they do reveal a wealth of information
on short-run morbidity impacts. These
latter impacts may be just as interesting
to the regulatory agencies as are chronic
morbidity and mortality.
Yet another possible means of expres-
sing environmental risks is termed the
fault tree. This approach has been widely
used to assess the probability of cata-
strophic events involving safety — as for
example the safety of nuclear reactoi-s. (10)
In a fault tree assessment, all known path-
ways to an ultimate catastrophy are
delineated and probabilities are attached
at each separate division in the path.
The probability of adverse outcomes is
obtained by summing the probabilities of
successfully following any of the separate
paths to disaster. The main criticism
of this approach is not so much that the
probability of the events described is
155
-------
accurate, but that unknown pathways exist
and may always exist for new technologies.
Thus, in the case of hazardous waste
management, one may be able to define
probabilities of leakages to the environ-
ment for all known pathways, but just as
one confidently places a very low proba-
bility on an adverse outcome a human
operator error or some other event occurs
that casts doubt upon the validity of the
analysis.
Just as significant uncertainty may
be associated with benefit estimates, the
costs associated with a particular regula-
tory program may also be difficult to
quantify accurately. During the rule-
making process for the OSHA coke oven
emissions standard, several groups pro-
vided cost estimates for the regulations.
These estimates, arrayed in Table 2,
reflect the wide variation in the assump-
tions made concerning: a) how the regula-
tions are to be interpreted; b) the length
of time before 100% compliance is achieved;
c) and the cost elements that should be
included in the analysis. Perhaps more
importantly, though, is the difficulty
of predicting the actual costs that will
be incurred by an industry given shifts in
the utilization of resources and technolo-
gies within a firm that occur after the
regulation is in place. For example,
during the course of the rulemaking pro-
cess on OSHA's vinyl chloride standard,
industry claimed that the regulation
would impose huge costs on the industry.
In fact, though, actual costs have been
significantly lower due to production and
technology shifts in the industry. (See
reference 4.)
Cost measurement difficulties are
compounded by the expense of acquiring
information on firms in the industry.
For all but the smallest industries, it is
not possible to estimate costs for each
firm. Rather, agencies must rely on model
plant data which is extrapolated to the
industry as a whole. If the model plant
is descriptive of much of the industry,
such analysis may provide a realistic
picture of the costs imposed by a regula-
tion, but if the industry is particularly
heterogeneous, this approach may reveal
little about plant closings, unemployment
and the like. Furthermore, in estimating
these costs, Agencies must rely primarily
on industry provided data. If an industry
feels that the regulation will cause
significant financial harm, it may have
an incentive to bias upwards the cost
estimates it gives to the Agency.
Finally, it is noteworthy that the
usual engineering-type cost-estimates
generated during the course of a rule-
making process are not, in the form
normally reported, appropriate for use
in a cost-benefit analysis. In a strict
sense, the costs of a regulatory program
are measured by the change in consumer
and producer surplus that result from
price changes. Calculation of surplus
losses or gains requires a knowledge of
the market demand and supply conditions
for the affected commodity and the shift
in the supply of the commodity due to
increased regulatory costs. Rarely are
these parameters developed. If they were,
the social or welfare cost of a regulation
would generally appear lower than the
simple capital and operating and mainte-
nance costs usually provided.
This point is illustrated by the
cost estimates provided by FDA during
promulgation of the proposed saccharin
ban. These costs were estimated to range
from $715-$2079.6 million and included
lost sales to diet food and beverage
industries, lost sales to the sole domestic
producer of saccharin and the costs of
reformulating products with alternative
sweeteners. (These estimates do not
include the costs of banning the use of
saccharin in drug products. These were
treated separately by the FDA.) These
costs are misleading in two respects.
First, the value of lost sales is not a
true cost since resources previously used
in the production of products containing
saccharin are transferred to other produc-
tive services which generate other sales.
There is a short-run cost involved in the
loss of the production capacity. In the
long-run, though, resources will be
employed in other uses. If the value of
lost sales is subtracted from the cost
estimates, the potential cost of the
regulation in terms of increased production
costs is in the range of $10".>-$110.3
million.
Second, if these costs were passed
on to consumers through price increases
and then translated into consumer surplus
losses, they would, most probably, be
156
-------
Table 2
COST OF COMPLIANCE ESTIMATES FOR
PROPOSED OSHA COKE OVEN EMISSION STANDARD
(in millions of dollars)
D.B.
D.B.
D.B.
Source
of Estimate
Associates-1*
Associates-2
Associates II
Total Capital
Costs
451
451
860
Annual
Capital Costs
68
45
130
Other
Annual Costs
173
173
1,150
Total
Annual Costs
241
218
1,280
Council on Wage and
Price Stability
(CWPS)-l
CWPS-2
Steel Workers**
410
410
200
62
41
30
98
98
173
160
139
203
Contractors for the Food and Drug Administration
**United Steelworkers of America
significantly less. This is due to the
fact that the proposed ban does not
restrict all uses for saccharin and the
demand for saccharin products may be quite
elastic, considering the number of alter-
natives to presweetened saccharin-contain-
ing products. The Council on Wage and
Price Stability estimated the lost consumer
surplus at $144-$182 million, but only by
assuming an inelastic demand and a total
ban on saccharin consumption.
Perhaps less troublesome than the
inadequacy of scientific information to
support many benefits assessments and the
difficulty in accurately calculating costs
are the methodological concerns economists
have with the cost-benefit approach itself.
These latter issues revolve around the
proper treatment of uncertainty, the dis-
tribution of costs both intertemporally
and among members of society today, and
the values to attach to certain benefits,
particularly human lives saved. Useful
techniques have been identified that help
one to cope with uncertainty in program
evaluation. One can compute the expected
value of benefits and costs by identify-
ing the benefits and costs associated with
each possible outcome and aggregating
these values using as weights the pro-
bability of each outcome.
With respect to distributional con-
siderations, economics has little normative
advice to offer. While our sensibilities
may be offended by regressive programs
that produce positive net benefits,
economists are quick to point out that
income transfers can always be arranged
to compensate for adverse distributional
considerations. Even when intergeneration-
al equity is involved, it is often possible,
at least in theory, for the beneficiaries
in one generation to set aside a portion
of the benefits to serve as compensation
to the victims in some future generation.
Only when the potential adverse outcomes
in the future are large, as may be the
case for ozone depletion by chlorofluoro-
carbons, may it be impossible for current
beneficiaries to compensate future losers.
A recent study be economists at
Resources for the Future and the Univer-
sities of Wyoming and New Mexico is one
of the first careful attempts by economists
to determine the intergenerational dis-
tribution consequence of cost-benefit
analyses. (See reference 1.) Their
157
-------
study addresses the effect of alternative
ethical assumptions on the solutions obtain-
ed through a balancing of costs and bene-
fits. Treatment of inter- and intra-
generational issues enters through the dis-
count rate and is dependent on the implied
valuation of the ethical foundations. An
in depth description of the study's assump-
tions and results are not warranted here,
it is sufficient to note that the appro-
priateness of any regulatory scheme de-
pends on whether the policy objective,
for example, is to maximize the well-being
of the worst off member of that society
(whether society is defined in terms of
current or future generations) or to bene-
fit all (the standard economic criteria).
This work represents a preliminary but
extremely important step in understanding
the distributional and ethical consequences
of undertaking cost-benefit analyses.
Another controversial issue in cost-
benefit evaluations is the appropriate val-
ue that should be assigned to human lives
saved. While this thorny issue is skirted
in cost-effectiveness and risk-benefit
analysis, cost-benefit analysis must direct-
ly confront the problem of valuing morbidi-
ty and mortality effects in dollar terms.
Information on these values can be obtained
through a variety of avenues, such as the
present value of future earnings, the
wage premiums earned in risky occupations,
or expenditures on life and medical
insurance. Martin Bailey in Reducing
Risks to Life describes these and other
approaches in considerable detail and
after thorough consideration of the valua-
tion issue recommends that a range of about
$250,000 to $450,000 be used as the value
of a life for purposes of program evalua-
tion. This valuation is independent of
other factors that one may want to con-
sider — such as the average age and
health of the population at risk — and
consequently may not be taken as the final
word.
Applications to Hazardous Waste Management
The preceding discussion has attempted
a balanced view of cost-benefit analysis,
and associated techniques. On one hand,
it has been argued that the use of these
techniques can lead to social welfare
gains as society's resources are more
efficiently allocated. At the same time,
an effort has been made to portray
accurately the difficulties encountered
in applying these tools and in inter-
preting their results. This final section
offers some tentative observations on the
incorporation of cost-benefit concepts in
hazardous waste management. As has been
alluded to earlier, hazardous wastes pose
special problems that may constrain, at
least at the present time, the applica-
bility of rigorous cost-benefit analyses.
Perhaps the most severe barrier to
the application of cost-benefit approaches
to hazardous waste management is the paucity
of information concerning the nature of
the hazards. This is particularly acute
in regards to the management of inactive
or abandoned disposal sites. Although
there have been recent attempts to iden-
tify the location of disposal sites, many
more are still undiscovered. (See refer-
ence .) The cost to the government of
locating abandoned hazardous waste dis-
posal sites is huge and the entire pro-
cess will become progressively more
difficult as the easily identifiable
areas are found. Even if all the sites
can be identified, the wastes contained
in the sites (their chemical composition,
etc.) are only imperfectly known. Ex-
tensive testing of the site must be under-
taken to determine what hazards are posed
by the wastes. Furthermore, safe inactive
sites have to be distinguished from those
sites that have the potential to become
health hazards.
The current regulatory approach to
the problems briefly discussed above has
the federal and state governments taking
the lead for locating, identifying and
characterizing waste disposal sites.
Cleanup costs and penalties are being
recovered from the current owners or
otherwise responsible parties through
civil proceedings. Unfortunately in
such a process, there exist perverse
incentives for the disposing party
to conceal valuable information from the
government and perhaps contribute to
further social harm. The total cost of
acquiring the necessary information could
be lessened if the entities that can
generate the information most cheaply,
private firms for example, had incentives
to volunteer whatever site and waste
characteristics they can.
Private firms in making a decision as
158
-------
to whether to reveal past dumping activi-
ties that may represent a health or environ-
mental hazard, weigh the expected private
costs and benefits from providing the
information. In the face of potential
civil or criminal proceedings if they are
found culpable, it may be in their best
interest to reveal as little as possible.
In structuring a cost-effective regulatory
policy the government must take these
private calculations into account. For
example, the government may want to con-
sider exempting firms from legal proceed-
ings if the firms make available their
knowledge on the existence and character-
istics of disposal sites. Coupling such
a policy with harsher sanctions (against
recalcitrant firms) could provide an
effective mechanism for obtaining neces-
sary information.
Serious distributional questions
arise in considering any options for clean-
ing up hazardous waste disposal sites.
A significant portion of these questions
concerns who should pay the cleanup costs.
Generally accepted notions of equity would
suggest that those who benefited from the
disposal operation (i.e., the firm that
experienced lower disposal costs and there-
fore the consumers of the product produced
by the firm or in the case of a municipal
site, local taxpayers) should pay the costs
associated with the activity. Unfortunate-
ly, this position is weakened by the long
periods between the disposal time and the
point of regulatory action, making it
difficult to identify the actual bene-
ficiaries of the waste-generating activity.
In addition, even if the responsible firm
or disposal entity can be identified, they
may be out of business or unable to meet
the cleanup costs. If the firm is able
to pay the cleanup costs and pass through
these costs to consumers in the form of
higher prices, the ultimate incidence of
the costs will likely bear little relation
to the earlier distribution of benefits
from improper disposal. In situations
such as these where it is impractical or
impossible to identify the beneficiaries
of the unsafe disposal practices or where
the responsible parties are not able to
pay the bill, the regulating agency must
decide how the cleanup efforts will be
financed.
Most of the proposals, thus far, that
address the problem of financing cleanup
efforts make no attempt to cope with the
distributional questions raised here.
Litigation efforts directed at demonstrat-
ing liability are only focused on current
owners of land if a site is found. As
is sometimes the case, the present owner
may have purchased the land with no
knowledge of disposal site's existence.
Although the current owner may be able to
institute similar litigation against the
individual from whom he purchased the
property, it must be demonstrated that
the seller misrepresented the property
to the buyer. This may be difficult to
prove unless the issue of the disposal
site was made explicit at the time of
sale.
The "superfund" now under considera-
tion by Congress represents an attempt to
deal with cleanup costs for hazardous
wastes (as well as petroleum spills in
some versions of the legislation).
Initial funding of the superfund would be
achieved by taxing current production of
materials that produce hazardous wastes
as residues. (At least one bill also has
the federal government supplementing the
tax revenues.) Generally, the superfund
would be used in situations where lia-
bility cannot be assigned or in instances
where the nature of the hazard is so
great that cleanup efforts cannot wait
for the completion of possibly extended
litigation. In the latter case, the
fund would be replenished after liability
had been assigned through the courts.
The idea of a "superfund" also raises
questions of whether current consumers
should pay for past mistakes for which
they may not have benefited and whether
industries, which are now safely disposing
of their wastes, should have to pay for
less clean or environmentally sound in-
dustries.
Thus far our discussion has focused
on hazardous waste management in terms of
proper management of disposal sites. A
broader perspective would include con-
sideration of other management actions
that regulators may take to reduce the
flow of hazardous wastes either at the
point of generation or disposal. Current
regulatory efforts indirectly have this
effect by raising the costs of transport-
ing and disposing wastes, thus providing
an incentive to reduce the quantity of
159
-------
waste which requires handling. A greater
emphasis on direct economic incentive-type
regulatory programs aimed at hazardous
waste generation or disposal may be, in the
long run, a more cost-effective program.
For example, such concepts as a product
change on hazardous waste generating
activities, marketable disposal permits
and a tax credit for recycling hazardous
wastes should all be considered and
evaluated as possible control mechanisms.
The EPA has had considerable experience
with such programs as they regard solid
wastes and should be in a good position to
investigate their applicability for haz-
ardous waste management.
It would be useful to briefly discuss
one last issue, namely the importance of
distinguishing between different levels of
hazardous waste health risks in setting
regulatory policy. Our previous discus-
sion on cost-benefit analysis suggests
that more stringent (and therefore more
cost'ly standards) should be set on the more
hazardous wastes and less stringent stan-
dards for those wastes that pose smaller
health risks. If one set of standards is
imposed on all types of health risks a
serious misallocation of resources will
result with some risks being overregulated,
in the sense that dollars spent elsewhere
would provide greater reduction in health
risks, and, perhaps, some hazardous waste
risks not being regulated strictly enough.
The porposed regulations under Sub-
title C of RCRA do not allow for any such
ranking of hazardous waste health risks
or alternative regulatory strategies by
health risk class. While we admit that the
required scientific and medical information
for establishing such classes may not yet
be available, research efforts directed
toward the goal of generating that infor-
mation might prove of significant value.
Conclusions
The preceding discussion is not in-
tended as a definitive treatment of the
special regulatory problems of hazardous
waste management. Rather, it is an attempt
to offer some preliminary thoughts on what
cost-benefit methodologies suggest for
improving the overall management of haz-
ardous wastes. The lack of information
on hazardous dump sites and distributional
and ethical questions of alternative
regulatory schemes are suggested as two
prominent features of the problem that will
limit the extent to which standard cost-
benefit analyses can be implemented.
Other considerations, such as the diffi-
culty in estimating accurate cost figures
in the face of uncertainty over types of
hazards contained in a site and how to
assess the health risks of potential
hazards and then balance them against
actual costs, are equally important. In
later research, further consideration
will be given to these and other related
problems in hazardous waste management.
In light of the review of cost-
benefit type techniques provided earlier,
these concerns should not be taken as
forming a solid barrier to economic
approaches to hazardous waste decision
making. Cost-benefit variants, such as
cost-effectiveness analysis, should prove
to be a highly useful tool in assuring
that resources invested in regulatory
management are efficiently and effectively
utilized.
REFERENCES
]. Ben-David, S., A.V. Kneese and W.D.
Schulze. A Study of the Ethical
Foundations of Benefit-Cost Analysis
Techniques. Resource Economics
Group, University of New Mexico,
Working Paper, August 1979.
2. Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce (U.S. House of Representa-
tives). Waste Disposal Site Survey,
Print 96-IFC 33, October 1979.
3. Cracker, T.D., W. Schulze, S. Ben-
David, and A.V. Kneese. Experiments
in the Economics of Air Pollution
Epidemiology. (Volume 1 of Methods
Development for Assessing Air Pollu-
tion Control Benefits) U.S.E.P.A.,
EPA-600/5-79-001a. February 1979.
A. Doniger, D.D. "Federal Regulation
of Vinyl Chloride: A Short Course
in the Law and Policy of Toxic
Substances Control." Ecology Law
Quarterly 7 (1978): 497-677.
5. Fischoff, B., P. Slovic and S.
Lichtenstein. "Weighing the Risks."
Environment 21 (May 1979): 17-38.
160
-------
6. National Academy of Sciences
(Committee for a Study on Saccharin
and Food Safety Policy). Saccharin;
Technical Assessment of Risks and
Benefits. Report No. 1, 1978.
7. Page, T., R.H. Harris and S.S. Epstein.
"Drinking Water and Cancer Mortality
in Louisiana." Science 193 (July
1976): 55-57.
8. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. "Judg-
ment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics
and Biases" in Uncertainty and Eco-
nomics (P. Diamond and M. Rothschild,
eds.), New York: Academic Press, 1978.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards). A method for Assessing
the Health Risks Associated with
Alternative Air Quality Standards
for Ozone. (Draft) July 1978.
10. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Reactor Safety Study. USNRC report
(NUREG-75/014), WASH-1400, October
1975.
161
-------
ECONOMIC COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Warren G. Hansen
SCS Engineers
Redmond, Washington
Howard L. Rishel
SCS Engineers
Long Beach, California
INTRODUCTION
There is currently much interest in
hazardous waste treatment and disposal
technologies. Of particular interest are
the costs and effectiveness of these tech-
nologies in mitigating surface and ground
water contamination. Legislative actions
under the Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Act (RCRA: PL 94-580) emphasize this
growing national interest in the proper
management of hazardous waste. Recently
proposed rules (1) would require hazardous
waste managers to observe strict design
and operation standards and to consider
treatment, neutralization or reuse as
alternatives to direct disposal by land-
fill or incineration.
Also under potential regulation are
priority pollutants contained in aqueous
discharges from industry and municipal
treatment plants. Although still under
development, these regulations will address
1) best available technology effluent
limitations and guidelines, 2) new source
performance standards, and 3) pretreat-
ment standards for 21 specified industrial
categories. It is expected that all limi-
tations and standards will be defined in
terms of specific toxic pollutants (ele-
ments, compounds, or families of compounds)
(3).
To minimize the costs of complying
with these regulations, it is necessary to
determine both the costs and appropriate-
ness of applying various treatment and
disposal options under specific applica-
tions. Major factors to consider under
such an evaluation include the character-
istics of raw waste inputs, the performance
or effectiveness of unit processes, and
the associated capital and operation/main-
tenance (O&M) costs. Moreover, this
information must be agrigated over all com-
ponent modules of a technological alterna-
tive and evaluated at various levels in
the scale of operation before meaningful
comparisons between treatment/disposal
options can be made. For these reasons,
the most appropriate approach is by com-
puter-assisted cost/performance modeling.
Project Background
Previous computer-assisted systems for
assessing waste treatment options have pro-
vided useful guidance. The system devel-
oped under this project is an outgrowth of
one developed for evaluating waste treat-
ment technologies in the fruits and vege-
table industry (4). In that system,
treatment alternatives were configured to
achieve prescribed levels of abatement.
The associated costs for capital and annual
O&M were developed for each component
"module" of the configured technological
alternatives; and, in most cases, the most
important input variables were production,
flow, BOD, total suspended solids, season
length, and length of the processing day.
The cost estimations involved materials
estimates for conceptual designs and the
application of unit cost estimates (e.g.
cost per cubic yard of concrete). Unit
costs were estimated at different scales
so that economies of scale could be
observed for the technological alternatives.
A similar cost model (5) was developed
for the Environmental Protection Agency
162
-------
(EPA) in 1973. That system used a compu-
ter to estimate equipment costs at the
module level for such items as centrifugal
pumps, heat exchangers, and tray towers.
The estimation process simulated a con-
tractor's design and costing process by
estimating vendor-supplied costs (including
total purchased and installed costs).
More recently, a system called CAPDET
(Computer-Assisted Procedures for the
JDesign and (Evaluation of Wastewater Jreat-
ment Systems) was developed for the EPA to
provide computer-designed specifications
and cost estimate for wastewater treat-
ment plants. Like the previous systems,
CAPDET uses a bottom-up approach in which
the results for component modules are com-
bined to form technology alternatives.
Project Objectives
The COSTEC (Computer Oriented System
for Technology Engineering Costing) system
described in this paper is a logical out-
growth of these prior computer-based
systems and is intended to address the new
requirements and problems of hazardous
waste management. The system is designed
to meet 3 project objectives:
• To provide concise cost information
on current and emerging hazardous
waste management technologies
• To provide cost and performance
estimates for specific technologies
at different levels of control and
scales of operation
• To allow comparison of available
treatment and disposal options
according to their cost effective-
ness in providing environmental
protection.
Cost System Overview
COSTEC uses a bottom-up approach in
which technological alternatives for the
treatment or disposal of hazardous wastes
are each segmented into their constituent
modules (unit processes). Thirty-five
such modules were defined by preliminary
designs so as to more readily assess com-
ponent costs and module performance.
Installed capital and O&M costs were then
defined for each module (or module compo-
nents) as a function of the scale of
operation.
In developing a cost estimate for a
certain technology, the costs for each com-
ponent are estimated for that module's
scale of operation. The accumulated capital
and O&M costs for all modules in the tech-
nology are then summed over each module's
expected lifespan to develop simple average
and life-cycle average costs.
Development of Unit Cost Data
Because technology cost estimates
ultimately depend on unit cost functions
developed for each component or each
module, particular care was taken to insure
that these unit costs functions are ap-
propriate over their relevant range of
operation. In order to avoid any regional
or temporal distortions of the cost in-
formation, all estimates were defined in
terms of mid-1978 for a site near Chicago.
Sources for unit construction costs
were "Means Engineering Cost Data-1978" (6),
various material and labor cost indices,
and costs associated with the general
literature. Cost information for specialty
hardware was obtained directly from manu-
facturers.
Costs for each component were often
obtained for up to five scales of operation,
and, where economies of scale were suspect-
ed, a curvefit methodology was employed to
more accurately estimate the appropriate
cost functions. This curve fit methodology
tested a series of candidate functional
forms to determine the best fit for a com-
ponent's cost data points. Each candidate
form was a special case of the general form:
COST = (A + B x UnitsD) 1/C,
where all costs are in mid-1978, near
Chicago terms and where natural logarithms
for "cost" and "units" can also be used.
In all cases the selected functional form
explained at least 90% of all data variation
(i.e., the bivariate coefficient of determ-
ination, R2, was greater than 0.9) and
could be asserted with at least 95% con-
fidence level).
As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the
resulting component cost functions were
entered into computerized capital and O&M
cost files so as to expedite the estimation
of alternative technology costs.
163
-------
TABLE 1.
EXAMPLE OF ENTRIES IN THE CAPITAL
COST FILE
CODE A B C
103 WDDK .54 1,0
104 HNDRL 15.36 1.0
105 SONO 225 1.0
106 KILN 135939 5616.8 1.4
107 HEART 15312 35.525 1.5
108 CONDE 5.0469E09 5.0398E08 2.5
109 REBOI 2923281 21091 1.5
110 EXCHA 1863624 13446 .1,5
111 OILWA 50035 384.36 1.5
112 VAPOR 3500. 1.0
TABLE 2.
EXAMPLE OF ENTRIES IN
0 &
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
M UNIT COST
CODE A
WATER 0
COAL
SAND
POWER
OPER1
OPER2
LABOR
MECH1
MECH2
ELEC1
ELEC2
HELPR
SUPER
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
126
388
7
9
6
9
11
9
11
7
12
FILE NAME:
B C
.43 1.0
.45
.42
.035
.77
.19
.76
.40
.20
.99
.75
.70
.94
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
D DESCRIPTION UNITS
1.0 REDWOOD WOOD DECKING BDFT
1,0 1-V ALUMINUM HANDRAIL LF
1.0 12" RND SONOTUBECIP ANCHRBLTS CY
1.0 ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR LBS/HR
1,0 MULTIPLE HEARTH INCINER LBS/HR
1.0 CONDENSOR GPM
1,0 REBOILER SF
1.0 HEATEXCHANGER SF
1.0 OIL WATER SEPARATOR PIT LBS
1.0 CHLORINATOR EA
THE 08M COST FILE
OMMCF
0
1.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
DESCRIPTION
CHICAGO WATER RATE
ANTHRACITE COAL
SILICA SAND
CHICAGO ELECTRICAL RATE
OPERATOR LEVEL 1
OPERATOR LEVEL 2
LABORER
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
ELECTRICIAN
ELECTRICIAN
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
MECHANIC
MECHANIC
1
2
HELPER
1
2
SUPERVISOR
164
-------
Cost System Operation
All elements of the COSTEC system
structure are shown in Figure 1. The
system user supplies information to the
executive or "master" program which coord-
inates all other system elements. During
typical use the process operates as follows:
The user selects the modules within
the technology to be assessed and identi-
fies their configuration along with any
off-line modules, such as storage build-
ings. The executive program searches the
selected module elements and returns to
the user with a list of global parameters
(ambient temperature, annual evaporation,
etc.) and module-specific parameters (re-
tention time, gas vs. oil fired, etc.)
which the user must define. Then the user
inputs a description of the waste stream,
and the executive inputs this information
to the first module. Costs are calculated
and the waste stream attributes are
modified according to performance equations
within each module. The executive directs
the accumulation of cost information and
passes information on revised waste charac-
teristics to successive modules as speci-
fied by the user's configuration. Summary
information is then processed and output
after all modules have been accessed.
Among the advantages to this approach
are its flexability in response to user-
specific configuration, parameters, and
waste characteristics and the relative base
with which unit cost functions for each
module component can be updated or modified.
Module-
. Specific
Inputs
. Waste
Data
EXECUTIVE
OUT Ns
Demand
Capital Costs
(Per Category)
OSM Costs
(Per Category)
Modified Waste
Attributes
Figure 1. COSTEC System Structure.
165
-------
An Example Analysis: Evaporation Module
The use of evaporator installations
for concentrating organic or inorganic
waste constituents is one of the 35 modules
analyzed. Preliminary design, schematic
diagrams (Figure 2), and engineering de-
scriptions were used to identify components
and to derive a set of equations relating
component quantities to scaling factors.
These equations in Table 3 are used to
PLAN VIEW
PRODUCT INLET
VAPORIZATION
SECTION —
MOTOR DRIVE
D
a
FLOOR LINE-1
©
-CONDENSOR
TAIL PIPE
TO HOTWELL
EXTERNAL
SEPARATOR
PRODUCT DISCHARGE
ELEVATED VIEW
Fipure 2. Detail of single evaporator showing associated
equipment included in the evaporator nodule.
TABLE 3. EXAMPLE CAPITAL COST EQUATIONS FOR EVAPORATOR
PROGRAM LEGEND
Variable Name Description
SYSTEM VARIABLES
LANDAM = 0.46XQ1NF
LANDAR = 4.0XLANDAM
SURFAR = LANDAR/1.91
VEXC = O.lSxSURFAR
VCON = 0.17xSURFAR
SQSUF = SQRT(SURFAR)
WSTR = 35.XSURFAR+11.5XSQSUF+34.2
WLAPL » 24.4xSURFAR+203xSQSUF+600.
KWH = 802.88XQINF
HRSYR = HRSxDAYS
QANF = QINF
CLR = CLRlxLANDAR
GRA = GRADExLANDAM
EXC = EXCVlxVEXC
SITE PREP = CLR+GRA+EXC
SLAB = SLAB2xVCON
STR = STRSTxWSTR
STRUCTURES = SLAB+STR
EVA = EVAPxQANFxlOOO
CONDO = CONDENxQANF
STR = STRSTxWLAPL
MECH EQUIP = EVA+CONDE+STR
ELECT EQUIP = O.OSxMECH EQUIP
LANDC = LANDxLANDAR
LAND COST = LANDC
QINF
VEXC
VCON
WSTR
WLAPL
KWH
MRS
DAYS
SEPVAP
QSTM
SLUDG
LANDAM
LANDAR
SURFAR
CLR1
GRADE
EXCV 1
SLAB 2
STRST
EVAP
CONDEN
STRST
LAND
Influent Flow Rate (GPM)
Volume of Excavation (CY)
Volume of Concrete (CY)
Weight of Support Steel (Ibs)
Weight of Ladders and Platforms (Ibs)
Kilowatts/hour
Hours of Operation/Day
Days of Operation/Year
Percent of Total Discharge Flow (GPM)
represented by the condensate
(expressed as a percent)
Steam Demand (Ibs/hr)
Sludge (concentrate) Wasting Rate (GPM
Land Area Occupied by Module (ft*)
LANDAM + Buffer Area (ft2)
Surface Area (cross sectional) (ft2)
COSTS FROM UNIT COST FILES
166
-------
determine how much or what size of each
component is required. This quantity in-
formation is then combined with the affore-
mentioned unit cost functions to estimate
capital and O&M costs for each component
in the module. This information is sum-
marized in Table 4 for installed and de-
livered capital costs and in Table 5 for
first year operating costs.
TABLE 4; EVAPORATOR: SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS
COSTS (MID-1978 DOLLARS) QUANTITIES
CAPITAL COST
CATEGORY MODULE
Evaporator
Steam Generator
Waste Pump
Sludge Pump
Yard Piping
SITE
PREPARATION
$
410
38
225
STRUCTURES MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL LAND LAND
EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT (ft*)
$ $ $ $
31,100 216,250 10.813 1,370 1.840
1.865 148,500 353 475
2.950
798
1,130
OTHER
3PJE
Demand
Ibs/hr
40,000
TOTAL
673
32,965
369,628
10,813
1,723
2,315
40,000
SUPPLEMENTAL CAPITAL COSTS
DESCRIPTION COSTS
building
TOTAL
$ 97,324
$ 97.324
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $ 513,126
WORKING CAPITAL (at one month
of direct operating costs) $ 63,615
AFDC (allowance for funds during
construction at 5% of capital
costs) $ 25,656
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $ 602,397
Scale: 1,000 GPH
O&M COST
CATEGORY
MODULE
TABLE 5. EVAPORATOR: SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR OPERATING COSTS
COSTS (MID-1978 DOLLARS)
LABOR
TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 ENERGY! MAINT. CHEM.
OPER 1 OPER 2 LABORER ELECTR. COSTS COSTS
($7.77/hr)($9.19/hr)($6.76/hr) .035 KUH $ $
QUANTITIES
KWHs/yr
Nail. Gas
ftj/yr
Evaporator
Steam Generator
Uaste Pump
Sludge Pump
Yard Piping
17,703 10,476 20,513
1,179 209 15,586
103
319,000
1,730
173
1,125
1,807
372,000
49,429
4,943
44,120
TOTAL
18,882 10,685 36,202
320,903
2,938
372,000 54,372
44,120
SUPPLEMENTAL O&M COSTS
DESCRIPTION COSTS
maintenance
TOTAL
$ 1,770
$ 1,770
SUBTOTAL DIRECT O&M COSTS $ 763,380
ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD (at 20% of
direct operatino costs) $ 152,676
DEBT SERVICE AND AMORTIZATION (at 10*
interest over years) $ 158,911
REAL ESTATE TAXES AiJD INSURANCE
(at 2% of total capital) 3 $ 12,048
TOTAL FIRST YEAR OPERATING COSTS $1,087.015
Scale: 1,000 GPM
167
-------
Additional components (pumps, piping,
etc.) have been added to facilitate con-
nection of this module to others in the
technology under investigation. Table 4
also includes allowances for working capital
and for funds during construction; as well
as the functionally-derived estimates of
direct operating costs. Table 5 includes
administrative overhead, debt service, real
estate taxes and insurance. These indirect
O&M cost components do not include an al-
lowance for income taxes and their actual
method of estimation can be changed to suit
the requirements of the user.
The project report expands on this
detailed cost analysis at one scale of
operation by providing capital and O&M
component curves over a range of operating
scales. Holding other factors constant,
module component requirements are depicted,
as in Figures 3 and 4, as functions of such
scaling factors as flow or waste loading
rate. In this way the user can estimate
component requirements, and hence module
costs, at any scale in its potential range
of operation. In addition to allowing the
user to select his/her own scale of opera-
is-
10-
5-
TOTAL CAPITAL
(LESS LAND)
10-
0-
8-
„ 7-
o 6-
„" 5-
£ «-
3-
2-
1-
1000
LAND (FT*)
2000 3000
GPM
4000
5000
1000
1 1
2000 3000
GPM
4000
5000
1000 2000 3000 4000 SOOO
GPU
1. OPERATOR: LEVEL 1
2. OPERATOR: LEVEL 2
3. LABORER
WOO 2OOO 3OOO
GPM
SOOO
40-
38-
*0 *•
X 28-
i"
* 20-
16-
12-
ENERGY
1000 2000 3000 4OOO SOOO
GPM
Figure 3. Evaporator: Changes fn Total Capital Costs *ith Scale.
Figure 4. Evaporator: Changes in OSH requirements with scale.
tion, the depiction of such components as
land or electricity in terms of units
rather than dollars allows the user to apply
unit costs most appropriate for local
operating conditions.
As a final step in this example, the
COSTEC system computes the simple average
and life-cycle average costs of operating
the evaporation module. As Table 6 shows,
direct and indirect operating costs are
calculated for each year of the module's
lifespan and are summed in terms of current
operating and present value operating costs.
Standard interest, inflation, and discount
rates are applied, but, as before, the user
is encouraged to apply his/her own values
for these factors.
Results
Table 7 depicts the examined tech-
nologies and their component modules. Each
technology was configured with comparable
input and performance requirements and all
pumps and piping for connecting modules was
included. The resulting simple average and
life-cycle average costs were summed for
168
-------
TABLE 6.
COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
EVAPORATOR
(LIFETIME - 5 YEARS)
YEAR it
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
Direct
Operating
Costs*
$ 763,380
839.718
923.690
1.016.059
1,117.665
Indirect
Operating
Costst
$323,635
338.902
355.697
374,171
394.492
Sum
Operating
Costs
$1.087.015
1.178,620
1.279,387
1.390.229
1.512.156
Present
Value
Annual i zed
Costs!
$1,087.015
1.071.473
1.057.344
1.044.500
1,032.823
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal.)"
124,800
124.800
124.800
124.800
124.800
TOTALS
6.447,407 5.293.155 624,000
Simple Average (Per 1.000 Gal.)
Simple Average (Per Cubic Meter)
Life Cycle Average (Per 1.000 Gal.)
Life Cycle Average (Per Cubic Meter)
$10.33
$ 2.73
$8.48
$2.24
* Assumes 101 annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
I Assumes a 101 interest/discount rate to the beginning of the
first year of operation.
** 1.000 GPM x 60 mln x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
% First year costs In mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
TABLE 7. UNIT PROCESS MODULES COMPRISING THE
HAZARDOUS HASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES
MODULES
TEOWIXOGIES
12
11 =. I
s
3 -Z ,
s I a s s s i
l! Hi|ij
CMguUtlon/Floc-
cuUtlon/SrilmUtlon
Flltntlon
Cvapontor
Olltlllltlon
Flotation
Oll/Uatir Stparator
fttvtrta Ouotls
Ultrlflltritlon
Chnlcal Oildat1oV>xIiKtloii
H/droly»l»
tarattd lagoon
Trickling Ml tar
Uattt Stae. rond
Anairoblc Dlgittlon
Carbon Msorptlon
btlMttd Sludgi
Evaporation fond
Inclntratlon
land Disposal
Chnlcal Mullen
Cwapiolatlon
169
-------
all modules within each technology.
Tables 8 and 9 present these results in
metric and standard units. The scale of
incineration, land disposal, chemical
TABLE 9.
COST COMPARISONS AMONG TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
TECHNOLOGIES: STANDARD UNITS
Technology
Prec1p1tat1on/Floc-
culatf on/Sedimentation
Filtration
Evaporation
Distillation
Flotation
Oil/Water Separator
Reverse Osmosis
Ultraflltratlon
Chemical Oxidation/Re-
duction
Hydrolysis
Aerated Lagoon
Trickling Filter
Waste Stab. Pond
Anaerobic Digestion
Carbon Adsorption
Activated Sludge
Evaporation Pond
Life
10
10
5
5
10
10
7
7
5
5
IS
IS
5
10
7
10
20
Simple
1.000
2.65
3.66
10.33
is.ec
1.98
0.76
9.05
4.04
5.31
0.99
5.30
4.70
4.45
7.88
27.43
4.84
8.99
Simple
Average Cost ($
at GPM
2.000 3.000
2.16
3.12
9.43
16.36
1.62
0.51
9.40
3.36
4.56
0.83
3.81
3.82
3.94
6.91
16.43
3.54
8.20
Average
1.94
2.75
9.12
16.37
1.43
0.44
9.61
3.61
4.52
0.75
3.31
3.63
3.71
6.53
12.69
3.11
7.90
Cost ($
per 1,000 gal.)
4.000 5.000
1.85
2.54
8.98
16.36
1.33
0.44
9.62
3.61
5.23
0.74
3.89
3.30
3.63
6.41
10.96
4.02
7.75
per 1.
1.79
2.43
8.89
16.40
1.27
0.48
9.79
3.76
6.22
0.76
4.35
3.19
3.54
6.28
9.89
4.84
7.75
000 Ibs.)
Life Cycle Average Cost
at GPM
1.000 2.000 3.000
1.72
2.31
8.48
13.02
1.26
0.48
6.71
3.02
4.36
0.82
2.62
2.37
3.70
5.14
20.26
3.08
4.01
Life
at Ibs/hr
Incineration
Land Disposal
Chemical Fixation
Encapsulation
5
20
7
7
1.000
309.90
389.94
740.84
61.99
2,000
298.23
235.14
740.85
56.90
3.000
295.10
178.08
740.84
4,000 5,000
293.
149.
740.
34 293.64
40 132.36
84 740.85
1,000
256.55
154.34
546.85
46.62
1.40
1.97
7.74
13.39
1.04
0.32
6.97
2.51
3.74
0.69
1.89
1.93
3.28
4.53
12.14
2.28
3.71
1.26
1.74
7.49
13.41
0.92
0.28
7.12
2.70
3.71
0.62
1.64
1.84
3.09
4.29
9.38
2.00
3.60
Cycle Average Cost
at
2.000
246.91
91.26
546.85
42.87
Ibs/hr
3,000
244.34
68.37
546.85
($ per ]
4.000
1.20
1.61
7.37
1,000 gal.)
5.000
1.16
1.54
7.30
13.43 13.43
0.85
0.28
7.13
2.70
4.29
0.62
1.93
1.68
3.02
4.21
8.10
2.57
3.54
($ per
4,000
242.88
56.86
546.85
0.81
0.30
7.25
2.81
5.10
0.63
2.15
1.63
2.95
4.13
7.31
3.10
3.54
1,000 Ibs.)
5,000
243.15
50.01
546.85
170
-------
fixation, and encapsulation is expressed in
terms of kilograms per hour (pounds per
hour). Costs for all other technologies
are expressed in terms of liters per second
(gallons per minute).
Discussion
The cost estimates favor coagulation/
flocculation/sedimentation if discharge
criteria can be met, but it may be neces-
sary to use additional or alternative
treatment processes (such as evaporators,
ultrafiltration, or reverse osmosis) to
insure adequate abatement. Distillation,
as a treatment process, has limited ap-
plication and is more expensive than
evaporation. The relatively high average
costs for carbon adsorption are primarily
due to high capital and O&M costs for the
carbon regeneration stage, but additional
research could make carbon regeneration
cheaper and carbon adsorption more cost-
competitive and should be considered for
application where sufficient land is
available at reasonable cost.
The chemical fixation process was
modeled after the Chemfix service (8) and
should be considered for surface land
disposal of liquid hazardous wastes where
leaching can be a problem. The process
offers the additional benefit of converting
liquid wastes into a more manageable solid
matrix. An alternative solidification
process known as encapsulation (9) has
relatively higher average life-cycle costs
and should only be considered for applica-
tions where leachates would be extremely
detremental (such as for disposal of PCB's
or radioactive wastes).
From the results presented in Table 8
and 9, the most cost competitive disposal
processes appear to be land disposal for
solids, evaporation ponds for most liquid
wastes and incineration for waste streams
with sufficient heat value. (The incin-
erator defined for this analysis was a
rotary kiln equipped with a secondary
burner and scrubber for removal of toxic
combustion products.)
Conclusions
A computer-assisted system for estima-
ting costs of hazardous waste treatment and
disposal was developed and demonstrated for
21 alternative technologies. In addition
to allowing variations in scale factors
such as input flow rate and solids loading
rate, the system allows user-supplied
information to define technology configur-
ations, external operating parameters,
unit cost functions, and accounting
methods. This flexibility and its appli-
cation to hazardous waste management
distinguishes the COSTEC process from
earlier computer-assisted systems. More-
over, the detailed cost information
presented for each module of each tech-
nology provides the user a detailed
description of all cost estimates and a
clearer understanding of cost effectiveness
through simple average and life-cycle
average cost comparisons.
171
-------
REFERENCES
1. Federal Register, Hazardous Waste-Proposed Guidelines
and Regulations and Proposal on Identification and
Listing, Vol. 43, No. 243, (December 1978).
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Protection Agency Regulations on Designation of Hazardous
Substances under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(40 CFR 116; 43 FR 10479, March 13, 1978), Environmental
Report: Federal Regulations; 131:2001-2009, (1978).
3. Barrett, R. B., ."Controlling the Entrance of Toxic
Pollutants into U.S. Waters." Environmental Science and
Technology, 12, 154 (1978).
4. Mauldin, F. A., and M. R. Soderquist, "Final Report:
Capabilities and Costs of Technology (Study Area III)
Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Industry."
National Commission on Water Quality (Contract No.
WQ5AC010) (June 1975).
5. Blecker, H. G., and T. W. Cadman, "Capital and Operating
Costs of Pollution Control Equipment Modules." U.S.
Environmental Protection Aaency, Washington, D.C.
(July 1973).
6. Building Construction Cost Data 1978. Robert Snow Means
Co.,Inc.Duxbury, Massachusetts.T1977).
7. Rogers, C. J., "Selected Biodegradation Techniques for
Treatment and/or Ultimate Disposal of Organic Materials."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
(March 1979).
8. Salas, R. K., "Disposal of Liquid Wastes by Chemical
Fixation/Solidification - The Chemfix Process." In
Toxic and Hazardous Waste Disposal. Volume 1: Processes
for Stabilization/Solidification (p. 321), R. B. Pojasek,
ed., Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor,
Michigan. (1979).
9. Subramanian, R. B., and R. Mahalingam, Immobilization of
Hazardous Residuals by Polyester Encapsulation." (p. 247)
Ibid.
172
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/9-80-011
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
TREATMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Research Symposium
5. REPORT DATE
March 1980 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Edited by David Shultz
Coordinated by David Black
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Southwest Research Institute
P.O. Box 28510, 6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R807121
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 10/79-9/80
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project officer: Robert E. Landreth, 684-7876
16. ABSTRACT
The sixth annual SHWRD research symposium on management of hazardous waste
was held at the Conrad Hilton Hotel in Chicago, Illinois, on March 17-20, 1980.
The purpose of the symposium was two-fold: (1) to provide a forum for a state-
of-the-art review and discussion of ongoing and recently completed projects
dealing with the management of hazardous wastes and (2) to bring together people
concerned with hazardous waste management who can benefit from an exchange of
ideas and information. These proceedings are a compilation of the papers presented
by symposium speakers. They are divided into two volumes representing the techno-
logies of Treatment and Disposal. The primary technical areas covered are:
(1) Waste Sampling and Characteristics
(2) Transport and Fate of Pollutants
(3) Pollutant Control
(4) Waste Treatment and Control
(5) Pesticide Treatment and Control
(6) Co-Disposal
(7) Landfill Alternatives
(8) Remedial Actions
(9) Thermal Destruction Techniques
(10) Economics
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/Group
Leaching, Collection,Hazardous Materials ,
Disposal, Treatment, Soils, Groundwater,
Pollution, Waste Treatment
Solid Waste Management:
Hazardous Waste,
Leachate, Toxic
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
21. NO. OF PAGES
181
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
173
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980-660-236 Region No. 5-11
------- |