Hazard Ranking System Issue Analysis:
Relationship Between Waste Quantity and
Hazardous Constituent Quantity
MITRE
-------
Hazard Ranking System Issue Analysis:
Relationship Between Waste Quantity and
Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Arlene R. Wusterbarth
September 1987
MTR-86W141
SPONSOR:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
CONTRACT NO.:
EPA-68-01-7054
The MITRE Corporation
Civil Systems Division
7525 Colshire Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102-3481
-------
3
Department Approval: -. (L,l
/
MITRE Project Approval:.
-------
ABSTRACT
The Hazard Ranking System (HRS) is used by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to estimate the relative potential hazard to
human health and the environment posed by releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances. For HRS purposes, the quantity of
hazardous substances present at a site is currently evaluated on the
basis of the total quantity of hazardous wastes deposited at the
site, and not the total quantity of hazardous constituents present in
those wastes.
This report examines existing waste composition data to determine
whether alternatives to the HRS waste quantity factor can be developed
to allow the use of data on total hazardous constituent quantity in
evaluating a site when such data are available. The primary concerns
with the existing data relate to whether the data are representative
of the wastes present at hazardous waste sites and to whether the
data adequately characterize those wastes. A statistical analysis
of available, but very limited, waste composition data indicates
that there are potentially significant differences in the total
concentration of hazardous constituents in wastes present in
different waste management units at wastes sites. If the existing
waste composition data are to be used in developing alternative HRS
waste quantity factors, then these alternatives should reflect the
different waste management units.
Suggested Keywords: Superfund, Hazard ranking, Hazardous waste,
Concentration, Waste composition.
iii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to acknowledge several individuals for their
valuable contributions to this research effort. Steve Caldwell of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided guidance and
oversight. Kris Barrett of the MITRE Corporation supervised and
directed the project. Access to the automated Contract Laboratory
Program data base was made available by Donald Trees and William
Eckel of Viar and Company, Inc. The author also thanks Robert
Laidlaw and Joe Lockerd at the National Enforcement Investigations
Center (NEIC) for providing the NEIC data. In addition, the author
has benefited greatly from the suggestions and assistance of several
colleagues. Ming Wang and Thomas Wolfinger gave insight to the
statistical analysis. Excellent computer programming was provided
by Brian Doty and Kerry Zimmerman.
Above all, the author is particularly indebted to Stuart Haus
of the MITRE Corporation whose technical contributions and extensive
reviews greatly enhanced this report.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vii
LIST OF TABLES viii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Issue Description 3
1.3 Scope 5
1.4 Organization of Report 6
2.0 SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS OF WASTE COMPOSITION DATA 7
2.1 Contract Laboratory Program 10
2.2 National Enforcement Investigations Center 12
2.3 Previous Industry Studies of the EPA Office of Solid 13
Waste
2.4 Current Industry Studies Program of the EPA Office of 14
Solid Waste
2.5 Superfund Site Inspection (SI) Reports 16
2.6 Superfund Remedial Investigation (RI) Reports 17
2.7 Other Data Sources 18
2.8 Limitations of Existing Data With Regard to the Current 19
Analysis
3.0 SUMMARIES OF DATA FROM INDIVIDUAL SOURCES 31
3.1 Approach 31
3.2 Summary of Data From Samples of Wastes at Disposal Sites 33
3.2.1 Drum Samples 33
3.2.2 Tank Samples 54
3.2.3 Surface Impoundment Samples 56
3.2.4 Mining Waste Samples 56
3.2.5 Other Samples of Wastes at Disposal Sites 59
3.3 Summary of Data from Samples of Industrial Waste 59
Streams at the Point of Generation
3.3.1 Previous Industry Studies of the EPA Office 60
of Solid Waste (OSW)
3.3.2 Current OSW Industry Studies Program 64
3.3.3 Waste Oil 71
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
Page
4.0 ANALYSIS OF DATA 73
4.1 Composite Overview of the Total Concentration of 73
Hazardous Constituents Present in Hazardous Wastes
by Type of Waste Management Method
4.1.1 Drums 73
4.1.2 Tanks 76
4.1.3 Surface Impoundments 79
4.1.4 Mine Tailings and Waste Piles 82
4.1.5 Landfarms and Landfills 85
4.1.6 Summary of Findings 87
4.2 Comparisons of the Total Concentration of Hazardous 89
Constituents in Liquids, Solids, and Sludges
4.2.1 Liquids 89
4.2.2 Solids 93
4.2.3 Sludges 94
4.2.4 Summary of Findings 95
4.3 Statistical Pairwise Comparisons of Median Total 96
Concentrations
5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 103
APPENDIX A - Previous Industry Studies of the EPA Office 109
of Solid Waste
APPENDIX B - Current EPA Office of Solid Waste Industry 139
Studies Data Base
APPENDIX C - Franklin Associates Data Base for Waste Oil 165
Composition
APPENDIX D - Definitions of Waste Management Units 171
APPENDIX E - Availability of Waste Composition Data By Site 173
in the Superfund Site Inspection and Remedial
Investigation Reports
APPENDIX F - Bibliography 177
vi
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Number Pag<
1 Frequency Distribution of Hazardous Constituent 39
Concentrations in 580 Drum and High Hazard
Samples from the NEIC Data Base (Open Interval)
2 Frequency Distribution of Hazardous Constituent 40
Concentrations in 580 Drum and High Hazard
Samples from the NEIC Data Base (Closed Interval)
3 Frequency Distribution of Hazardous Constituent 46
Concentrations in Drum and High Hazard Samples
from the NEIC Data Base for Identified NPL and
Non-NPL Site Samples (Open Interval)
4 Frequency Distribution of Hazardous Constituent 47
Concentrations in Drum and High Hazard Samples
from the NEIC Data Base for Identified NPL and
Non-NPL Site Samples (Closed Interval)
5 Frequency Distribution of Hazardous Constituent 49
Concentrations in Drum and High Hazard Samples
from the NEIC Data Base for Identified NPL Site
Samples
6 Frequency Distribution of Hazardous Constituent 50
Concentrations in Drum and High Hazard Samples
from the NEIC Data Base for Identified Non-NPL
Site Samples
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number Page
1 Key Features of Identified Sources of Waste 8
Composition Data Used in the Current Study
2 Limitations of Existing Waste Composition Data 20
With Regard to the Current Analysis
3 Descriptive Statistics for the Total 35
Concentration of Hazardous Constituents Present
in CLP Drum Samples
4 Distribution of Drum and High Hazard Samples in 43
the NEIC Data Base
5 Summary Statistics for the Total Concentration 44
of Hazardous Constituents Present in NEIC Drum
and High Hazard Samples for Identified NPL and
Non-NPL Sites
6 Summary of Waste Composition Data Compiled from 52
Superfund Site Inspection Reports
7 Summary of Waste Composition Data Compiled 53
from Superfund Remedial Investigation Reports
8 Preliminary Data on the Concentration of 58
Selected Hazardous Constituents in Indicated
Mining Wastes
9 Average Total Concentrations of Hazardous 61
Constituents in Industrial Waste Streams from
Previous EPA Industry Studies
10 Total Concentration of Hazardous Constituents 66
Present in ISDB Waste Streams (Unweighted)
11 Total Concentration of Hazardous Constituents 68
Present in ISDB Waste Streams (Quantity-Weighted)
12 Total Concentration of Hazardous Constituents 72
Present in Selected Waste Streams of the Waste
Oil Re-Refining Industry
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)
Table Number
13 Composite Overview of the Concentration of
Hazardous Constituents in Drummed Wastes
14 Composite Overview of the Concentration of 77
Hazardous Constituents in Tank Wastes
15 Composite Overview of the Concentration of 80
Hazardous Constituents in Surface Impoundment
Wastes
16 Composite Overview of the Concentration of 83
Hazardous Constituents in Mine Tailings and
Waste Piles
17 Composite Overview of the Concentration of 86
Hazardous Constituents in Landfarm and Landfill
Wastes
18 Summary of Waste Composition Data for Liquid, 91
Solid, and Sludge Wastes
19 Pairwise Comparisons of the Median Total 99
Concentrations of Hazardous Constituents
Present in Hazardous Wastes at Disposal Sites
(Site Inspection Reports)
20 Pairwise Comparisons of the Median Total 100
Concentrations of Hazardous Constituents
Present in Hazardous Wastes at Disposal
Sites (Remedial Investigation Reports)
IX
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CKRCIA) (PL 96-510) requires the President to
identify national priorities for remedial action among releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances. These releases are to
be identified based on criteria promulgated in the National
Contingency Plan (NCP). On July 16, 1982, EPA promulgated the
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) as Appendix A to the NCP (40 CFR 300;
47 FR 31180). The HRS comprises the criteria required under CERCLA
and is used by EPA to estimate the relative potential hazard posed
by releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances.
The HRS is a means for applying uniform technical judgment
regarding the potential hazards presented by a release relative to
other releases. The HRS is used in identifying releases as national
priorities for further investigation and possible remedial action by
assigning numerical values (according to prescribed guidelines) to
factors that characterize the potential of any given release to
cause harm. The values are manipulated mathematically to yield a
single score that is designed to indicate the potential hazard posed
by each release relative to other releases. This score is one of
the criteria used by EPA in determining whether the release should
be placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).
-------
During the original NCP rulemaking process and the subsequent
application of the HRS to specific releases, a number of technical
issues have been raised regarding the HRS. These issues concern the
desire for modifications to the HRS to further improve its
capability to estimate the relative potential hazard of releases.
The issues include:
• Review of other existing ranking systems suitable for
ranking hazardous waste sites for the NPL.
• Feasibility of considering ground water flow direction and
distance, as well as defining "aquifer of concern," in
determining potentially affected targets.
• Development of a human food chain exposure evaluation
methodology.
• Development of a potential for air release factor category
in the HRS air pathway.
• Review of the adequacy of the target distance specified in
the air pathway.
• Feasibility of considering the accumulation of hazardous
substances in indoor environments.
• Feasibility of developing factors to account for
environmental attenuation of hazardous substances in ground
and surface water.
• Feasibility of developing a more discriminating toxicity
factor.
• Refinement of the definition of "significance" as it relates
to observed releases.
• Suitability of the current HRS default value for an unknown
waste quantity.
• Feasibility of determining and using hazardous substance
concentration data.
-------
• Feasibility of evaluating waste quantity on a hazardous
constituent basis.
• Review of the adequacy of the target distance specified in
the surface water pathway.
• Development of a sensitive environment evaluation
methodology.
• Feasibility of revising the containment factors to increase
discrimination among facilities.
• Review of the potential for future changes in laboratory
detection limits to affect the types of sites considered for
the NPL.
Each technical issue is the subject of one or more separate but
related reports. These reports, although providing background,
analysis, conclusions and recommendations regarding the technical
issue, will not directly affect the HRS. Rather, these reports will
be used by an EPA working group that will assess and integrate the
results and prepare recommendations to EPA management regarding
future changes to the HRS. Any changes will then be proposed in
Federal notice and comment rulemaking as formal changes to the NCP.
The following section describes the specific issue that is the
subject of this report.
1.2 Issue Description
For HRS purposes, the quantity of hazardous substances present
at a site is currently evaluated on the basis of the total quantity
of hazardous wastes deposited at the site and not on the total
quantity of hazardous constituents present in those wastes. The
rationale for this approach is discussed in depth in the Federal
-------
Register preamble to the NCP (47 FR 31190, 16 July 1982). In part,
this approach has been taken because EPA "has been unable to develop
an internally consistent approach for comparing pure hazardous
substance quantity at facilities where definitive information is
available with hazardous substance quantity at facilities where such
information is not available".
During both the 1982 NCP rulemaking and subsequent NPL
rulemakings, various commenters have indicated that site-specific
data on total hazardous constituent quantity should be used in
evaluating a site with the HRS when such data are available. The
purpose of this paper is to examine existing waste composition data
to determine whether, in addition to the current HRS waste quantity
factor, alternative HRS waste quantity factors can be developed to
allow the use of data on total hazardous constituent quantity in
evaluating a site when such data are available. That is, the waste
composition data identified under this effort are analyzed to
determine whether it is reasonable to express the relationship
between waste quantity and the total hazardous constituent quantity
in that waste as a constant (e.g., for various types of waste
management units, is there a statistically significant value or
range for the mean total concentration of hazardous constituents in
those hazardous wastes present in each type of waste management
unit). If such a relationship exists, then an approach can be
developed for consistently and uniformly comparing waste quantities
-------
at sites that have data on hazardous constituent quantity available
with those sites that do not have such data available.
Note that this paper is not concerned with the relative hazard
of the individual constituents in hazardous wastes, nor with the
relative hazard of entire waste streams. Rather, the issue of
concern is strictly the relationship between waste quantity and
total hazardous constituent quantity.
1.3 Scope
This report describes the major sources of waste composition
data that have been identified by this study and provides a
compilation and analysis of the waste composition data presently
available from these sources. As various data sources were reviewed,
it became apparent that concentration data for wastes deposited at
disposal sites are very limited. Most available concentration data
from disposal sites pertain to environmental samples (e.g., ground
water, soil, leachate, surface water), not to waste samples. These
environmental samples cannot be used to reliably estimate the
composition of the wastes that were deposited at the disposal site.
Furthermore, the waste composition data that are available typically
pertain to wastes managed in drums, tanks, and surface impoundments.
For the purpose of gaining additional insight into the composition
of wastes in these and other waste management units (e.g., piles,
landfills, landfarms), MITRE also conducted a review and analysis of
existing data on the hazardous constituent concentrations present in
-------
individual waste streams at their point of generation. While these
waste streams are likely to be commingled with other waste streams
prior to (or at the time of) disposal, information about their
composition could possibly serve as proxies for the composition of
some wastes present at disposal sites, subject to the limitations
discussed in Section 2.
1.4 Organization of Report
Section 2 of this document describes the identified sources of
waste composition data. Specifically, the major sources providing
waste composition data include the EPA Contract Laboratory Program
(CLP), EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC), the
EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW), and the EPA Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR). Section 2 also discusses the limitations
associated with the use of these data in the current analysis.
Section 3 provides statistical summaries of the waste composition
data from each individual data source. Section 4 contains a
comparative analysis of all the data. A summary of the analytical
findings and conclusions are presented in Section 5. Detailed
concentration data for constituents present in various waste streams
are contained in Appendices A, B, and C. Definitions of the waste
management units considered in this study are included in Appendix D.
Appendix E identifies those sites for which waste composition data
are available from Superfund site inspection or remedial investigation
reports. Appendix F contains the bibliography.
-------
2.0 SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS OF WASTE COMPOSITION DATA
This section provides a brief description of the data sources
identified as containing data on the concentration of hazardous
constituents present in wastes. The various data sources provide
information either about the composition of wastes present at
disposal sites or the composition of individual waste streams at the
point of generation, prior to disposal. Wastes present at disposal
sites are generally mixtures of several individual waste streams.
Major data sources identified include the EPA Contract
Laboratory Program, the National Enforcement Investigations Center,
waste characterization studies of the EPA Office of Solid Waste, and
the site inspection and remedial investigation reports prepared for
the EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Table 1 briefly
outlines the general characteristics of each data source. The type
of waste composition information available from each source is
discussed directly below. An analysis of the data is presented in
Sections 3 and 4.
It should be noted that the analytical waste composition data
available from these sources have been collected by these sources
with objectives different from those of the current study. In many
instances, these differences severely restrict the use of the data
in the current study, as noted below.
-------
TABLE 1
KEY FEATURES OF IDENTIFIED SOURCES OF WASTE COMPOSITION DATA USED IN THE CURRENT STUDY
O3
1.
Data Source
Automated
Contract
No. of
Waste
Samples
261
No. of
Sites
81
Classification
of Sites*
16 NPL;
65 Non-NPL
Types of Waste
Management
Units Analyzed
Drums
Number of
Constituents
Analyzed
190 organic
constituents and
2.
3.
Laboratory
Program Data
Base
4.
EPA National
Enforcement
Investigations
Center
1970s OSW
Industry
Studies
Reports
OSW Industry
Base Studies
Data
327
253
36
1-156*** 14-62***
173
NA
14 NPL;
22 Non-NPL
NA** NA
Industrial
waste streams
from 10
industries
Waste streams
from 11
segments of
the organic
chemicals
industry
Primarily drums; some
other high hazard
units (e.g., tanks,
wasteponds, spills)
Industrial waste
streams (e.g.,
sludges, liquids,
solids)
Industrial waste
streams managed in
containers, surface
impoundments, tanks,
piles, landfarms,
and landfills****
28 inorganic
constituents (plus
167 other organic
constituents also
tentatively
identified as
present)
133 organic
constituents,
34 inorganic
elements, and
cyanide
Generally limited
to a few metals
Several hundred
organic and
inorganic
constituents
-------
TABLE 1 (Concluded)
Data Source
No. of
Waste
Samples
No. of
Sites
Classification
of Sites*
Types of Waste
Management
Units Analyzed
Number of
Constituents
Analyzed
5. Superfund Site 155
Inspection
Reports
6. Superfund 109
Remedial
Investigation
Reports
7. PEDCo Mining 183
Study
44
16
36 NPL;
8 Non-NPL
16 NPL
65
65 Non-NPL
Drums, tanks,
surface impoundments,
piles, mine tailings,
landfarms, landfills
Drums, tanks,
surface impoundments,
mine tailings
Surface impoundments,
mine tailings
Variety of organic
and inorganic
constituents
Variety of organic
and inorganic
constituents
22 inorganic
constituents
8.
Franklin 1,071 NA NA
Waste Oil
Study
Primarily tanks;
some drums
6 metals, 12
organic
constituents,
and totalchlorine
*NPL sites are sites listed on, or proposed for the National Priorities List. Non-NPL sites
are sites not listed on, nor proposed for, the National Priorities List.
**NA: Not available.
***Range of the number of samples or sites analyzed across the various studies; number of
samples and sites was not reported for all industries. See Appendix A for data on the number
of samples and sites reported to be analyzed for each of the 10 industries studied.
****Analytical data are from waste streams at point of generation, not from wastes present in
the waste management units.
-------
2.1 Contract Laboratory Program
The EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) is intended to provide
EPA with analyses of field samples collected from hazardous waste
disposal sites. The CLP data base consists of hardcopy analytical
results from samples analyzed under the CLP since 1980. This data
base consists of two major groups of data: Routine Analytical
Services (RAS) and Special Analytical Services (SAS). RAS contains
data from routine sample analyses (e.g., priority pollutants, metals),
while SAS contains data on special compounds and special types of
samples (e.g., dioxin, fish samples) for which analyses are tailored
to meet particular needs. Of the two groups of data, RAS is the more
comprehensive; it contains results from approximately 35,000 samples
collected at more than 1,200 uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Of
these 1,200 sites, 19 percent are NPL sites, and 81 percent are
non-NPL sites.
In 1984 a portion of the CLP/RAS data base (about a 10 percent
random sample, stratified by type of site, i.e., NPL and non-NPL)
was automated from hardcopy (Friedman et al., 1984).* This automated
CLP data base contains information for 358 sites** and over 3,000
samples from these sites. Data are available for more than 218
*The automated CLP data base has been constructed, and is currently
maintained, for EPA by Viar and Company, Inc., Alexandria, VA.
**As of January 1984, 10 percent of the 358 sites were NPL sites, and
the remainder were non-NPL sites. Available data on the identities
of the sites in the data base are not adequate to determine for this
report whether this distribution has since changed.
10
-------
constituents present in these samples. These constituents primarily
consist of 133 organic priority pollutants and other hazardous
organics, 24 metals, 4 inorganic ions, and 57 other organics
tentatively identified as present in both the samples and at over
1 percent of the sites.*
Although the CLP automated data base contains information by
site, sample, and compound, almost all analytical results are
derived from environmental samples (e.g., ground water, surface
water, soils, sediment, and leachate). Very limited data are
available on the composition of the wastes as deposited at the
site. In fact, drum samples are the only waste form that can be
explicitly identified in the automated CLP data base at this time.
Data on drummed wastes are available from 81 of the 358 sites
in the automated CLP data base. However, most of these drum data
cannot be used in the current analysis. For the most part, the
analytical results available in the automated CLP data base provide
only the organic or inorganic portion of the sample analysis, not
both portions. (See Friedman et al., 1984, for a discussion of the
development of the automated CLP data base.) Of the 261 drum
samples currently in the data base, only 5 include data for both the
*0ver 1,000 additional "other organics" have also been tentatively
identified as being present in the samples. These tentatively
identified organics occur at less than 1 percent of the sites.
Concentration data are available for 167 of these tentatively
identified organics in drum samples in the automated data base.
These concentrations are also included in the data summaries
presented in Section 3.
11
-------
organic and inorganic portions of the sample analysis. Analysis of
the hardcopy analytical results for the drum samples in the CLP data
base is beyond the scope of this effort.*
2.2 National Enforcement Investigations Center
The Regulated Substances Laboratory at EPA's National
Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) operates under contract to
the CLP. The NEIC has collected and analyzed samples from drums,
tanks, and other waste management units from 221 disposal sites in
41 States and one U.S. territory. This data base consists of
approximately 1,600 samples from these sites.** The samples have
been analyzed for 113 organic priority pollutants, 20 additional
organic substances, and 34 inorganic elements (including 13 priority
pollutant elements), and cyanide. Not all samples were analyzed for
each constituent. Almost all of the constituents for which analyses
were conducted are also included in the CLP analysis discussed in
Section 2.1. For the most part, the constituents in the NEIC samples
were analyzed using the RAS analytical procedures of the CLP. A few
of the samples were subjected to SAS analytical procedures.
While the NEIC data consist primarily of drum samples,
information is not available to determine which samples are from
drums and which samples are from other management units (e.g.,
*Furthermore, as discussed in Sections 3 and 4, analysis of these
data would not be likely to change the conclusions of this study.
**A small subset (about 4 percent) of the drum data collected and
analyzed by the NEIC is also contained in the automated CLP data
base.
12
-------
tanks, waste ponds) or from spills. In addition, the organic and
inorganic portions of the NEIC sample analyses are segregated in the
data base. The two portions could be matched for 580 of the
samples. Consequently, only these 580 samples are included in the
subsequent analyses.
2.3 Previous Industry Studies of the EPA Office of Solid Waste
In the mid-1970s EPA sponsored several studies to assess the
hazardous waste practices of selected industries. Each study
provided an economic overview of the industry; a characterization of
the wastes generated by the industry; a description of the waste
treatment and disposal practices of the industry; and an analysis of
costs associated with alternative disposal technologies. A review
of these studies was undertaken for the purpose of compiling data on
the concentrations of hazardous constituents in individual waste
streams which may be present at disposal sites.*
Of the 14 studies reviewed, 10 studies contained data on the
concentration of constituents present in waste streams at the point
of generation. The four remaining studies either did not include
sampling programs or did not include the analytical results in the
industry study report. The analyses conducted for the industry
studies focused almost exclusively on metals present in the waste
streams. For three industries, some information was also provided
*Appendix A identifies the industries included in the studies and
contains the detailed concentration data reported for various
hazardous constituents found in the waste streams.
13
-------
on the concentration of cyanides and phenols in waste streams. One
industry study also included benzo[a]pyrene in its analysis. In most
of the industry studies, samples were not analyzed for PCBs* or other
organics.
In general, a review of the industry studies revealed that the
various studies are not consistent with respect to the number of
metals analyzed. Moreover, the type of sampling (e.g., grab,
composite) varied within and across the studies. Also, there was a
vast difference in the number of samples analyzed for the industrial'
t
waste streams under study. In one study, for example, only a single
sample from one waste stream was analyzed, while in another study
56 samples for the waste stream under consideration were collected
and analyzed from a large number of plants. Some studies provide no
information about the number of samples analyzed.
2.4 Current Industry Studies Program of the EPA Office of Solid
Waste
The EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW) has recently been collecting
data on the composition of hazardous waste streams at the point of
generation as part of an EPA Industry Studies program which began in
1980. In contrast to the earlier industry studies, the waste samples
in the present Industry Studies program are being systematically
analyzed for a wide variety of organic and inorganic constituents. To
date, the current Industry Studies program has focused exclusively on
*Secondary references cited in some of the industry study reports
provided some, but very limited, data for PCBs.
14
-------
waste streams from the organic chemicals industry. The data collected
have been used to develop the Industry Studies Data Base (ISDB).
This data base currently contains information about the facilities,
processes, products, waste residuals, and management methods for
11 organic chemicals industry segments. Wastes are characterized by
residual types (e.g., sludges), quantities, hazardous constituents and
their concentrations, as well as management methods.
About 80 percent of the information in the ISDB was derived from
mandatory questionnaires. Of approximately 650 questionnaires mailed
to organic chemical manufacturers, 633 were completed and returned.
Additional sources of information for the data base include: 1) plant
visit reports; 2) sampling and analysis site visit reports; and 3)
engineering analyses. These additional reports and analyses had
formats similar to the questionnaire.
A problem in using this data base in the current study relates
to the manner in which the waste composition data were reported.
Respondents were asked to identify the constituents present in
residuals and to specify the concentration of the constituent
according to predetermined ranges (e.g., the constituent concentration
is 1 to 10 percent, 10 to 50 percent, etc.). Only in cases where the
concentration was less than 100 ppm (0.01 weight percent) were the
respondents specifically requested to report actual concentrations.*
*See RCRA Section 3007 Questionnaire (OMB No. 2000-0396), Question 5,
Residuals Characterization Information, Part D.
15
-------
Consequently, a majority of the waste composition data available in
the ISDB indicate only the predetermined concentration range in
which the constituent concentration falls, not the actual constituent
concentration. All ISDB statistical summaries presented in this
report are based only upon those waste streams for which actual
concentration estimates are available (see Appendix B). For the
various waste management methods reviewed in this report, 10 to
60 percent of the relevant samples in the ISDB have actual
concentration data, not concentration ranges.
2.5 Superfund Site Inspection (SI) Reports
Superfund site inspection (SI) reports were examined for data
on the composition of wastes at uncontrolled waste sites listed in
the NPL technical data base. Data on the composition of wastes
deposited at these sites—including drummed wastes, surface
impoundment wastes, and mine tailings, among others—are available
for 44 sites.* As of August 1986, 36 of the 44 sites are listed or
proposed NPL sites; 2 are non-NPL sites; and the remaining 6 sites
are still under review for possible inclusion on the NPL. In many
cases the waste samples were analyzed for a wide variety of organics
and inorganics. In a few cases, however, the analysis was limited
to a single constituent of concern (e.g., PCBs).
*Most of the data in the SI reports pertain to environmental
samples. Environmental sampling is defined in this report as
sampling from ground water (e.g., wells), surface water (e.g.,
lakes), soil, sediment, and leachate.
16
-------
The waste composition data in the site inspection reports
pertain to 8 waste management methods. However, the vast majority
of the information relates to only the following 4 waste management
methods: surface impoundments* (24 sites); drums (11 sites); tanks
(4 sites); and mining operations (3 sites). For 5 sites, waste
composition data are available from more than one type of management
method (e.g., tanks and lagoons).
2.6 Superfund Remedial Investigation (RI) Reports
Fifty remedial investigation (RI) reports prepared for the
EPA OERR were also reviewed for data on the composition of wastes
deposited at NPL sites. Most of the sampling data in the RIs
pertain to environmental samples, not waste samples. Sixteen of
the RIs, however, provide waste composition data in addition to
environmental sampling data. Primarily, the waste composition
data pertain to wastes from surface impoundments (7 sites); drums
(5 sites); and tanks (4 sites). At 4 of the 16 sites, waste
composition data are available from more than one type of management
method. In addition, one of the RIs also contains an analysis of
waste water treatment plant sludge that was disposed at the site.
Most of the waste samples discussed in the RI reports were
analyzed for a wide variety of both organics and inorganics. While
"Surface impoundments include lagoons, waste ponds, waste pits, and
waste trenches.
17
-------
the waste sampling and analyses were usually performed explicitly as
part of the RIs, some of the hazardous constituent concentration
data published in the RIs originate from secondary sources. These
secondary sources are typically previous studies by various State
departments of environmental protection. The number of constituents
analyzed in the various State studies varied widely.
2.7 Other Data Sources
Three other sources of data on the composition of wastes were
identified and reviewed. These sources are: 1) a study of mining
wastes prepared by PEDCo Environmental, Inc. for OSW; 2) a data base
on waste oil composition developed by Franklin Associates, Ltd. for
OSW; and 3) EPA Background Documents for the listing of hazardous
wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The
PEDCo study (1983) characterizes wastes generated by the mining
industry. More than 400 waste samples were collected from 65 mining
sites across the country- None of these sites are on the NPL. The
samples—taken from solid, slurry, and liquid wastes—were analyzed
primarily for metals and other inorganics.
The data base developed by Franklin Associates (1984)
characterizes the composition and concentration of contaminants in
waste oil samples collected and analyzed between 1981 and 1984.
Analytical results were obtained for more than 1,000 waste oil
samples, both automotive and industrial. The samples were taken
from establishments (e.g., gasoline stations) storing such waste oil
18
-------
in aboveground tanks, belowground tanks, and drums. The samples were
analyzed for 6 metals, 5 chlorinated solvents, 7 other organics, and
total chlorine (see Appendix C).
The EPA Background Documents for the listing of hazardous wastes
under RCRA are based primarily on the industry study reports from
the 1970s and were found to provide little additional information to
the data already contained in the industry study reports. In one
instance, however, a Background Document did supplement the
concentration data for waste streams of the paint manufacturing
industry.
2.8 Limitations of Existing Data With Regard to the Current Analysis
The data sources described in Sections 2.1 through 2.7 provide
the most complete and comprehensive data bases available on the
composition of wastes present at hazardous waste sites. However,
these data bases were developed with different objectives from those
of the current study. As a result, the data available from these
data bases are not entirely consistent with the data requirements of
this study. Consequently, there are limitations in applying the
data to the current study and in drawing conclusions based on the
data.
Table 2 summarizes the major limitations, for purposes of this
study, associated with the waste composition data available from
each of the data sources. The primary concerns with the existing
data relate to whether the data are representative of the wastes
19
-------
TABLE 2
LIMITATIONS OF EXISTING WASTE COMPOSITION DATA WITH REGARD TO THE CURRENT ANALYSIS
Data Source
Date
Type of
Wastes
Major Limitations
1. Automated Contract 1980-83
Laboratory Program
Data Base
Drummed
Wastes
2. EPA National
Enforcement
Investigations
Center
1980-84
Drummed
and High
Hazard
Wastes
Available data pertain only to
drummed wastes
Incomplete automation of sample
results; complete data available
for only 5 samples
CLP drummed waste samples may not
be representative of the wastes at
the particular sites from which
the samples were taken
In general, samples may not be
representative of the wastes at
uncontrolled hazardous wastes sites
Waste composition data for drums
combined with other high hazard
samples
Data limited to samples suspected
of having high concentrations of
hazardous constituents; therefore,
data may not be representative of
all drummed wastes
Randomness of data indeterminate
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Data Source
Date
Type of
Wastes
Major Limitations
3.
1970s OSW
Industry Studies
Reports
4.
OSW Industry
Studies Data
Base
1975-78 Industrial • Waste stream data are from the
Waste point of generation, not point of
Streams disposal
from 10 • Analysis of samples limited to a
Industries very small number of inorganics;
the particular constituents being
analyzed varied by industry
• Sampling programs varied greatly
with respect to the number and
types of samples collected and
analyzed
• Samples not generally random
• Samples not likely to be
representative of the industry;
many samples are single grab
samples from a very limited number
of facilities
1980- Waste • Data limited to a subset of the
Present Streams organic chemicals industry
from 11 • Waste stream data are from the
Segments point of generation, not point of
of the disposal
Organic • Large portion of data base only
Chemicals indicates a pre-selected range in
Industry which the concentration data fall,
rather than the actual
concentrations
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Data Source
Date
Type of
Wastes
Ma.ior Limitations
K)
(-0
4. OSW Industry
Studies Data
Base (Concluded)
5. Superfund Site
Inspection
Reports
6. Superfund
Remedial
Investigation
Reports
• Samples not randomly collected;
however, they may be representative
of these industries due to the
large number of facilities from
which data were collected
1980- Variety • Majority of sites are listed or
Present of Wastes proposed NPL sites
and Waste • Constituents for which samples were
Management analyzed varied from one to a few
Methods to a large number
• Small number of samples available
for several waste management
methods
• Generally no information is
available about sampling
techniques used; randomness of
samples indeterminate
1983-85 Variety • All sites are listed NPL sites
of Wastes • Constituents for which samples were
and Waste analyzed varied from few to many
Management • Small number of samples available
Methods for several waste management
methods
• Generally no information is
available about sampling
techniques used; randomness of
samples indeterminate
-------
TABLE 2 (Concluded)
Data Source
Date
Type of
Wastes
Ma.ior Limitations
7. PEDCo
Mining Study
1983
8. Franklin
Waste Oil
Study
1981-84
Mine
Wastes
Waste Oil
• Data limited to non-NPL sites; may
not be representative of all
mining sites
• Analysis of samples limited
primarily to inorganics
• Randomness of samples indeterminate
• Data limited to waste oil
• Limited number (19) of hazardous
constituents analyzed for/reported
• Randomness of samples indeterminate
-------
present at hazardous wastes sites and to whether the available data
adequately characterize the hazardous constituents in those wastes
present. If the data are not totally representative or do not
adequately characterize the wastes, then findings based on the data
may be invalid.
There are five major factors that affect, to varying degrees,
the representativeness of the available data. These are:
• Whether the data are based on random samples.
• Whether the data pertain to all, or just a limited subset
of, wastes present at hazardous wastes sites.
• Whether the data pertain to all, or just a limited subset
of, the waste management methods used at hazardous wastes
sites.
• Whether the data pertain to all types of hazardous wastes
sites, or just to NPL sites or non-NPL sites.
• Whether the data are based on a sufficient number of samples.
There is a question as to whether most of the available data are
based on random samples. Random samples are important in that all
statistical tests require random data for drawing valid inferences.
The automated CLP data base was developed by randomly selecting
existing samples for inclusion in the data base. However, it is not
known to what extent the waste samples themselves were randomly
obtained at the hazardous wastes sites. The two OSW Industry Studies
data bases contain data that are not based on random samples. The
1970's industry studies primarily contain data from grab samples,
while the ISDB consists of data obtained from questionnaires that
24
-------
were not randomly administered. It is not possible to determine
whether the samples from the other data sources are random.
The data sources vary, to different degrees, in the types of
wastes and waste management methods for which data are available.
The automated CLP data base provides tdata for only one type of waste
management method (i.e., wastes present in drums). These data are,
however, based on a wide variety of wastes and a large number of
samples. The NEIC data pertain primarily to drummed wastes; however,
data from several other management methods are inextricably mixed
with the drummed waste data. The NEIC data are also based on a large
number of samples. Two other data sources (SI and RI reports) contain
data on a wide variety of wastes and waste management methods;
however, data on only a small number of waste samples are available
for several of the waste management methods in these reports. The
PEDCo data base addresses only mining wastes, but provides data for a
wide variety of mining wastes and waste management methods used for
these wastes.
The three other data sources (i.e., the two OSW Industry
Studies and the Franklin Waste Oil Study) provide data only about
the composition of waste streams at the point of generation, not the
point of disposal. Such waste streams are generally commingled with
other hazardous and/or nonhazardous waste streams prior to, or as
part of, the disposal process. In addition to possibly not being
representative of the waste composition at the point of disposal, the
25
-------
data from these latter three sources pertain only to a limited subset
of the waste streams present at hazardous waste sites. Furthermore,
due to changes in processes and products over time, the data from the
two OSW industry studies may not be representative of the composition
of waste streams deposited at hazardous waste sites in the past. The
data from the OSW ISDB and the Franklin Waste Oil Study are based on
a large number of samples while the data from the 1970s industry
studies are generally based on an extremely limited number of samples.
The data sources also differ as to the types of wastes sites to
which their data apply. The data in the SI reports are based on both
NPL and non-NPL sites; however, most of these sites are NPL sites.*
The data in the RI reports are limited to sites that have been listed
on or proposed for the NPL. The PEDCo mining waste data are limited
to mining sites that are non-NPL sites.** The data from the other
sources generally apply to both NPL and non-NPL sites.
*Analysis of the SI data on drummed wastes, the only waste for which
sufficient NPL and non-NPL samples are available for statistical
analysis, indicates that there is no statistically significant
difference between the median total concentration of hazardous
constituents in drummed wastes present at NPL and non-NPL sites.
This finding is supported by similar testing of the NEIC data (see
Section 3.2.1.2). Consequently, there are indications that for at
least some types of wastes, the waste composition data from NPL
sites may be representative of all sites.
**Review of the SI and RI waste composition data for NPL mining
sites and the PEDCo waste composition data for non-NPL mining sites
indicates considerable differences in mean total concentrations.
In fact, the mean total concentration of hazardous constituents
estimated from the SI and RI data exceeds the maximum total
concentration reported at any site in the PEDCo study (see
Section 3.2.4). If these three data sets are truly representative
data sets, then this finding is highly unlikely.
26
-------
There is one further concern about the representativeness of
the data that applies primarily to the CLP and NEIC data and to a
lesser extent to the SI data. Site inspections and the analysis of
data by the CLP program and the NEIC are generally integral steps in
evaluating whether a site belongs on the NPL. Thus, sites in the
CLP, NEIC, or SI data bases that are identified as being non-NPL
sites may only be non-NPL sites because they have not yet completed
the NPL evaluation process. Upon completion of the process, they
may be listed on the NPL. This may cause some anomalies in results
when comparisons are made between NPL and non-NPL site data from
these data bases. For example, if in this analysis a site with very
high waste constituent concentrations is currently a non-NPL site,
but at a later date is classified as an NPL site, results presented
in the analysis for non-NPL sites will be biased upward, and results
for NPL sites will be biased downward. Due to the limited number of
samples available, such biases could significantly affect results.
It is not possible in this study to determine which non-NPL sites
would ultimately be listed on the NPL.
In addition to the above factors, there are two other factors
that affect how adequately the available waste composition data
characterize the hazardous constituents present in the waste samples
analyzed. These factors are:
• The number of CERCLA Hazardous constituents for which
analyses were performed.
• The completeness of the available analytical data.
27
-------
The number of hazardous constituents for which waste samples
were analyzed varies both from data source to data source, as well
as within certain data sources. The number of constituents analyzed
in a waste sample ranges from 2 or 3 inorganic constituents in
several of the 1970s industry studies to several hundred organic and
inorganic constituents in the CLP samples. For the other data
sources, the number of constituents analyzed fall within this range.
Furthermore, complete analytical results are not available in
many cases. The automated CLP data base contains complete sample
analyses for only 5 out of 261 drummed waste samples. For the
remainder of the samples, only the organic or inorganic portion of
the analysis is available in the data base. For the NEIC data,
organic and inorganic portions of sample analyses could be matched
for 580 out of 1,600 samples. For the ISDB, a majority of the waste
composition data indicates only a pre-selected concentration range
in which a constituent concentration falls, rather than the actual
constituent concentration.
The net effect of all these limitations varies from data source
to data source and is generally indeterminate. Limitations in the
number of constituents analyzed or in the completeness of the
analytical data result in hazardous constituent concentrations being
underestimated. Limitations in any of the other factors could
result either in upward or downward biasing of the results to an
unknown degree.
28
-------
Since the identified data are the most complete and
comprehensive data available, they are used in the analysis that
follows. However, the limitations noted above must be recalled in
reviewing the findings of the analysis. Findings that are consistent
across several data sources should be considered more reliable than
findings that are not supported by more than one data source. Data
from each source are analyzed separately in Section 3. To the extent
possible, data from the various sources are integrated in Section 4.
29
-------
3.0 SUMMARIES OF DATA FROM INDIVIDUAL SOURCES
Data on the concentrations of hazardous constituents present in
wastes at disposal sites and in individual industrial waste streams
at their point of generation are provided in this chapter. The
approach used to compile the concentration data is explained in
Section 3.1. A summary of the hazardous constituent concentrations
reported present in wastes at disposal sites is contained in
Section 3.2. Section 3.3 provides a summary of the hazardous
constituent concentrations reported present in individual industrial
waste streams at their point of generation, prior to any commingling
with other waste streams as part of the disposal process. Note that
Sections 3.2 and 3.3 present the data from each individual data
source separately. Integration of the data from the individual
sources is discussed in Section 4.
3.1 Approach
The general approach used to compile the data involved four
steps. First, constituents selected to be included in the analysis
were those on the CERCLA reportable quantity list (see 40 CFR 302).
This list contains about 700 constituents that are considered
hazardous under CERCLA. Second, the total concentration of hazardous
constituents in a waste sample was determined by summing the
concentrations of the individual hazardous constituents reported
to be detected in the sample. For example, if a drum sample was
reported to contain 5 parts per million (ppm) of arsenic; 12 ppm of
31
-------
cadmium; 13 ppm of chromium; 30 ppm of lead; and 130 ppm of
trichloroethylene, then the total concentration of hazardous
constituents in that drum sample, for purposes of this analysis,
was 190 ppm.
The third step of the approach involved stratifying the data
according to waste management practice (e.g., drums, tanks). There
are two main reasons for compiling the data this way. First, such
classifications are generally inherent to the manner in which waste
samples are collected at a site. Second, the total concentration of
hazardous constituents in hazardous wastes is expected, a priori, to
vary across different waste management units. For example, the
concentrations of hazardous constituents in containerized wastes are
generally expected to be greater than the concentrations in surface
impoundment wastes which typically consist of large amounts of water.
(See Appendix D for definitions of the waste management methods
included in this report.)
The last step of the approach involved identifying NPL and
non-NPL site samples, when possible. Generally the data sources
provided waste composition data and site names for each of the
samples. MITRE then classified these samples as either NPL or
non-NPL site samples.
A review of the data from the sources discussed in Section 2
generally showed the sampling and analysis programs undertaken by
the different studies to be extremely diverse due to the different
32
-------
objectives of each sampling and analysis program. The various
studies examined different subsets of hazardous constituents in
their sample analyses. Total concentrations in this report are
necessarily based only on those constituents reported present by
each of the various studies. It is likely that many of the samples
also contained other CERCLA hazardous constituents which were either
not analyzed for, or which were not reported, by the various
studies. With a few exceptions, as discussed below, constituents
were excluded from the current analysis only if they did not appear
on the list of CERCLA hazardous substances.
3.2 Summary of Data From Samples of Wastes at Disposal Sites
Data on the concentration of hazardous constituents present
in waste samples collected from disposal sites are described in
this section. In particular, the available data relate to the
concentration of hazardous constituents present primarily in wastes
placed in drums, tanks and surface impoundments, as well as wastes
disposed at mining sites. Within each category, data are presented
separately for each data source.
3.2.1 Drum Samples
Among the identified data sources, the Contract Laboratory
Program (CLP) and the National Enforcement Investigations Center
(NEIC) data bases provide the most information on wastes in drums.
The SI and RI reports also provide data on drummed wastes. This
33
-------
section summarizes the total concentration of hazardous constituents
reported in drum samples from these data bases.
3.2.1.1 CLP Drum Data. The CLP drum data, which have been
obtained from the automated CLP data base, consist of 261 samples
taken from 81 sites. As of January 1984, 65 of the sites
(80 percent) were reported to be non-NPL sites, and 16 sites
(20 percent) were reported to be NPL sites.*
Descriptive statistics for the total concentration of hazardous
constituents in CLP drum samples are presented in Table 3. As shown
in this table, for a majority of the 261 drum samples (98 percent),
the data base contains only partial information on the hazardous
constituents in the sample, i.e. analytical results are available
either for the organic or inorganic portion of the sample analysis,
but not for both. The 5 samples that contain results for both the
organic and inorganic portions of the sample are from non-NPL sites
and have a mean total concentration of 15 ppm + 147 percent.** This
mean concentration is seen to be very low when compared to the
concentrations of the drum samples for which only partial analyses
are available. The 158 samples for which only the organic analysis
*The portion of NPL and non-NPL sites was estimated at the time
the automated CLP data base was developed. Precise site names
are not available for many sites in the automated CLP data base.
Consequently, the reported distribution of NPL and non-NPL sites
cannot be verified, nor can the reported distribution be updated
to reflect changes in the NPL since January 1984.
**15 ppm + 147 percent indicates that the standard deviation about
the mean of 15 ppm is 147 percent of 15 (or 22 ppm).
34
-------
TABLE 3
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS PRESENT IN CLP DRUM SAMPLES
Total Concentration of Hazardous Constituents* (ppm)
Hazardous
Constituents/Site
Organics and Inorganics
NPL Sites
Non-NPL Sites
All Sites
Organ! cs Only**
NPL Sites
Non-NPL Sites
All Sites
Inorganics Only***
NPL Sites
Non-NPL Sites
All Sites
No. of
Samples
0
5
5
42
116
158
30
68
98
Minimum
__
0.84
0.84
0.004
0.0002
0.0002
0.07
0.0001
0.0001
Maximum
__
53
53
21,000
464,300
464,300
14,000
60,218
60,218
Mean
_
15
15
760
12,890
9,665
2,343
1,362
1,662
Median
—
6
6
21
1
4
95
15
18
Standard
Deviation
—
22
22
3,249
50,839
43,873
3,704
7,355
6,456
*These estimates exclude sodium whenever reported in a sample. Sodium was excluded
to avoid counting its nonhazardous compounds which are likely to be the predominate
form present. Concentrations of all other CERCLA hazardous constituents are
included when reported.
**Samples for which only the organic portion of the analysis is available.
***Samples for which only the inorganic portion of the analysis is available.
Note: Dashes indicate not applicable.
-------
is available have a mean total concentration of 9,665 ppm + 454
percent, while the 98 samples for which only the inorganic analysis
is available have a mean total concentration of 1,662 ppm + 388
percent. In contrast to the 15 ppm estimate, the mean total
concentration of hazardous constituents obtained by adding the means
developed from the two sets of partial analyses provides a more
meaningful estimate. In this case, the mean total concentration is
11,327 ppm.
Upon further examination of the information displayed in
Table 3, the mean total concentration for organics only at non-NPL
sites is 12,890 ppm + 394 percent. This estimate is considerably
greater than the corresponding mean (760 ppm + 428 percent) derived
for the NPL site samples. There are several possible reasons for
this unexpected result. First, an unknown number of the non-NPL
sites, especially those with high concentrations of hazardous
constituents, may be non-NPL sites only because they are still being
evaluated for the NPL. Analysis of site data by the CLP program is
one of the preliminary steps in evaluating whether a site belongs on
the NPL. Second, for reasons previously discussed, it is possible
that some sites were misclassified when the data base was developed
as to whether they are NPL or non-NPL sites. Third, the data may
not be representative of either NPL or non-NPL sites, or of both.
It is possible, for example, that the non-NPL site from which the
464,300 ppm sample comes may, in fact, presently be an NPL site or
36
-------
may become an NPL site in the future. Dropping this one sample from
the non-NPL site samples would lower the mean total concentration
from 12,890 ppm to 8,965 ppm. Alternatively, adding this one sample
of 464,300 ppm to the NPL samples would increase the NPL mean for
organics only from 760 ppm to 11,540 ppm.
In the case of inorganics only, the mean total concentration
for the non-NPL site samples in Table 3 is strongly influenced by
the one 60,218 ppm sample. Again, if this one sample were
misclassified or subsequently became an NPL site in the future, the
mean total concentration of hazardous constituents for non-NPL sites
would be reduced considerably—from 1,362 ppm to about 484 ppm,
about one-third of the original estimate. Alternatively, the mean
total concentration for NPL sites would be increased from 2,343 ppm
to 4,210 ppm.
Table 3 generally shows that the mean total concentrations
are much greater than the estimated medians. This result is a
consequence of many drum samples having low total concentrations,
and a few samples having very high total concentrations (e.g.,
464,300 ppm). In addition, the standard deviations are observed to
be generally 2 to 5 times greater than the means. The high standard
deviations illustrated in this table indicate a high variability of
the total concentration of hazardous constituents among the samples.
Information about the physical conditions of the drums is not
available in the automated CLP data base. Consequently, it is not
37
-------
known to what extent the drums were open and the contents diluted or
concentrated by environmental conditions (e.g., rain, volatilization,
evaporation) before sampling and analysis occurred.
3.2.1.2 NEIC Drum Data. The NEIC data base contains
information for drum and high hazard samples. The high hazard
samples (i.e., samples suspected of having high concentrations of
hazardous constituents) were obtained from waste pits or ponds,
waste piles, tanks, and heavily contaminated soils. The data base
contains the organic and/or inorganic analysis for approximately
1,600 samples. Based on an initial review of the data, both the
organic and inorganic portions of a sample analysis could be
identified for 284 samples. Information supplied by EPA's Sample
Management Office (personal communication with Linda Boynton, March
1986) allowed organic and inorganic analytical results to be matched
for an additional 296 samples. As a result, complete information
for 580 samples was extracted from the NEIC data base. The mean
total concentration of hazardous constituents for these samples
is 68,614 ppm + 201 percent. Other descriptive statistics on the
concentrations of the 580 NEIC samples are 0.64 ppm (minimum
total concentration); 950,535 ppm (maximum total concentration);
12,809 ppm (median total concentration); and 138,184 ppm (standard
deviation).
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the frequency distributions for
hazardous constituent concentrations in the 580 drum and high hazard
38
-------
PERCENT OF SAMPLES
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0- 10,000- 20,000- 30,000- 40,000- 50,000- 60,000- 70,000- 80,000- 90,000-
9,999 19,999 29,999 39,999 49,999 59,999 69,999 79,999 89,999 99,999
TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS (PPM)
> 100,000
FIGURE 1
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN 580 DRUM AND HIGH HAZARD SAMPLES
FROM THE NEIC DATA BASE (OPEN INTERVAL)
-------
PERCENT OF SAMPLES
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0-
99,999
100.000-
199,999
200,000-
299,999
300,000-
399,999
400,000-
499,999-
500,000-
599,999
600,000-
699,999
700,000-
799,999
800,000-
899,999
900,000-
1,000,000
TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS (PPM)
FIGURE 2
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN 580 DRUM AND HIGH HAZARD SAMPLES
FROM THE NEIC DATA BASE (CLOSED INTERVAL)
-------
samples in the NEIC data base. The frequency distribution shown in
Figure 1 is based on an open interval scale measured in units of
10,000 ppm up to 100,000 ppm. Alternatively, Figure 2 presents
the same information, but the intervals are in units of 100,000 ppm
over the entire scale through 1,000,000 ppm. As shown in Figure 1,
47 percent of the samples have total concentrations less than
10,000 ppm and 19 percent have total concentrations greater than
100,000 ppm. While this figure appears to illustrate a bimodal
frequency distribution, Figure 2 shows that this observation is
merely an artifact of the scale used in Figure 1.
In fact, the frequency distribution for the 580 NEIC samples is
unimodal. When the open-ended interval in Figure 1 is extended from
100,000 ppm to 1,000,000 ppm in increments of 10,000 ppm, there is
no evidence of a multimodal frequency distribution. Figure 2,
developed with a closed interval scale, presents this basic finding.
Eighty-one percent of the samples have total concentrations of
hazardous constituents less than 100,000 ppm. Eight percent of
the samples have total concentrations between 100,000 ppm and
200,000 ppm, and 6 percent of the samples have total concentrations
between 200,000 ppm and 300,000 ppm. The total concentration of
hazardous constituents for the remaining 5 percent of the samples
declines almost continuously between 300,000 ppm and 1,000,000 ppm.
Although information as to whether the drum and high hazard
samples are from NPL or non-NPL sites is not available in the NEIC
41
-------
data base, this information is available from the EPA Sample
Management Office (SMO) (personal communication with Linda Boynton,
March 1986). A site listing provided by this office allowed 327* of
the 580 samples (56 percent) to be identified by site. The 327
samples were taken from 36 sites, of which 14 sites (39 percent) are
NPL sites, and the remainder (61 percent) are non-NPL sites. Table
4 shows the distribution of these NEIC samples across the 10 EPA
regions. Sixty-nine percent of the samples were obtained from EPA
Regions 2 and 5. While EPA Regions 7 and 8 are not represented in
Table 4, samples from these regions are included in the other 253
NEIC samples.
A statistical summary of the NEIC drum and high hazard sample
data for the 327 identified NPL and non-NPL site samples is provided
in Table 5. The results presented in this table show that the mean
total concentration for all these sites is 82,994 ppm (or 8.3 weight
percent). Non-NPL site samples have a mean total concentration of
about 76,000 ppm + 180 percent while the mean for NPL sites is
approximately 91,000 ppm + 162 percent. A comparison of mean total
concentrations in Table 5 shows that the mean derived for the 181
non-NPL site samples is 76,424 ppm + 180 percent, and the mean for
all 580 NEIC samples is 68,614 ppm + 201 percent. Intuitively, one
*In the course of collecting the raw data from the EPA regions, NEIC
discovered that some sample identifications were altered from those
identifications originally assigned by the Sample Management Office.
This explains, in part, why only 56 percent of the 580 samples could
be identified by site.
42
-------
TABLE 4
DISTRIBUTION OF DRUM AND HIGH HAZARD* SAMPLES
IN THE NEIC DATA BASE
Number of Sites
EPA Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
NPL
2
1
1
3
3
4
0
0
0
0
Non-NPL
1
1
3
1
4
7
0
0
3
2
Total
3
2
4
4
7
11
0
0
3
2
Number of Samples
NPL
5
20
8
9
92
12
0
0
0
0
Non-NPL
1
78
4
1
37
18
0
0
33
9
Total
6
98
12
10
129
30
0
0
33
9
Total U.S. 14 22 36 146 181 327
*High hazard samples are samples suspected of having high
concentrations of hazardous constituents at the time of sampling.
The samples were obtained from waste piles, waste pits or ponds,
tanks, and heavily contaminated soils.
43
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS PRESENT IN NEIC DRUM AND HIGH HAZARD SAMPLES
FOR IDENTIFIED NPL AND NON-NPL SITES
Site
Samples
No. of
Samples
Total
of Hazardous
Minimum
Maximum
Concentration
Constituents* (ppm)
Mean
Median
SD**
NPL Sites 146
Non-NPL Sites 181
Total 327
14 681,920 91,139 22,945 147,237
1 897,422 76,424 16,529 137,352
1 897,422 82,994 18,936 141,819
All Complete
NEIC Samples
580***
0.6
950,535 68,614 12,809 138,184
*These estimates exclude sodium whenever reported in a sample. Sodium
was excluded in order to avoid counting its nonhazardous compounds
which are likely to be the predominate form present.
**SD: Standard deviation.
***Includes the 253 samples that could not be identified as NPL or non-NPL
site samples.
44
-------
would expect the mean for all 580 samples to be greater than the mean
for the non-NPL site samples. The unexpected result may be due to
properties of the 253 NEIC samples that could not be identified as
NPL or non-NPL site samples. One possible explanation for the result
is that most of the unidentified samples may be non-NPL site samples
with low total concentrations, thereby pushing the mean estimate
downwards. Another possible reason is that the proportion of drummed
waste samples and other waste samples may be significantly different
in the two subsets of data. This would likely affect the results.
Similar to the CLP drum data, the median total concentrations
estimated from the NEIC data are considerably less than their means.
Again, this observation is a consequence of many samples having
relatively low total concentrations, and only a few samples having
very high concentrations. In addition, the standard deviations for
the NEIC data are generally 1.6 to 2 times greater than the means.
The frequency distributions for the total concentration of the
hazardous constituents reported in these 327 NEIC samples are
presented in Figures 3 and 4. These distributions were constructed
on the basis of drum and high hazard samples from both NPL and
non-NPL sites. As in Figures 1 and 2 for the 580 NEIC samples,
the frequency distributions in Figures 3 and 4 present the same
information, but use two different interval scales for measuring the
total concentration of hazardous constituents. In Figure 3, the
45
-------
PERCENT OF SAMPLES
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0- 10,000- 20,000- 30,000- 40,000- 50,000- 60,000- 70,000- 80,000- 90,000-
9,999 19,999 29,999 39,999 49,999 59,999 69,999 79,999 89,999 99,999
TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS (PPM)
FIGURE 3
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN DRUM AND HIGH HAZARD SAMPLES FROM THE NEIC
DATA BASE FOR IDENTIFIED NPL AND NON-NPL SITE SAMPLE (OPEN INTERVAL)
-------
PERCENT OF SAMPLES
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0-
99,999
100,000-
199,999
200.000-
299,999
300,000-
399,999
400,000-
499,999-
500,000-
599,999
600,000-
699,999
700,000-
799,999
800,000-
899,999
900,000-
1,000,000
TOTAL CXDNCENTRAT10N OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS (PPM)
FIGURE 4
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
IN DRUM AND HIGH HAZARD SAMPLES FROM THE NEIC DATA BASE
FOR IDENTIFIED NPL AND NON-NPL SITE SAMPLES (CLOSED INTERVAL)
-------
units are measured in increments of 10,000 ppm up to 100,000 ppm
while in Figure 4 the units are in 100,000 ppm over the entire scale,
through 1,000,000 ppm. Figure 3 shows that approximately 41 percent
of the samples have total concentrations of hazardous constituents
less than 10,000 ppm, or 1.0 weight percent. In contrast, 25 percent
of the samples have total concentrations greater than 100,000 ppm,
or 10.0 weight percent. (This compares to percentages of 47 and 19
for the entire 580 samples.) Although the frequency in Figure 3
exhibits a bimodal distribution, this result, again, is an artifact
of the open interval scale used to develop the distribution.
Figure 4 shows the unimodal frequency distribution actually
underlying these data. Only 3 percent of the 327 samples have
total concentrations exceeding 500,000 ppm (or 50 weight percent).
Frequency distributions were also separately developed for
concentrations of hazardous constituents in drummed and high hazard
wastes at NPL sites and non-NPL sites to determine if any significant
differences could be observed. As shown by Figures 5 and 6, the
frequencies for NPL and non-NPL site samples do not appear to exhibit
any major disparities. Using an interval scale of 100,000 ppm, the
frequency distributions in each figure are unimodal. In both cases,
the greatest portion of samples (74 percent of NPL site samples and
76 percent of non-NPL site samples) has concentrations less than
100,000 ppm. In addition, 44 percent of the non-NPL site samples
and 37 percent of the NPL site samples have concentrations less than
48
-------
PERCENT OF SAMPLES
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0-
99,999
100,000-
199,999
200,000-
299,999
300,000-
399,999
400,000-
499,999-
500,000-
599,999
600,000-
699,999
700,000-
799,999
800,000-
899,999
900,000-
1,000,000
TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS (PPM)
FIGURE 5
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN DRUM AND HIGH HAZARD SAMPLES FROM THE NEIC
DATA BASE FOR IDENTIFIED NPL SITE SAMPLES
-------
t_n
O
PERCENT OF SAMPLES
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0- 100,000- 200,000- 300,000- 400,000- 500,000- 600,000- 700,000- 800,000- 900,000-
99,999 199,999 299,999 399,999 499,999- 599,999 699,999 799,999 899,999 1,000,000
TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS (PPM)
FIGURE 6
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
IN DRUM AND HIGH HAZARD SAMPLES FROM THE NEIC DATA BASE
FOR IDENTIFIED NON-NPL SITE SAMPLES
-------
10,000 ppm. Furthermore, 3 out of 181 non-NPL site samples (2 percent)
were found to have total concentrations exceeding 500,000 ppm. In
comparison, for the NPL sites 7 of the 146 samples (5 percent) have
total concentrations greater than 500,000 ppm.* In summary, the
figures do not indicate any major differences between the frequency
distributions for NPL and non-NPL site samples.**
3.2.1.3 SI and RI Drum Samples. Tables 6 and 7, respectively,
provide statistical summaries of the drummed waste samples compiled
from the SI and RI reports. (See Appendix E for a list of sites
providing these data.) Similar to the frequency distributions prepared
from the NEIC drum data, the frequency distributions developed from
the SI and RI drum samples are also unimodal. For the 58 SI drum
samples, 53 percent of the samples have total concentrations less than
10,000 ppm, 83 percent have total concentrations less than 100,000 ppm,
and 7 percent have total concentrations greater than 500,000 ppm. As
observed from Table 6, these samples have a mean total concentration
*A review of the SI and RI reports (see Section 3.2.1.3) identified
several sites where drums had been sampled. For comparison purposes,
drum data from these these reports were compared to these NEIC data.
The mean total concentration of hazardous constituents detected in the
SI drummed waste samples was approximately 84,000 ppm—falling towards
the higher end of the frequency distribution shown in Figure 5. The
RI drummed waste samples had a mean total concentration of about
106,000 ppm. In comparison, the 580 NEIC samples had a mean total
concentration of 68,600 ppm.
**Moreover, if the NEIC data are assumed to be random, use of the
Wilcoxon rank sum median test (see Section 4.3) reveals that there are
no statistically significant differences between the median total
concentrations for NPL and non-NPL sites.
51
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF WASTE COMPOSITION DATA COMPILED FROM SUPERFUND SITE INSPECTION REPORTS
Waste Sample Source
Drums
Tanks
- Aqueous liquid
- Sludge/solid
Surface Impoundments**
- Aqueous liquid
- Sludge/sediment
Mine Tailings
Sludges
Waste Piles
Land farm (soil)
Landfill (sediment)
No. of
Sites
11
4
2
2
24
15
17
3
3
2
1
1
No. of
Samples
58
6
3
3
55
23
32
19
3
11
1
2
Total Concentration of
Hazardous Constituents (ppm)
Minimum
4
0.8
3
0.05
0.5
5,556
618
224
—
0.6
Maximum
907,500
484
3,128
98,703
649,251
94,882
19,000
339,759
—
73
Mean
84,261
162
1,971
6,656
62,751
51,904
7,559
182,924
7,221
37
Median
6,357
0.8
2,781
47
12,603
62,649
3,060
198,763
—
37
SD*
198,810
279
1,713
21,540
141,802
29,865
9,983
108,318
—
—
*SD: Standard deviation.
**Includes lagoons, waste ponds, waste pits, and waste trenches.
Note: Dashes indicate not applicable.
Source: Superfund Site Inspection Reports.
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF WASTE COMPOSITION DATA COMPILED FROM
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORTS
Ui
u>
Waste Sample Source
Drums
Tanks
- Aqueous liquid
- Sludge/solid
Surface Impoundments**
- Aqueous liquid
- Sludge/sediment
Mine Tailings
Sludges***
Rubber Chips
Spent Lime Cells
No. of
Sites
5
4
3
3
7
5
7
1
2
1
1
No. of
Samples
26
53
45
8
20
8
12
1
4
1
4
Total Concentration of
Hazardous Constituents (ppm)
Minimum
17
2
72
3
175
—
3
—
0.01
Maximum
732,712
12,882
98,339
1,907
161,005
—
2,247
—
10,407
Mean
106,283
3,137
22,444
521
37,089
188,844
1,294
63
2,743
Median
16,082
2,682
5,798
174
8,326
—
1,464
—
283
SD*
180,744
3,290
34,954
710
57,437
—
1,041
—
5,116
*SD: Standard deviation.
**Includes lagoons, waste ponds, and waste pits.
***The sludges sampled at one site are actually industrial waste stream samples.
Note: Dashes indicate not applicable.
Sources: CH2M Hill (1985a, 1985b, 1985c, 1985d, 1985e, 1985f, 1984); Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources (1983); NUS Corporation (1985a, 1985b, 1985c, 1985d, 1985e, 1984a,
1984b, 1984c); and TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc. (1985).
-------
of 84,261 ppm + 236 percent. For the 26 RI drum samples, 35 percent
of the samples have total concentrations less than 10,000 ppm,
77 percent have total concentrations less than 100,000 ppm, and
4 percent have total concentrations exceeding 500,000 ppm. These
samples have a mean total concentration of 106,283 ppm + 170 percent.
The median total concentrations for both the SI and RI data are
considerably less than their corresponding means. This finding is
the same for the NEIC data. Such observations suggest that the
populations from which the drum samples were drawn are not normally
distributed (see Section 4.3). The standard deviations are 1.7 to
2.4 times greater than the means in the two cases.
3.2.2 Tank Samples
The SI and RI reports and the Franklin Waste Oil Study provide
data on wastes in tanks. These data are briefly discussed below.
3.2.2.1 SI and RI Tank Samples. Four of the SI reports contain
data for waste samples from tanks. Generally, the tank samples were
classified as either aqueous liquid or sludge/solids. Table 6 shows
that sludge has the higher mean total concentration of hazardous
constituents for the various tank contents reported. The sludge has
a mean total concentration of 1,971 ppm + 87 percent, while the
liquids have a mean total concentration of 162 ppm + 172 percent.
Four of the 50 RI reports also provided information about the
concentration of hazardous constituents in wastes contained in tanks
54
-------
at NPL sites.* Table 7 presents the statistical findings for 45 tank
liquid samples and 8 tank sludge samples from these 4 sites. The
sludge samples have a mean total concentration of 22,444 ppm +
156 percent, while the liquid samples have a mean total concentration
of 3,137 ppm + 105 percent. The medians for the tank samples are
less than the estimated means. The median concentration for sludge,
in particular, is considerably less than its mean. This is due to the
presence of a few samples with extremely high total concentrations.
Upon comparing the SI and RI data for tanks in Tables 6 and 7, the
concentrations reported in the SI reports are considerably lower than
the concentrations in the RI reports.
3.2.2.2 Waste Oil Tank Samples. The waste oil data base
constructed by Franklin Associates, Ltd. provides information for the
concentration of hazardous constituents in waste oil stored in tanks
and drums. According to this data base, waste oil stored in tanks
and drums contains, on the average, about 83,000 ppm (8.3 weight
percent) of hazardous constituents.** The concentrations of hazardous
constituents found in the tank waste samples for aqueous liquids and
sludges shown in Tables 6 and 7 are considerably less than the total
*See Appendix E for a list of these sites. There were no sites for
which both SI and RI data were available.
**See Appendix C, Table C-l, for a listing of the specific
contaminants and their concentrations found in these waste oil
samples. The estimate of 83,000 ppm is not for tanks alone; the
concentration is estimated from both tanks and drum samples. The
drum data in the waste oil data base could not be separated from
the tank data.
55
-------
concentration estimated from the waste oil data in the Franklin data
base.
3.2.3 Surface Impoundment Samples
The SI and RI reports and the PEDCo study provide data for
waste samples from surface impoundments. (See Appendix E for a list
of sites for which the SI and RI data are available.) In this
section only data from the SI and RI reports are considered.
Section 3.2.4 discusses the PEDCo data on mining wastes in surface
impoundments (i.e., pond liquid and pond settled solids).
Waste samples drawn from surface impoundments were usually
categorized as either aqueous liquid or sludge/sediment in the SI
and RI reports. Like the tank wastes, Table 6 shows that for the
SI data the mean total concentration of hazardous constituents is
greater for sludge (62,751 ppm + 226 percent) than for aqueous
liquid (6,656 ppm + 324 percent).
Seven of the 50 RI reports presented data on the concentration
of hazardous constituents in surface impoundment wastes. According
to the waste sample data compiled from the RI reports in Table 7,
the mean total concentration for surface impoundment sludge is
37,089 ppm + 155 percent. In contrast, the mean total concentration
for aqueous liquids is 521 ppm + 136 percent.
3.2.4 Mining Waste Samples
Data on the concentration of selected hazardous constituents
present in wastes at mining sites have been prepared by PEDCo
56
-------
Environmental, Inc. (1983). These mining wastes were analyzed
primarily for metals and other inorganics. Table 8 contains
preliminary data on the concentration of hazardous constituents
for three types of wastes in 7 mining segments.* The statistics
presented in Table 8 show that pond settled solids at mining sites
have the greatest mean total concentration (4,340 ppm + 189 percent),
and pond liquid the lowest (27 ppm + 367 percent). These mean
concentrations are considerably less than the mean concentrations
for nonmining wastes in surface impoundments at SI and RI sites.
None of the sites sampled in the PEDCo study are NPL sites.
Additional data on tailings disposed at mining sites are
provided in 3 SI reports and 1 of the RI reports (see Appendix E,
Tables E-l, and E-2, respectively). Tables 6 and 7 report the
findings from these data sources. The statistics shown in Tables 6
and 7 contrast sharply with those developed using the PEDCo data
(see Table 8). The mean total concentration for tailings derived
from the PEDCo data is 1,901 ppm + 159 percent for mining sites not
on the NPL. Data extracted from the RI and SI reports, respectively,
yield mean total concentrations in tailings of 188,844 ppm (single
sample for an NPL listed site) and 87,144 ppm + 68 percent (samples
from 3 mining sites, one non-NPL and two proposed for the NPL). The
pronounced differences in the PEDCo and SI/RI estimates are even
*The mining segments include uranium, phosphate, copper, lead/zinc,
molybdenum, gold/silver, and iron.
57
-------
TABLE 8
PRELIMINARY DATA ON THE CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN INDICATED MINING WASTES
Total Concentration of
Hazardous Constituents* (pom)
Waste Sample Source
Pond Liquid**
Pond Settled Solids***
Tailings****
No. of
Samples
60
79
44
Minimum
0.07
33
4
Maximum
706
47,983
16,018
Mean
27
4,340
1,901
Median
2.02
1,613
909
Standard
Deviation
99
8,205
3,023
00
*These estimates exclude sodium when reported. Sodium was excluded in order to avoid
counting its non-hazardous compounds which are likely to be the predominate form
present.
**Tailings pond liquid and mine water pond liquid.
***Tailings pond settled solids and mine water pond settled solids.
****Fresh tailings and sand tailings.
Source: Preliminary data compiled from PEDCo Environmental, Inc., November 1983.
Evaluation of Management Practices for Mine Solid Waste Storage. Disposal and
Treatment, (Draft Report), Volume 1, Characterization of Mining Industry Wastes,
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
-------
more evident upon observing that the mean total concentrations for the
SI and RI data exceed the maximum total concentration reported at any
site in the PEDCo study.
3.2.5 Other Samples of Wastes at Disposal Sites
The SI and RI reports provide some additional sampling data for
sludges, waste piles, and landfarms, among others, at disposal sites.
Tables 6 and 7 include the findings from these reports. The mean
total concentration of hazardous constituents in waste piles is
extremely large compared to the other wastes in Table 6. This
high concentration may be influenced by the specific characteristics
of the 1 site from which 10 of the 11 samples were obtained.
Historically, that waste site was a manufacturing facility for
fertilizer additives. The waste piles—which consisted of virgin flue
dust, off-spec fertilizer, micronutrient fertilizer, and mixtures of
flue dust and dirt—had high zinc concentrations, ranging between
1,660 ppm and 284,000 ppm for each of the 10 piles sampled.
The SI and RI reports also present data on several waste types
analyzed at only a single site. The mean total concentrations of
hazardous constituents in these wastes range from 37 to 7,221 ppm.
3.3 Summary of Data from Samples of Industrial Waste Streams at the
Point of Generation
This section discusses the concentration data compiled from two
sets of industry studies conducted for EPA. One set of studies was
conducted during the mid-1970s. The other is a currently on-going
effort that, to date, has focused on the organic chemicals industry.
59
-------
The data reported in both these studies were derived from industrial
waste streams at their point of generation, prior to disposal. Such
waste streams are likely to be combined with other wastes as part
of the disposal process. Consequently, the composition and
concentrations of constituents in wastes at disposal sites are
likely to be different from those of the individual waste streams.
Furthermore, there may be differences due to changes in processes
and products over time.
Also included in this section is a discussion of the
concentrations of hazardous constituents in waste oil and in
selected waste streams of the waste oil re-refining industry.
3.3.1 Previous Industry Studies of the EPA Office of Solid
Waste (OSW7
Table 9 contains a highly aggregated summary of the average
total concentrations of hazardous constituents reported present in
selected industrial waste streams during the 1970's. Data presented
in this table for the paint manufacturing industry were obtained
from an EPA Background Document (see Section 2.7). The remaining
data were obtained from the 1970's OSW industry studies. The
concentration data are based almost exclusively on analysis of only
the heavy metals content of the waste streams. Due to the different
ways in which data were reported for different industry segments,
the average total concentrations in Table 9 have been derived in
different ways. In some cases, the average total concentration
60
-------
TABLE 9
AVERAGE TOTAL CONCENTRATIONS OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN INDUSTRIAL
WASTE STREAMS FROM PREVIOUS EPA INDUSTRY STUDIES*
(ppm)
Solids
Paint Spent
Waste Untreated Wastes & Clay
Industry Sludges** Oils Wastevater Solvents Sand Dusts Filters Residues Miscellaneous
1. Textiles 5,300
2. Plastic 200
Materials &
Synthetics
3. Paint 200***
Manufacturing
4. Solvent 3,200
Reclamation
5. Petroleum 2,000
Refining
6. Petroleum 18,800
Re-refining
7. Leather 4,200
Tanning &
Finishing
8. Metal 98,300
Smelting
& Refining
300
80***
1,600
10
20
1,100
50,600
7,000
100 32,300
12,100
200a
l,100b
7,600C
86,600 139,000d
-------
TABLE 9 (Concluded)
10.
11.
Solids
Industry
Waste
Sludges** Oils
Paint
Untreated Wastes &
Wastewater Solvents Sand Dusts
Spent
Clay
Filters Residues Miscellaneous
Electroplating 93,000
& Metal
Finishing
Special
Machinery
Manufacturing
Electronic
Components
Manufacturing
700
18,800 1,600
90
600
*The waste streams were analyzed primarily for metals. The concentrations in the table do not include
sodium. This exclusion avoids counting nonhazardous sodium compounds which are likely to be the
predominate form present.
**Includes silt and still bottoms.
***Estimates are from EPA Background Document, June 7, 1980, Table 6, p. 123 and Table 7, p. 124.
aAverage of mean concentrations for sweepings and floor wastes, spent alumina, and waste nylon salt.
bAverage of mean concentrations for dissolved air flotation float, coke fines, spent lime, and fluid
catalytic cracker catalyst fines.
cAverage of mean concentrations for chrome trimmings and shavings, chrome fleshings, leather trim, and
sewer screenings.
^Average of mean concentrations for slag and potroom skimmers.
Note: Dashes indicate not available or not applicable.
Source: Appendix A, Tables A-2 through A-15.
-------
reflects the sum of mean concentrations for Individual constituents
present in the industrial waste stream (e.g., sludges in the textiles
industry). In other cases, the average total concentration is
derived as an average of the mean total concentrations generated by
the various industry segments within that industry. In such cases,
the concentrations were derived as simple arithmetic averages; they
have not been weighted, for example, by the quantity of the waste
stream generated by each industry segment producing that waste
stream.*
Table 9 shows that all of the 11 industries generate some type of
sludge.** Two industries in particular, Metal Smelting & Refining and
Electroplating & Metal Finishing, produce sludges which contain very
high concentrations of hazardous constituents. A variety of other
waste streams are also generated by the different industries. Among
these other waste streams, solids (particularly spent clay filters
*For example, Table A-9 (Appendix A) presents average concentration
data for hazardous constituents in selected sludges generated by
12 different categories of smelters and refiners (e.g., primary
and secondary ferrous and nonferrous smelters). For each of the
12 smelters/refiners, the average concentrations of individual
constituents present in these sludges were summed. The estimated
total concentrations were summed across the smelters/refiners and
then divided by 12 (i.e., the number of categories of smelters/
refiners for which concentration data are reported). The resulting
estimate of 98,300 ppm was then tabulated to represent the average
total concentration of hazardous constituents present in sludges
generated by the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry (see Table 9).
**0ther sludge samples from an industrial waste stream were reported
in one of the RIs. The hazardous constituents present in these
sludge samples, taken from a wastewater treatment plant, were
estimated to have a mean total concentration of about 2,000 ppm.
63
-------
and residues) have relatively high concentrations of hazardous
constituents.
As previously discussed in Section 2.3, there are several caveats
associated with the data presented in Table 9. First, the hazardous
constituents for which analyses were conducted were almost exclusively
metals. Furthermore, the metals being analyzed varied by industry;
in some cases analyses were performed for only two or three metals,
while in other cases, analyses for as many as 20 metals were
performed. Second, grab samples were used to derive estimates for
some industries while composite samples were used in other cases.
And third, the sampling programs of the different industry studies
varied greatly with respect to the number of samples taken to
determine representative concentrations.
3.3.2 Current OSW Industry Studies Program
More recently, the EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW) has been
collecting data on the composition of hazardous waste streams as part
of the EPA Industry Studies program which began in 1980. In contrast
to the earlier industry studies, the waste samples in the present
Industry Studies program are being analyzed for a wide variety of
organic and inorganic constituents. However, it must be pointed out
that, to date, the current Industry Studies program has focused
exclusively on waste streams from the organic chemicals industry.
The data collected have been used to develop the Industry Studies
Data Base (ISDB).
64
-------
Tables 10 and 11 provide general summaries of the waste
composition data contained in the ISDB.* The waste composition data
are presented by the type of waste management method and by whether
the wastes are RCRA or non-RCRA waste streams. RCRA waste streams
are those waste streams considered hazardous under 40 CFR 261. The
descriptive statistics shown in Table 10 have not been weighted by
the quantity of the waste stream generated by the industry segment
producing that waste stream. Alternatively, the information
contained in Table 11 is weighted by such quantities. The
quantity-weighted data in Table 11 may provide a more meaningful
indicator of the total concentration of hazardous constituents in
hazardous wastes at disposal sites than the data presented in
Table 10; the quantity-weighted data attempt to account for the
eventual commingling of waste streams.
Based upon the unweighted data, wastes in piles, landfarms, and
surface impoundments typically have lower total concentrations of
hazardous constituents than wastes in containers, landfills, and
*The constituents used to derive the concentrations in Tables 10 and
11 are those on the CERCLA reportable quantities list, with a few
exceptions. Sixteen dilute acids and caustics were not included in
order to prevent the concentration estimates from being greatly
inflated. The only information available for these 16 acids and
caustics was the total concentration of the dilute acid or caustic
present in the waste stream, not the concentration of the pure acid
or caustic in the waste stream. (For example, if the waste stream
contained 200,000 ppm of 1 percent hydrochloric acid, this was
reported as 200,000 ppm of hydrochloric acid, not as 2,000 ppm of
hydrochloric acid.) Also, sodium was excluded to avoid counting
nonhazardous sodium compounds.
65
-------
TABLE 10
TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS PRESENT IN ISDB WASTE STREAMS*
(UNWEIGHTED)
Total Concentration of Hazardous
Management Method
RCRA Wastes
Containers
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Tanks
Piles
Land farms
All Management Methods
Non-RCRA Wastes
Containers
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Tanks
Piles
Land farms
All Management Methods
No. of
Samples
14
21
4
36
1
0
69***
5
33
15
58
2
3
104***
Minimum
3
0.2
0.1
0.03
—
—
0.03
4
2
2
0.01
100
38
0.01
Maximum
960,000
984,621
1,006
1,000,000
—
—
1,000,000
350,000
500,000
24,000
1,000,000
10,000
40
1,000,000
Mean
364,445
241,540
384
216,675
271
—
235,583
104,140
64,853
4,552
160,850
5,050
39
105,319
Constituents** (Dom)
Median
250,000
150,700
265
3,065
—
—
10,000
70,000
156
200
3,500
5,050
40
592
Standard
Deviation
331,687
299,709
473
358,365
—
—
338,144
144,270
138,929
8,530
288,182
—
1
233,586
-------
TABLE 10 (Concluded)
Total Concentration of Hazardous Constituents** (ppm)
No. of Standard
Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Deviation
Management Method
All ISDB Wastes****
Containers
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Tanks
Piles
Landfarms
All Management Methods
19
54
19
94
3
3
173***
3
0.2
0.1
0.01
100
38
0.01
960,000
984,621
24,000
1,000,000
10,000
40
1,000,000
295,944
133,565
3,674
182,230
3,457
39
157,274
200,000
804
200
3,500
271
40
1,100
312,970
230,454
7,725
316,192
5,667
1
286,306
*These wastes were defined to include sludges/slurries, spent solvents, solids,
liquids, and untreated wastewater.
**The concentrations are not weighted by the quantity of waste stream generated by the
industry segment producing that waste stream.
***The number of samples for individual management methods does not sum to this figure.
Double counting of data may occur between management practices due to a facility
reporting more than one management practice for a given waste stream.
****RCRA and non-RCRA wastes combined.
Note: Dashes indicate not applicable.
Source: Science Applications International Corporation (1986). See Appendix B,
Tables B-9, B-16, and B-23.
-------
TABLE 11
TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
PRESENT IN ISDB WASTE STREAMS*
(QUANTITY-WEIGHTED)
Management Method
No. of
Samples
Total Concentration of
Hazardous Constituents** (ppm)
S tandard
Mean Median Deviation
RCRA Wastes
Containers 12 446,951 500,000 193,450
Landfills 19 103,998 82,733 107,017
Surface Impoundments 4 540 500 157
Tanks 31 518 6 13,129
Piles 1 271 — —
Landfarms 0 — — —
AU Management Methods 61*** 3,710 20 32,170
Non-RCRA Wastes
Containers 4 8,305 293 27,570
Landfills 24 4,562 4 31,446
Surface Impoundments 13 6,305 2,800 8,115
Tanks 38 6,076 300 53,397
Piles 2 9,959 10,000 636
Landfarms 3 39 38 1
An Management Methods 72*** 7,200 2,000 33,224
An ISDB Wastes****
Containers 16 436,833 400,000 202,270
Landfills 43 27,421 100 71,727
Surface Impoundments 17 6,219 2,800 8,085
Tanks 69 2,111 50 30,763
Piles 3 9,695 10,000 1,698
Landfarms 3 39 38 i
An Management Methods 133*** 5,542 51 32,774
68
-------
TABLE 11 (Concluded)
FOOTNOTES
*These wastes were defined to Include sludges/slurries, spent
solvents, solids, liquids, and untreated wastewater.
**The concentrations are weighted by the quantity of waste stream
generated by the industry segment producing that waste stream.
***The number of samples for individual management methods does not sum
to this figure. Double counting of data may occur between management
practices due to a facility reporting more than one management
practice for a given waste stream.
****RCRA and non-RCRA wastes combined.
Note: Dashes indicate not applicable.
Source: Science Applications International Corporation (1986). See
Appendix B, Tables B-9, B-16, and B-23.
69
-------
tanks. As illustrated by the unweighted data in Table 10, this is
true for both RCRA and non-RCRA wastes, as well as all ISDB wastes.
For all ISDB wastes (RCRA plus non-RCRA) in this table, the mean
total concentration is lowest for landfarms (39 ppm + 3 percent),
and greatest for containers (295,944 ppm + 106 percent). The mean
total concentration for all management methods is estimated as
157,274 ppm + 182 percent. For RCRA wastes, the mean total
concentration is 235,583 ppm + 144 percent; for non-RCRA wastes it
is 105,319 ppm + 222 percent.
When the concentration data are quantity-weighted (Table 11),
the relative magnitudes of the total concentrations differ
considerably between RCRA and non-RCRA wastes. In the case of RCRA
wastes, piles, tanks, and surface impoundments have considerably
lower total concentrations of hazardous constituents than containers
or landfills. In contrast, for non-RCRA wastes, the mean total
concentrations are relatively similar for all management methods
except landfarms. However, piles and surface impoundments have the
highest median concentrations. Moreover, the quantity-weighted mean
and median total concentrations for all management methods are
higher for the non-RCRA wastes than for the RCRA wastes. For RCRA
wastes the mean and median are 3,710 ppm + 867 percent and 20 ppm,
respectively; for non-RCRA wastes these estimates are 7,200
461 percent (mean) and 2,000 ppm (median).
70
-------
3.3.3 Waste Oil
The study prepared by Franklin Associates (1984) provides
detailed information about the hazardous constituents present in
automotive and industrial waste oil. Between 1981 and 1984, data
for more than 1,000 waste oil samples were collected and analyzed by
Franklin Associates, Ltd. In general, the waste oil samples were
analyzed for a total of 19 constituents (see Appendix C, Table C-l).
As previously mentioned in Section 3.2.2, the waste oils contain
approximately 83,000 ppm of hazardous constituents, on the average.
A sizable portion of waste oils are re-refined for reuse.
Table 12 summarizes the total concentration of hazardous constituents
present in 4 waste streams of the waste oil re-refining industry.
The mean concentrations range from about 1,100 ppm to almost
9,000 ppm. The mean total concentration of hazardous constituents
is greatest for settled sludges and distillation bottoms. The
sludges from this industry can have a waste oil content greater than
50 percent.
71
-------
TABLE 12
TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS PRESENT IN SELECTED
WASTE STREAMS OF THE WASTE OIL RE-REFINING INDUSTRY
Waste Stream
Settled sludges
Wastewater
Spent clay**
Distillation bottoms**
Total
Hazardous
Minimum
180
126
58
1,188
Concentration of
Constituents* (pp
Maximum
318,552
21,751
2,834
20,044
m)
Mean
8,964
5,673
1,136
8,445
*These estimates are based on a total number of analyzed samples
ranging between 2 and 50. Constituents analyzed include a total
of 19 metals, chlorinated solvents, and other organics.
**Includes only heavy metals (i.e., arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, and zinc).
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd. 1984. Composition and Management
of Used Oil Generated in the United States, Final Report,
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,
DC, Tables 41, 42, 43, and 44.
72
-------
4.0 ANALYSIS OF DATA
A comparative analysis of the total concentration of hazardous
constituents in hazardous wastes is presented in this chapter.
Section 4.1 provides a composite overview of the data by waste
management method for all data sources. Section 4.2 provides
comparisons of the total concentrations of hazardous constituents in
the wastes aggregated as liquids, solids, and sludges. In addition,
where feasible, the waste composition data are statistically
analyzed to determine if there are significant differences in the
total concentrations of hazardous constituents. Section 4.3
presents the nonparametric statistical analysis of the median total
concentration of hazardous constituents in hazardous wastes.
4.1 Composite Overview of the Total Concentration of Hazardous
Constituents Present in Hazardous Wastes by Type of Waste
Management Method
In Section 3, descriptive statistics are presented for data from
individual data sources. In this section, the waste composition data
for drums, tanks, surface impoundments, mine tailings/waste piles,
landfarms, and landfills are integrated across the various sources.
4.1.1 Drums
Table 13 summarizes the available drum data. The data are
grouped in the table according to whether the waste samples were
collected at the point of disposal (e.g., a hazardous waste site) or
at the point of generation (e.g., an industrial plant). The table
shows that the mean total concentration of hazardous constituents in
73
-------
TABLE 13
COMPOSITE OVERVIEW OF THE CONCENTRATION OF
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN DRUMMED WASTES
Total Concentration of
Hazardous Constituents (pom)
Sampling
Point
Point of
Disposal
Point of
Generation
Data
Source
CLP
NEIC
SI
RI
ISDB Containers
(Unweighted)
- RCRA
- Non-RCRA
- All ISDB
ISDB Containers
(Weighted)
- RCRA
- Non-RCRA
- All ISDB
No. of
Samples
ND*
580
58
26
14
5
19
12
4
16
Mean
11,327**
68,614
84,261
106,283
364,445
104,140
295,944
446,951
8,305
436,833
Median
ND
12,809
6,357
16,082
250,000
70,000
200,000
500,000
293
400,000
Standard
Deviation
ND
138,184
198,810
180,744
331,687
144,270
312,970
193,450
27,570
202,270
*Not able to be determined.
**Mean concentration is based on the sum of the mean concentrations from the
"inorganics only" and "organics only" portions of the automated CLP data. The
"inorganics only" mean concentration is based on 98 samples, the "organics only"
mean concentration is based on 158 samples.
-------
drummed wastes at disposal sites ranges between 11,327 ppm and
106,283 ppm. The median total concentrations of hazardous constituents
developed from the NEIC, SI, and RI data are considerably less than
their means. For example, the mean total concentration for the SI
data is 13 times greater than its median. For the NEIC, SI, and RI
drum data, the associated standard deviations are several times
greater than their means.
Descriptive statistics have not been developed for the drum data
aggregated across the data sources (i.e., CLP, NEIC, SI, and RI).
Such an integration would require independent samples taken from the
same population of sites. The CLP and NEIC data are not independent;
in fact, 4 percent of the NEIC data are contained in the automated CLP
data base. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the drum samples from
each of the 4 sources come from the same population. For example, the
RI data are derived solely from NPL sites while the other 3 data sets
are derived from a mixture of NPL and non-NPL sites.
In comparison to the means developed from samples taken at the
point of disposal, the unweighted means for container samples taken at
the point of generation are generally higher, ranging from 104,140 ppm
+ 139 percent to 364,445 ppm + 91 percent. In this case, as shown in
Table 13, the standard deviations are approximately equal to their
means, and the means are about 1.5 times greater than their medians.
However, when the container data are quantity-weighted, the means
range between 8,305 ppm + 332 percent and 446,951 ppm + 43 percent.
75
-------
In comparison to the unweighted data, the standard deviations are
reduced, but are still quite large.
4.1.2 Tanks
Table 14 provides a composite overview of the available data on
the concentration of hazardous constituents between wastes contained
in tanks. As in Table 13, the data are organized according to sampling
point (i.e., disposal and generation). Note that there is one
important difference between the data from the point of disposal and
the data from the point of generation. When allowed to remain in a
tank for a sufficient period of time, many wastes will separate into
solid and liquid components. The data from these different components
are those data typically available at the point of disposal. The data
at the point of generation do not reflect this separation into various
components. Rather, they represent the composite waste stream.
At the point of disposal, tank sludges/solids in Table 14 appear
to have higher mean and median total concentrations of hazardous
constituents than tank liquids. Mean concentrations at the point of
disposal appear to be about the same order of magnitude as the mean
quantity-weighted concentrations at the point of generation. However,
both generally appear to be more than an order of magnitude lower than
the mean unweighted concentrations at the point of generation. This
may indicate that low-volume high concentration wastes are typically
mixed with high-volume low concentration wastes in tanks.
76
-------
TABLE 14
COMPOSITE OVERVIEW OF THE CONCENTRATION OF
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN TANK WASTES
--4
—I
Total Concentration of
Hazardous Constituents Coom)
Sampling
Point
Point of
Disposal
Point of
Generation
Data
Source
SI
- Liquid
- Sludge/solid
RI
- Liquid
- Sludge/solid
ISDB (Unweighted)
- RCRA
- Non-RCRA
- All ISDB
ISDB (Weighted)
- RCRA
- Non-RCRA
- All ISDB
Franklin Waste Oil
Study
No. of
Samples
6
3
3
53
45
8
36
58
94
31
38
69
1,071*
Mean
162
1,971
3,137
22,444
216,675
160,850
182,230
518
6,076
2,111
82,565
Median
0.8
2,781
_.__
2,682
5,798
3,065
3,500
3,500
6
300
50
NA**
Standard
Deviation
279
1,713
3,290
34,954
358,365
288,182
316,192
13,129
53,397
30,763
NA
*Total number of samples in the study.
**NA: Not available.
Note: Dashes indicate not applicable.
See Appendix C, Table C-l.
-------
The mean concentrations for wastes in tanks at the point of
disposal generally appear to be considerably lower than the mean
concentrations for drummed wastes at the point of disposal. The
median concentrations also appear to be generally lower for wastes
in tanks than for drummed wastes. However, the statistical analysis
of median total concentrations in Section 4.3 indicates that for the
RI data, the median total concentrations for drummed wastes are not
significantly different at a 95 percent confidence level from the
median total concentration for tank sludges. Both of these median
concentrations are, however, shown to be significantly greater than
the median total concentrations for tank liquids. (Due to an
insufficient number of samples, a similar analysis cannot be
performed with the SI data.)
The data in Table 14 further indicate that for wastes in tanks
at disposal sites the mean total concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the wastes are generally less than the respective
standard deviations. Furthermore, the mean total concentrations are
generally higher than the median total concentrations. However,
with regard to SI tank sludge/solid samples, the opposite is true.
At the point of generation, the data in Table 14 indicate that
the unweighted mean and median total concentrations of hazardous
constituents in RCRA wastes going to tanks are less than the
unweighted mean and median total concentrations for RCRA wastes going
to drums. The same relationship holds for the quantity-weighted mea
78
-------
and median total concentrations. There is no discernable trend for
the non-RCRA wastes. Furthermore, at the point of generation, the
data in Table 14 indicate that for all classifications of wastes
the median total concentrations for wastes going to tanks are
considerably lower than their corresponding means. Also, the
standard deviations exceed their respective means.
Finally, the data in Table 14 indicate that the mean total
concentration of hazardous constituents in waste oil (stored in
tanks) is considerably greater than the mean for tank wastes in
general when the ISDB data are quantity-weighted. In contrast the
mean for waste oil is considerably less than the mean total
concentration of hazardous constituents in tank wastes in general
when the ISDB data are not quantity-weighted.
4.1.3 Surface Impoundments
Four data sources provide information on the concentration of
hazardous constituents in wastes contained in surface impoundments.
Table 15 summarizes the available data. The distinction in the data
from the point of generation and the point of disposal noted for
tank wastes also applies to surface impoundment wastes (i.e., data
at the point of disposal reflect separation into different
components; data at the point of generation do not).
Similar to the findings for wastes in tanks, at the point of
disposal, surface impoundment sludges/sediments have higher mean and
median total concentrations of hazardous constituents than surface
79
-------
TABLE 15
COMPOSITE OVERVIEW OF THE CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS IN SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT WASTES
00
o
Total Concentration of
Hazardous Constituents (com)
Sampling
Point
Point of
Disposal
Point of
Generation
Data
Source
SI
- Liquid
- Sludge/sediment
RI
- Liquid
- Sludge/sediment
PEDCo
- Liquids*
- Sludges**
ISDB (Unweighted)
- RCRA
- Non-RCRA
- All ISDB
ISDB (Weighted)
- RCRA
- Non-RCRA
- All ISDB
No. of
Samples
55
23
32
20
8
12
60
79
4
15
19
4
13
17
Mean
6,656
62,751
___
521
37,089
27
4,340
384
4,552
3,674
540
6,305
6,219
Median
47
12,603
__
174
8,326
2
1,613
265
200
200
500
2,800
2,800
Standard
Deviation
__
21,540
141,802
—
710
57,437
99
8,205
473
8,530
7,725
157
8,115
8,085
*Mining wastes defined as tailings pond liquid and mine water pond liquid.
**Mining wastes defined as pond settled solids.
Note: Dashes indicate not applicable.
-------
impoundment liquids. This is true for all three data sources.
Furthermore, for the SI and RI samples, the mean and median total
concentrations of hazardous constituents in both surface impoundment
liquids and sludges/sediments are higher than those for the
equivalent PEDCo mining waste samples.
For the SI and RI data, the mean total concentrations for
surface impoundment sludges/sediments at the point of disposal
appear to be higher than the mean total concentrations for tank
sludges/solids but generally lower than the mean total concentration
for drummed wastes. No other trends are discernible from the data.
(In fact, the statistical analysis in Section 4.3 indicates that for
the RI data, the median total concentrations for drummed wastes,
tank sludges, and surface impoundment sludges are not significantly
different from each other at a 95 percent confidence level. For the
SI data, the median total concentrations for drummed wastes and
surface impoundment sludges are also not significantly different
from each other at a 95 percent confidence level, and both are
significantly different than the median total concentration for
surface impoundment liquids.)
At the point of generation, the data in Table 15 indicates that
the unweighted mean and median total concentrations of hazardous
constituents in wastes going to surface impoundments are less than
the unweighted mean and median total concentrations for wastes going
to drums or tanks. The quantity-weighted mean and median are also
81
-------
less than those for drummed wastes. The quantity-weighted mean is
comparable to that for wastes going to tanks; the quantity-weighted
median appears to exceed that for wastes going to tanks.
The data in Table 15 further indicates that, for all sampling
points and for all classifications of surface impoundment wastes,
median total concentrations are less than the respective means.*
Furthermore, standard deviations exceed the respective means in all
cases but one (i.e., for quantity-weighted RCRA wastes at the point
of generation). The standard deviations range from 1.2 to 3.7 times
the means in all but the latter case. There, the standard deviation
is about 30 percent of the mean.
4.1.4 Mine Tailings and Waste Piles
Table 16 presents all the available data for mine tailings and
waste piles. The data are grouped by sampling point.
From Table 16, the mean total concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the SI and RI mine tailings samples are greater than
the mean total concentrations for mine tailings from the PEDCo data.
Similarly, the median total concentration of hazardous constituents
for the SI mine tailings samples is greater than the median total
concentration for mine tailings from the PEDCo data.
*Curiously, the estimates developed from the SI data for surface
impoundments generally are greater than the corresponding estimates
developed from the RI data. In all other cases (i.e., drums, tanks
and mine tailings), the RI statistical estimates are greater than
the SI estimates.
82
-------
oo
Point of
Generation
TABLE 16
COMPOSITE OVERVIEW OF THE CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS IN MINE TAILINGS AND WASTE PILES
Sampling
Point
Point of
Disposal
Data
Source
SI
- Mine Tailings
- Waste Piles
No. of
Samples
19
11
Total Concentration of
Hazardous Constituents (oom)
Standard
Mean Median Deviation
87,144 112,498 59,006
182,924 198,763 108,318
RI
- Mine Tailings
PEDCo
- Mine Tailings
ISDB Waste Piles
(Unweighted)
44
188,844
1,901
909
3,023
- RCRA
- Non-RCRA
- All ISDB
ISDB Waste Piles
(Weighted)
- RCRA
- Non-RCRA
- All ISDB
1
2
3
1
2
3
271
5,050
3,457
271
9,959
9,695
—
5,050
271
—
10,000
10,000
—
—
5,667
—
636
1,698
Note: Dashes indicate not applicable.
-------
The mean and mediam total concentrations of hazardous constituents
in the SI waste pile samples are greater than the mean and mediam total
concentrations both for waste piles from the ISDB data (both weighted
and unweighted) and for the SI mine tailings samples. The total mean
concentration for the SI waste pile samples, however, is comparable to
the total mean concentration for the RI mine tailings sample.
For the SI mine tailings and waste piles samples, mean total
concentrations are less than median total concentrations, but are
greater than the standard deviations. Conversely, for the PEDCo mine
tailings samples, the mean total concentration exceeds the median total
concentration, but is less than the standard deviations.
Comparisons of the mine tailings data in Table 16 with the other
data in Tables 13 through 16 do not lead to any consistent findings.
Both the mean and median total concentrations of hazardous constituents
for the SI mine tailings appear to be higher than the mean and median
total concentrations for all other wastes at disposal sites in
Tables 13 through 16, except for the mean total concentrations in
drummed wastes. The mean total concentration for the SI mine tailings
is comparable to the mean total concentration for the drummed wastes
at disposal sites. Conversely, both the mean and median total
concentrations for the PEDCo mine tailings appear to be lower than
the mean and median total concentrations for many of the wastes at
disposal sites in Tables 13 tnrough 16 (especially for drummed wastes
and surface impoundment sludges).
84
-------
With regard to waste piles, 10 of the 11 waste pile samples are
from 10 piles at the same site. Thus, there are too few samples to
make meaningful comparisons with wastes in other types of waste
management units. Similarly, there are too few samples for waste
piles at the point of generation to make meaningful comparisons with
wastes in other types of waste management units.
4.1.5 Landfarms and Landfills
Table 17 summarizes the available data for landfarms and
landfills. Very little information is available on the concentration
of hazardous constituents present in wastes in landfarms and
landfills. For landfarms, only one sample taken at a point of
disposal and only 3 samples taken at a point of generation are
available from all the data sources reviewed. These are too few
samples to draw any meaningful conclusions. For landfills only
2 samples are available from disposal sites; however, 54 samples are
available for the point of generation.
At the point of generation, both the unweighted and quantity-
weighted mean and median total concentrations of hazardous
constituents for wastes going to landfills appears to be less than
the unweighted and quantity-weighted median total concentrations
for drummed wastes (see Table 13). The unweighted mean total
concentration of hazardous constituents for wastes going to landfills
appears to be greater than the unweighted mean total concentration
for wastes going to surface impoundments. However, except for RCRA
85
-------
00
TABLE 17
COMPOSITE OVERVIEW OF THE CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS IN LANDFARM AND LANDFILL WASTES
Total Concentration
Hazardous Constituents
Sampling
Point
Point of
Disposal
Point of
Generation
Data
Source
SI
- Landfarm
- Landfill
ISDB Landfarms
(Unweighted)
- RCRA
- Non-RCRA
- All ISDB
ISDB Landfarms
(Weighted)
- RCRA
- Non-RCRA
- All ISDB
ISDB Landfills
(Unweighted)
- RCRA
- Non-RCRA
- All ISDB
ISDB Landfills
(Weighted)
- RCRA
- Non-RCRA
- All ISDB
No. of
Samples
1
2
0
3
3
0
3
3
21
33
54
19
24
43
Mean
7,221
37
—
39
39
—
39
39
241,540
64,853
133,565
103,998
4,562
27,421
Median
—
37
—
40
40
—
39
38
150,700
156
804
82,733
4
100
of
(ppm)
Standard
Deviation
—
—
—
—
1
—
1
1
299,709
138,929
230,454
107,017
31,446
71,727
Note: Dashes indicate not applicable.
-------
wastes, there are no other discernable treads with regard to wastes
going to tanks or surface impoundments (see Tables 14 and 15). For
RCRA wastes, both the unweighted and the quantity-weighted mean and
median total concentrations for wastes going to landfills are
greater than the unweighted and the quantity-weighted mean and
median total concentrations for wastes going to tanks or surface
impoundments.
For all the weighted and unweighted landfill samples at the
point of generation, the mean total concentrations exceed the median
total concentrations, and the standard deviations exceed the mean
total concentrations.
4.1.6 Summary of Findings
While the quantity of waste composition data available for
drums, tanks, surface impoundments, and mine tailings is relatively
extensive, very little data are available on landfarms and waste
piles from the sources examined. For landfills, a relatively large
amount of data is available for wastes at the point of generation,
but not for wastes at disposal sites.
Generally, the mean total concentrations of hazardous
constituents are considerably larger than the median total
concentrations for the data examined. This indicates that a
disproportionate number (i.e., greater than 50 percent) of the
sample values are less than the mean. Also, the standard deviations
tend to exceed the mean total concentrations, often by a considerable
87
-------
amount. This indicates a high variability in the total concentration
of hazardous constituents for the samples examined.
The total quantity of hazardous constituents present in wastes
appears to vary by the type of waste management unit. At disposal
sites, the available data show that the mean total concentration of
hazardous constituents appear to generally exhibit an approximate
ordering, from highest to lowest, as follows:
• Drummed wastes
• Surface impoundment sludges/sediments
• Tank sludges/solids
• Surface impoundment liquids
• Tank liquids
At disposal sites, the median total concentrations appear to
generally exhibit an approximate ordering as follows:
• Drummed wastes, surface impoundment sludges/sediments, tank
sludges/solids
• Tank liquids
• Surface impoundment liquids
Note that these rankings are subjective and are generally not
based on statistical analysis for reasons discussed elsewhere in
this report. It is likely that if a statistical analysis could have
been done, it would have shown that some of the differences present
in the rankings were not actually statistically significant. The
rankings are also subject to the limitations noted in Section 2.8.
Furthermore, the large standard deviations indicate that the rankings
88
-------
may not be meaningful. Additionally, several other types of waste
management units (i.e., landfills, landfarms, mine tailings, waste
piles) could not even be included in these approximate rankings.
At the point of generation, the available data show that the
unweighted mean total concentrations appear to generally exhibit an
ordering as follows:
• Drummed wastes
• Tanks, landfills
• Surface impoundments
The quantity-weighted mean total concentrations appear to generally
exhibit an approximate ordering as follows:
• Drummed wastes
• Landfills
• Tanks, surface impoundments
These rankings are subject to the limitations noted above.
Furthermore, the data at the point of generation are not adequate
for the development of rankings based on median total concentrations.
4.2 Comparisons of the Total Concentration of Hazardous Constituents
in Liquids, Solids, and Sludges
In this section the waste composition data are integrated and
analyzed according to whether the data pertain to liquid wastes,
solid wastes, or sludges.
4.2.1 Liquids
Among the major data sources reviewed, three sources provided
explicit information on the concentration of hazardous constituents
89
-------
in liquid wastes at the point of disposal. The SI reports contained
3 tank liquid samples and 23 surface impoundment liquid samples.
The RI reports provided additional information—45 tank liquid
samples and 8 surface impoundment liquid samples. In addition, the
PEDCo study provided 60 pond liquid samples. The ISDB contained
27 samples of liquid wastes taken at the point of generation.
Table 18 contains descriptive statistics for the total
concentration of hazardous constituents in liquid wastes at the
point of disposal and at the point of generation. For comparison
purposes, a summary of drum data is also presented in this table.
(Since drums may contain solids, liquids, or sludges, the drum data
cannot be integrated in any one of the three groups.)
The total concentrations of hazardous constituents derived from
the PEDCo data are considerably lower than those concentrations
estimated from the SI and RI data for liquid wastes. For all 3 data
sources, the median total concentrations are much smaller than their
means. The standard deviations exceed the means in all instances.
The total concentration of hazardous constituents in liquid
wastes contrasts sharply with the total concentrations in drummed
wastes. The mean total concentration of hazardous constituents in
liquid wastes from the SI data is 5,906 ppm + 344 percent; for the
SI drummed wastes, the mean is 84,261 ppm + 236 percent. This
difference is also observed with the RI data: the mean total
90
-------
TABLE 18
SUMMARY OF WASTE COMPOSITION DATA FOR LIQUID, SOLID, AND SLUDGE WASTES
Hazardous
Sampling Wastes/ No. of
Point Sources Samples
Point of Liquid Wastes*
Disposal
SI Reports
RI Reports
PEDCo
Solids Wastes**
SI Reports
RI Reports
PEDCo
Sludges***
SI Reports
RI Reports
PEDCo
Drums
CLP
NEIC
SI
RI
26
53
60
39
6
44
32
24
79
__
580
58
26
Total Concentration
Minimum
0.05
2
0.07
3
0.01
4
0.47
3
33
__
0.6
4
17
Maximum
98,703
12,882
706
649,251
188,844
16,018
477,805
161,005
47,983
—
950,535
907,500
732,712
of Hazardous Constituents (vvm)
Mean
5,906
2,742
27
113,368
33,313
1,901
40,327
26,241
4,340
11,327
68,614
84,261
106,283
Median
28
1,907
2
107,849
314
909
7,078
4,903
1,613
—
12,809
6,357
16,082
Standard
Deviation
20,317
3,180
99
127,402
76,305
3,023
93,684
46,092
8,205
—
138,184
198,810
180,744
-------
TABLE 18 (Concluded)
Sampling
Point
Point of
Generation
Hazardous
Wastes/
Sources
ISDB Liquids
Unweighted
Weighted
ISDB Solids
Unweighted
Weighted
ISDB Sludges/
Slurries
Unweighted
Weighted
Total Concentration of Hazardous Constituents (ppm)
No. of
Samples
27
22
1
1
89
76
Minimum Maximum Mean
0.01 900,000 157,538
5,262
4
4
0.03 1,000,000 167,043
17,496
Standard
Median Deviation
3,000 249,858
2,800 39,113
— —
— —
1,538 274,492
10,000 66,650
*The liquid samples were obtained from tanks, surface impoundments, tailings ponds, and
mine water ponds.
**The solid samples were obtained from tanks, mine tailings, waste piles, spent lime
cells, and rubber chips.
***The sludge samples were obtained from surface impoundments, sludge piles, tanks, pond
settled solids, landfarms, and landfills.
Note: Dashes indicate not applicable or not available.
-------
concentration for liquid wastes is 2,742 ppm + 116 percent, and the
mean for drummed wastes is 106,283 ppm + 170 percent.
The mean total concentration (5,262 ppm + 743 percent) of
hazardous constituents in liquids estimated from the ISDB quantity-
weighted data is fairly consistent with the mean total concentration
(5,906 ppm + 344 percent) for liquids from the SI data. However
when the ISDB data are unweighted, the mean for liquids is very much
higher (i.e., 157,538 ppm + 159 percent).
4.2.2 Solids
Summary statistics for all available solid waste samples are
also presented in Table 18. The SI reports provided a total of
39 solid waste samples; 6 solid waste samples were obtained from the
RI reports; and the PEDCo study included 44 samples of mining waste
solids (tailings).
The total concentrations of hazardous constituents for samples
taken at the point of disposal differ greatly for each of the three
data sources. Estimates derived from the PEDCo data are considerably
lower than estimates obtained from the RI data which are in turn
much lower than estimates obtained from the SI data. Similar to
liquid wastes, the median total concentrations of hazardous
constituents in solid wastes tend to be considerably lower than
their means. Also, the standard deviations exceed the mean total
concentrations.
93
-------
Only one Industrial waste stream sample was available for solid
wastes; this sample had a total hazardous constituent concentration
of 4 ppm.
The total concentration of hazardous constituents in solid
wastes appears to be considerably higher than that for liquid wastes
at the point of disposal. On the other hand, a comparison of the
solid waste samples with the drummed waste samples in Table 18 shows
that the mean total concentrations for these two wastes approach the
same order of magnitude. For example, the SI solid waste data have
a mean total concentration of 113,368 ppm + 112 percent, and the
SI drum data have a mean total concentration of 84,261 ppm +
236 percent.
4.2.3 Sludges
A total of 135 sludge samples taken at the point of disposal
are available from the SI and RI reports and the PEDCo study. The
ISDB contained 89 sludge/slurry samples taken at the point of
generation. Table 18 summarizes these data1.
The estimates derived with the PEDCo data for sludge wastes are
much lower than the estimates derived from the SI or the RI data.
Relative to the SI and RI data, the PEDCo data also yielded lower
total concentration estimates for liquids and solids. For the SI,
RI, and PEDCo data, the mean total concentrations of hazardous
constituents in sludge wastes are much higher than the medians.
Standard deviations are also high relative to their means.
94
-------
The above findings are similar for the ISDB sludge data. Mean
total concentrations are greater than their corresponding medians,
and standard deviations are high relative to their means—
particularly for the quantity-weighted data.
The total concentration of hazardous constituents in sludges
appears to be greater than that in liquids, but less than that in
solids and in drums.
4.2.4 Summary of Findings
Among the three types of wastes—liquids, solids, and sludges—
the mean total concentration of hazardous constituents in wastes at
disposal sites tends to be greatest in solids, somewhat lower in
sludges, and lowest in liquids. The mean total concentration in
drummed wastes appears to be similar to that of solid wastes.
According to the information displayed in Table 18, there is little
difference between the mean total concentrations in liquid and
sludge waste samples at the point of generation. For all categories
of hazardous wastes shown in Table 18, the mean total concentrations
are greater than their medians, and standard deviations tend to be
high and exceed their means.
Estimates of the mean total concentration of hazardous
constituents in liquids, solids, and sludges vary according to
the data source considered. The SI data show that the mean total
concentration of hazardous constituents is greatest for solids, then
for drums, then for sludges; it is the lowest for liquids. The
95
-------
RI data reveal that the mean total concentrations are greatest for
drums, then for solids, then for sludges; liquids have the lowest
concentrations. Finally, the PEDCo data show that the mean total
concentrations are greatest in sludges, then solids, and lowest in
liquids. The PEDCo data do not include drummed wastes.
In general, the waste composition data show that the total
concentrations of hazardous constituents in liquid wastes are less
than the total concentrations in drummed wastes. Similarly, the
total concentrations of hazardous constituents in sludges tend to be
lower than the total concentrations in drummed wastes. Finally, the
results are indeterminate with respect to whether the total
concentrations are greater in solid wastes or in drummed wastes.
4.3 Statistical Pairwise Comparisons of Median Total Concentrations
In this section nonparametric statistical methods are used to
test whether there are differences in the median total concentration
of hazardous constituents among various waste types available from
the SI and RI data. Among all the data sources reviewed, the SI and
RI reports tend to provide an internally consistent set of waste
composition data for wastes at the point of disposal. The data
extracted from these two sources are for Superfund sites, and the
laboratory analyses of the samples generally included many CERCLA
hazardous constituents. Moreover, both sources provide good
cross-sections of the data by waste management method.
96
-------
The nonparametrie tests applied in this section avoid making
assumptions (e.g., normal populations) that may be unrealistic for
the data. As evidenced from Tables 6 and 7, the large departures of
the mean and median values for drummed wastes are strong indicators
that the distribution is skewed (nonnormal).* Since nonparametric
tests assume no shape for the population distribution, the tests are
valid for both normal and skewed populations. In addition, the
techniques are well suited for small sample sizes (less than 30).
A useful nonparametric alternative to the parametric t-test is
the Wilcoxon rank sum median test.** This nonparametric test has
been applied to data extracted from the SI and RI reports. For
purposes of this analysis, the samples are assumed to be random and
independent. (For reasons discussed previously, information is not
available to assess the validity of this assumption.)*** All
samples suspected of being dependent (e.g., samples from different
management units containing the same waste stream at a single site)
*In fact, neither the raw data nor the log-transformed drum data
passed goodness-of-fit tests (Kolmogorov). (A discussion of
goodness-of-fit tests is found in Haan, 1979, pp. 174-178.)
Consequently, the population from which the drum samples are drawn
is neither normal nor log-normal. However, upon checking the
sample data for the other wastes identified in Tables 6 and 7,
there is evidence based upon the chi-square goodness-of-fit test
that some samples (e.g., waste piles, mine tailings, surface
impoundment liquid) are from normal or log-normal populations.
**This test is also referred to as the Mann-Whitney test, or U-test,
in the literature. See Freund, 1971, p. 347.
***While nonparametric tests for randomness are available, the
technique requires information about the order or sequence in
which the observations were obtained (see Siegel, 1956, p. 52).
Such information is not available for these data.
97
-------
have been eliminated from the analysis. Tables 19 and 20,
respectively, present the test results for sample data from the SI
and RI reports. (For the sample sizes tested, the Wilcoxon rank sum
median test is based on an approximation of the normal distribution.
Because of this approximation to a normal distribution, a two-tailed
statistical test is applied to the z-values calculated from the
Wilcoxon rank sum median test to determine if there are differences
in the median concentrations. All analyses are conducted at the
0.05 level of significance.)
The results in both Tables 19 and 20 generally show that there
are significant differences between the median total concentrations
of hazardous constituents in wastes contained in different types of
management units. From Table 19, for example, drums and waste piles
have statistically different median total concentrations of hazardous
constituents. However, when waste types are similar—such as tank
sludge and surface impoundment sludge in Table 20—the median total
concentrations are not statistically different. Both Tables 19 and
20 further indicate that there are no significant differences between
the median total concentration of hazardous constituents in surface
impoundment sludge and drums. This analytical result is also the
same for tank sludge and drums (Table 20).
In summary, the analytical results indicate that there are
differences in the median total concentration of hazardous
constituents in hazardous wastes present in different types of
98
-------
TABLE 19
PAIRWISE COMPARISONS OF THE MEDIAN TOTAL CONCENTRATIONS OF
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS PRESENT IN HAZARDOUS WASTES AT DISPOSAL SITES
(SITE INSPECTION REPORTS)
Wilcoxon
Drums
(n=58)
Surface
Impoundment
Sludge
(n=29)
Surface
Impoundment
Liquid
(n=22)
Mine Tailings
(n=19)
Waste Piles
(n-11)
Rank Sum Median Test
Surface
Impoundment
Drums Sludge
(n=58) (n=29)
-0.34*
-4.79 -4.06
2.55 2.91
3.29 3.39
(Normal Approximation z)
Surface
Impoundment Mine Waste
Liquid Tailings Piles
(n=22) (n=19) (n=ll)
4.75 —
4.30 3.06
^Indicates that medians are not significantly different at the 0.05
level of significance.
Note: z is a random variable with an approximate normal distribution,
and n is the sample size.
99
-------
TABLE 20
PAIRWISE COMPARISONS OF THE MEDIAN TOTAL
CONCENTRATIONS OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
PRESENT IN HAZARDOUS WASTES AT DISPOSAL SITES
(REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORTS)
Wilcoxon Rank
Drums
(n=26)
Tank Liquid
(n-45)
Tank Sludge
(n-8)
Surface
Impoundment
Sludge
(n-8)
Sum Median Test (Normal Approximation z)
Surface
Impoundment
Drums Tank Liquid Tank Sludge Sludge
(n=26) (n=45) (n=8) (n=8)
__
3.90
-0.95* 2.12
-0.71* 2.02 -0.16*
*Indicates that medians are not significantly different at the 0.05
level of significance.
Note: z is a random variable with an approximate normal
distribution, and n is the sample size.
100
-------
waste management units. Specifically, the available data reveal
that at a 95 percent confidence level there are differences in
median total concentrations between: 1) surface impoundment liquid
and drums; 2) mine tailings and drums; 3) waste piles and drums; 4)
surface impoundment sludge and surface impoundment liquid; 5)
surface impoundment sludge and mine tailings; 6) surface impoundment
sludge and waste piles; 7) surface impoundment liquid and mine
tailings; 8) surface impoundment liquid and waste piles; 9) mine
tailings and waste piles; 10) drums and tank liquid; 11) tank liquid
and tank sludge; and 12) tank liquid and surface impoundment
sludge. Consequently, the same quantities of wastes present in
different types of waste management units (e.g., waste piles and
drums) are not likely to contain the same quantities of hazardous
constituents.* Information is not available to determine how much
greater the total concentrations of hazardous constituents are in
one waste relative to other wastes.
The analytical results shown in Tables 19 and 20 also indicate
that at a 95 percent confidence level there are no statistical
differences in the median total concentrations between: 1) drums
and surface impoundment sludge; 2) drums and tank sludge; and
3) surface impoundment sludge and tank sludge.
*Again, such a generalization is not true if the samples used in the
statistical analysis are not actually random.
101
-------
5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Data on the concentration of hazardous constituents present in
hazardous wastes at disposal sites are extremely limited. The
existing data bases are program-related and were developed to meet
particular objectives of their programs. As a result, the available
data are not entirely consistent with the data requirements of this
study. None of the data bases reviewed offers a comprehensive set of
waste sample information. There are several limitations associated
with the existing data bases which severely affect the extent to which
the waste composition data in the data bases can be used for analyses
in the current study. Among the more serious limitations are:
• Most of the data available in the various data bases pertain
to environmental samples (e.g., ground water samples), rather
than to waste samples.
• The analytical results in the data bases are based upon
sampling and analysis programs that varied considerably both
within and among the various programs. The number of CERCLA
hazardous constituents for which samples were analyzed ranges
from a couple in some data bases to several hundreds in other
data bases.
• The various data bases were developed to address specific
issues, and the data in them may, consequently, be
nonrepresentative of the wastes typically found at disposal
sites.
• Some of the data bases contain too few samples for specific
waste management methods and/or contain samples for only a
single type of waste management method.
• Several data bases contain incomplete sample results; only the
organic or inorganic portion of the waste analysis is
available, not both portions.
• Many of the data bases may contain data that are not
independent, random samples.
103
-------
The primary concerns with the existing waste composition data
consequently pertain to whether the data are representative of the
wastes at hazardous waste sites and to whether the available data
adequately characterize those wastes. The representativeness of
the data is affected by: 1) whether the data are based on random
samples; 2) whether the data pertain to all, or just a limited subset
of, wastes present at hazardous waste sites; 3) whether the data
pertain to all, or just a limited subset of, the waste management
methods used at hazardous waste sites; 4) whether the data pertain
to all types of hazardous waste sites, or just to NFL sites or
non-NPL sites; and 5) whether the data are based on a sufficient
number of samples. Additional factors which affect how adequately
the data characterize the wastes include: 1) the number of CERCLA
hazardous constituents for which analyses were performed, and 2) the
completeness of the available data. For reasons discussed above, a
large, but indeterminate, portion of the existing waste composition
data may not be representative of, or adequately characterize,
wastes present at disposal sites. Consequently, the findings noted
below must be viewed in light of this limitation.
A review of the available waste composition data revealed
several major findings. First, the frequency distributions
developed from the individual sources of drum data (NEIC, SI, and
RI) are unimodal. For each source, approximately 75 percent of the
samples have total concentrations of hazardous constituents that are
104
-------
less than 100,000 ppm. For these data sources, 35 to 50 percent
of the samples have total concentrations less than 10,000 ppm.
Twenty-one percent of the 580 NEIC samples have total concentrations
less than 1,000 ppm. Similarly, 24 percent of the SI drum samples
and 15 percent of the RI drum samples have total concentrations less
than 1,000 ppm. Generally only 5 percent (or less) of the samples
for each data source have total concentrations exceeding 500,000 ppm.
Second, for most waste management practices analyzed, median
total concentrations of hazardous constituents tend to be much
lower than their corresponding means. This indicates that a
disproportionate number (i.e., greater than 50 percent) of the
sample values have total concentrations less than the mean value.
Moreover, the standard deviations tend to be high and to generally
exceed the mean (at times they are as great as 300 percent of the
mean). This indicates a very high variability in the total
concentration of hazardous constituents across the waste samples
examined.
Third, the available data indicate that the total quantity of
hazardous constituents present in wastes at disposal sites tend to
vary by type of waste management unit. Based on the available data,
four approximate orderings have been developed and are presented in
Section 4.1.6. The rankings are based on the mean and median total
concentrations of hazardous constituents present in wastes within
different types of waste mangement units. The rankings are also
105
-------
based on whether the waste composition data were obtained from
a point of disposal or a point of generation. As noted in
Section 4.1.6, the rankings are primarily subjective and are not
generally based on statistical analysis. The ordering of waste
management units (by total hazardous constituent concentrations)
varies across the four rankings. The only generalization possible
is that drummed wastes are usually at the top of the rankings
(though sometimes in conjunction with other waste management units)
and surface impoundment liquids are usually at the bottom. Due to
data limitations, several waste management units could not even be
included in the rankings (e.g., landfills, landfarms, mine tailings
piles). Limitations associated with the rankings are discussed in
Section 4.1.6.
Fourth, a comparison of liquid, solid, and sludge wastes at
disposal sites revealed that the mean total concentration of
hazardous constituents in liquids tends to be much lower than the
means for solids and sludges, and that the means for sludges are
somewhat lower than those for solids. The mean total concentration
in drummed wastes also appears to be similar to that of solids. The
rankings of these mean total concentrations were, however, found to
vary across the different data sources.
Finally, nonparametric statistical analyses of the SI and RI
data indicated that, at least for those data, there are differences
in the total concentration of hazardous constituents present in
106
-------
wastes in different waste management units. For example, differences
in the median total concentration of hazardous constituents were
found to be significant at a 95 percent confidence level for wastes
in: 1) surface impoundment liquids and drums; 2) mine tailings and
drums; and 3) waste piles and drums. Other differences are cited in
Section 4.3 of the report. Alternatively, the statistical analysis
revealed some similarities among the waste types. For example, there
were no statistically significant differences at a 95 percent
confidence level between the median total concentrations of hazardous
constituents for: 1) drummed wastes and surface impoundment sludge;
2) drummed wastes and tank sludge; and 3) surface impoundment sludge
and tank sludge.
In conclusion, it cannot be determined whether the existing
waste composition data are representative of wastes at hazardous
wastes sites. Further, only a very limited set of the available
data is amenable to statistical analysis. This analysis showed
that there are potentially significant differences in the total
concentration of hazardous constituents in wastes present in
different waste management units at wastes sites. The analysis
was performed by stratifying the waste composition data into waste
management units. If the existing waste composition data are to be
used in developing alternatives to the current HRS waste quantity
factor, then these alternatives should reflect the differences in
concentrations likely to exist for different waste management units.
107
-------
Finally, any generalizations based on the analytical findings of
this report must necessarily be qualified.
108
-------
APPENDIX A
PREVIOUS INDUSTRY STUDIES OF THE EPA OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
This appendix provides a compilation of the concentration data
for hazardous constituents in industrial waste streams at the point
of generation. These data have been extracted from industry studies
prepared in the mid-1970s for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste. Table A-l lists the specific
industries included in the industry studies and indicates which
industry study reports provided information on the concentration
of hazardous constituents in waste streams. In the following
paragraphs, a brief description of the sampling methods and empirical
results is presented for each industry reporting such information.
Of the 14 industry studies reviewed, 10 studies published sampling
and analysis information for land-destined waste streams. The
concentration data for the ten industries are reported directly below.
1. Textiles Industry. Wastewater treatment sludges were sampled
and analyzed at 14 textile plants.* Two separate sets of samples were
taken to analyze heavy metals and chlorinated organics. A total of
112 samples was collected. Of these samples, 56 were analyzed for 13
heavy metals, and 56 for chlorinated organics. Table A-2 contains
the ranges of average concentration for 13 metals.* The mean
*Specifically, the plants sampled included one wool scouring plant;
one wool fabric dyeing and finishing plant; 5 woven fabric dyeing
and finishing plants; 3 knit fabric dyeing and finishing plants;
and 2 yarn and sock dyeing and finishing plants.
109
-------
TABLE A-l
AVAILABILITY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE CONCENTRATION
DATA FROM INDUSTRY STUDIES
SIC
Code
22
281
282
283
285
286,
2879,
2892
2911
2992
3111
33
3471
355
367
3691,
3692
Industry
Textiles
Inorganic Chemicals
Plastic Materials
and Synthetics
Pharmaceutical
Paint and Allied
Products
Organic Chemicals,
Pesticides, and
Explosives
Petroleum Refining
Petroleum Re-refining
Leather Tanning and
Finishing
Metal Smelting and
Refining
Electroplating and
Metal Finishing
Special Machinery
Manufacturing
Electronic Components
Manufacturing
Storage and Primary
Batteries
Concentration
Data in Report
Reference (Yes/No)
Versar (1976)
Versar (1975a)
Snell (1978)
A.D. Little (1976)
Wapora (1975)
TRW (1976)
Jacobs (1976)
Swain (1977)
SCS (1976)
Calspan (1977)
Battelle (1976a)
Battelle (1976b)
Wapora (1977b)
Wapora (1977a)
Versar (1975b)
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
110
-------
TABLE A-2
CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN SELECTED
WASTE STREAMS OF THE TEXTILES INDUSTRY
Hazardous
Waste Stream
Hazardous
Constituents
Average
Concentration*
Minimum
Mean
(ppm)
Maximum
Waste water treatment
sludges
Concentrations
**Total does not
Source: Versar,
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Strontium
Zinc
Total**
were estimated from 56
include values reported
Inc. 1976. Assessment
7.2
<0.1
<12
<0.7
<2.5
<2.8
18
<7
<0.01
<2
<3.7
<2.45
106
131.2
samples.
as "less
3,700
<4.9
<65
<6.1
<475
41.6
<416
<63
<0.7
<87.4
<31.9
<33.2
1,522
5,263.6
than" .
12,800
<17
<170
<17
3,969
212
1,130
170
<1.9
<333
88.2
<170
7,791
26,160.2
of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices, Textiles Industry, prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Publication SW-125c,
Washington, DC, pp. C-6 through C-32.
Ill
-------
concentration of these 13 metals in the sludge is approximately
5,300 ppm. Similar, detailed information for chlorinated organics
in the sludge was not provided in the study. However, a numerical
average for total chlorinated organics was reported for each of the
6 plants generating sludges. These average concentrations ranged
between 0.11 and 64.7 ppm. The average concentration of chlorinated
organics for these 6 plants was 24.6 ppm.
2. Rubber and Plastics Industry. For this industry study, a
spot sampling program was conducted. Sixty-two plants were visited;
the documentation is unclear with regard to whether a single plant
was visited more than once. Of the 48 waste samples obtained,
39 samples were analyzed for mercury, lead, cadmium, and chlorine.
Results from the sampling analysis are contained in Table A-3.
Other metals were also analyzed, but the results were only semi-
quantitative. While the analytical protocols used in the sampling
of waste streams were discussed in some detail, other information
regarding the sampling program was insufficient to explicitly
determine the number of samples analyzed for each waste stream
identified in Table A-3.
3. Paint and Allied Products Industry. Solvent recovery
operations, which were analyzed in this industry study, generate one
basic waste stream—still bottoms and sludges. Eight samples of
still bottoms were collected and analyzed for lead, chromium, and
*Tables A-2 through A-15 follow the text of Appendix A.
112
-------
TABLE A-3
CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN SELECTED WASTE
STREAMS OF THE RUBBER AND PLASTICS INDUSTRY
Hazardous
Waste Stream
Hazardous
Constituents
Concentration* (ppm)
1. Rubber
- Compounding room
sweepings
- Used reclaim oil
- Warehouse sweepings
- Dust collectors
- Waste oils
2. Plastics**
- Incinerator ash
- Warehouse and plant
sweepings
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
Chlorine
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
Chlorine
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
Chlorine
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
Chlorine
0.5
72
2.5
612
0.5
3.8
1.0
580
1.0
1.0
0.6
450
0.7
15
2.5
0.1
3.8
1.0
0.1-2.1
16-185
0.9-3.4
0.4-1.2
4-15
1.0-5
1,750
113
-------
TABLE A-3 (Concluded)
Hazardous
Waste Stream
Hazardous
Constituents
Concentration* (ppm)
3. Plastics**
- Sludge Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
Zinc
- Spent alumina Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
- Floor wastes Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
- Waste nylon salt Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
0.2-1.8
1.5-5.0
0.1-0.4
160***
0.4
1.5
0.2
0.4
1.0
0.1
0.1
1.0
0.1
*The number of samples analyzed for each waste stream was not
reported.
**In instances where several production processes generate the same
waste stream, a range of the contaminant's concentration is
given.
***Chemical Assay.
Source: Foster D. Snell, Inc. 1978. Assessment of Industrial
Hazardous Waste Practices, Rubber and Plastics Industry,
Appendices, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Publication SW-163c.4, Washington, DC, Tables B-l
and B-2, pp. B-4 and B-5, respectively.
114
-------
zinc concentrations. The results of these analyses are presented in
Table A-4. The industry study in which these findings are reported
cautions that the concentrations have been estimated from grab
samples. Consequently, the estimates are neither representative of
the solvent reclaiming industry as a whole, nor the specific solvent
recovery operations from which they were obtained.
4. Petroleum Refining Industry. The study of the petroleum
refining industry analyzed samples of 17 waste streams from 16
refineries. Both grab and composite samples were obtained. The
grab samples were taken from intermittent waste sources, while the
composite samples were taken over a period of 4 to 5 hours from
continuous waste sources. An analysis of the waste samples was
conducted to determine the concentration of approximately 20
hazardous constituents (including phenols and cyanide, but primarily
metals) in each waste stream. Results from this analysis are
displayed in Table A-5.
5. Petroleum Re-refining Industry. Although this industry
study did not have a waste sampling and analysis program, it does
report some concentration data for metals. These data were obtained
either from personal communication with industry representatives or
from other EPA studies. The three major waste streams of the
re-refining industry for which concentration data are reported
include sludge (acid and caustic/silicate), spent clay, and process
water. The concentration of various constituents for the three
115
-------
TABLE A-4
CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN SELECTED
WASTE STREAMS OF SOLVENT RECLAMATION OPERATIONS
Hazardous
Waste Stream
Still bottoms
and sludges
Hazardous
Constituents
Lead
Chromium
Zinc
Total
Concentration* (mg/1)
Minimum
100
10
10
120
Mean
1,110
1,820
250
3,180
Median
850
170
130
—
Maximum
3,700
730
990
5,420
*Coneentrations were estimated from 8 grab samples.
Source: Wapora, Inc., 1975. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practices; Paint and Allied Products Industry,
Contract Solvent Reclaiming Operations, and Factory
Application of Coatings, prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, Washington, DC, Table 77, p. 209.
116
-------
TABLE A-5
TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
IN SELECTED WASTE STREAMS OF THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
Total Concentration*
Waste Stream (mg/kg)
Once-through cooling water sludge 518.0
Exchanger bundle cleaning sludge 861.6
Slop oil emulsion solids 1,584.5
Cooling tower sludge 1,617.2
API separator sludge 2,029.0
Dissolved air flotation float 1,023.3
Kerosene filter clays 2,105.0
Lube oil filter clays 140.8
Waste biosludge 380.4
Coke fines 2,078.4
Silt from storm water runoff 856.4
Leaded tank bottoms 10,896.7
Nonleaded product tank bottoms 496.0
Neutralized HF alkylation sludge 133.3
Crude bottom tanks 553.4
Spent lime from boiler feedwater treatment 83.6
Fluid catalytic cracker catalyst fines 1,038.0
*Calculated by summing the mean concentrations of all reported
hazardous constituents in each waste stream. Approximately 20
hazardous constituents were analyzed; these were primarily metals,
but phenols, cyanide, and benzo(a)pyrene were also included.
Source: Jacobs Engineering Co., 1976. Assessment of Hazardous
Waste Practices in the Petroleum Refining Industry,
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication SW-129c, Washington, DC, Appendix D,
pp. 338-353.
117
-------
waste streams are shown in Table A-6. No information is provided
with regard to the sampling techniques and methodologies used to
prepare these estimates. (Note: Table 12 presents a more recent
estimate of the concentration of hazardous constituents in these
waste streams.)
In a 1978 report for the National Science Foundation, Liroff
et al., published their findings on the concentration of constituents
in acid sludge samples taken from the petroleum re-refining industry.
Their estimates, compiled from five different sources, are displayed
in Table A-7.
6. Leather Tanning and Finishing Industry. In order to obtain
representative solid waste samples from leather tanning and finishing
plants, a detailed field sampling program was undertaken by this
industry study. Protocols used in the sampling and analysis were
reported. Waste samples were collected from 28 of the 41 tanneries
visited. A total of 156 samples was analyzed for various organic
and inorganic constituents. Table A-8 presents the concentrations
recorded for chromium, copper, lead, and zinc. Although analyses
were conducted for other heavy metals, pesticides, and phenols, none
were found at potentially hazardous concentrations according to the
study.
7. Metal Smelting and Refining Industry. The three general
types of waste streams sampled for the metal smelting and refining
industry are slag, sludge, and dust. Table A-9 displays the typical
118
-------
TABLE A-6
CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN SELECTED
WASTE STREAMS OF THE PETROLEUM RE-REFINING INDUSTRY
Hazardous
Waste Stream
1. Sludge
2. Spent clay
3 . Untreated
process
water
Hazardous
Constituents
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Barium**
Chromium
Boron
Nickel
Tin**
Cadmium
Molybdenum
Arsenic
Beryllium***
Cobalt
Strontium
Vanadium
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Tin
Zinc
Zinc
Copper
Barium
Nickel
Chromium
Tin
Lead
Boron
Vanadium
Molybdenum
Cadmium
Titanium
Mercury
Concentration* (ppm)
Minimum
40
1,000
0
200
400
18
10
1
30
NA****
NA
NA
0.1
NA
NA
NA
Mean
80
14,625
4
1,475
813
72
30
12
45
9
18
45
1,500
0.8
2.7
18
4,200
1,300
1,200
39,500
60
10
4,300
3
ND***
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
Median
44
15,000
1
1,800
740
39
29
5
35
NA
NA
NA
1,500
NA
NA
NA
**
Maximum
190
27,500
14
2,100
1,300
190
50
30
70
NA
NA
NA
3,000
NA
NA
NA
119
-------
TABLE A-6 (Concluded)
FOOTNOTES
Concentrations for sludge were estimated from 4 samples. Only
one sample was analyzed for spent clay and process water.
Excludes concentrations of sodium and magnesium which were
reported.
**Estimates based on 3 samples.
***Estimates based on 2 samples.
****NA: Not available.
*****ND: Not detected.
Source: Swain, J.W., Jr., et al., 1977. Assessment of Industrial
Hazardous Waste Management Petroleum Re-refining Industry,
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Publication SW-144c, Washington, DC, Table 9, p. 55;
Table 11, p. 57; Table 15, p. 62; and Table 17, p. 69.
120
-------
TABLE A-7
CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS FOR PETROLEUM
RE-REFINING: SUMMARY OF ANALYSES OF ACID SLUDGE SAMPLES
Hazardous
Constituents
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Barium
Chromium
Boron
Aluminum
Carbon
PCB
Concentrations (ppm)
Study 1
40
20,000
30
2,100
1,300
50
50
40
NR
NR
Study 2
190
10,000
8
2,100
740
28
18
190
NR
NR
Study 3
NR*
5,700-28,900
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
30-49
NR
Study 4
110
NR
200
2,400
NR
75
NR
NR
NR
NR
Study 5
150
16,000
<0.02
2,250
120
42
NR
NR
NR
0.0046
*NR: Not reported.
Note: Study 1: Weinstein, N. J., August 1974. Waste Oil Recycling
and Disposal, EPA-670/2-74-052, Recon Systems, Inc.
Study 2: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1974.
Waste Oil Study, Report to Congress, Washington, DC.
Study 3: Esso Research and Engineering Co., October 1972.
Research of Oily Wastes. San Diego area for U.S. Navy,
Study 4: Putscher, R. F., April 1962. "Separation and
Characteristics of Acid Sludge," Armour Research
Foundation, ARF-3859-3, Illinois Institute of
Technology.
Study 5: Unpublished 1977 Study by Teknekron, Inc., Berkeley,
CA.
Source: Liroff, S. D., et al., March 1978. Management of
Environmental Risk; A Limited Integrated Assessment of the
Waste Oil Rerefining Industry, prepared for the National
Science Foundation by Teknekron, Inc., Berkeley, CA,
Table IV-5, pp. IV-13.
121
-------
TABLE A-8
CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN SELECTED
WASTE STREAMS OF THE LEATHER TANNING AND FINISHING INDUSTRY
Hazardous
Waste Stream
No. of Hazardous
Samples Constituents Minimum
Concentration (mg/kg)
Mean
Maximum
1. Chrome (blue)
trimmings &
shavings
2. Chrome fleshings
10 Chromium 2,200 7,600 21,000
Chromium 4,000
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Unfinished chrome 9
leather trim
Buffing dust 12
Finishing residues 16
Finished leather 4
trim
Sewer screenings 17
Wastewater treatment
sludges 27
Source: SCS Engineers, Inc., 1976
Waste Practices — Leather
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Chromium
Lead
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
4,600
2.3
2.5
9.1
19
29
2
—
0.45
0.35
2.5
14
1,600
100
0.27
2
35
0.33
0.12
0.75
1.2
16,900
90
120
60
5,700
960
150
160
3,500
40
8,400
150
14,800
1,000
2,200
30
60
3,700
370
60
50
37,000
468
476
156
22,000
1,900
924
—
12,000
208
69,200
876
41,000
3,300
14,000
110
128
19,400
8,400
240
147
Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Tanning and
Finishing
Industry,
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Publication SW-131c, Washington, DC, Table 4, p. 14,
122
-------
TABLE A-9
CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN SELECTED WASTE
STREAMS OF THE METAL SMELTING AND REFINING INDUSTRY
Average Concentration
Hazardous Waste Stream
Type of
Smelter or Refiner
1. Primary Copper
2. Primary Lead
3. Primary Zinc
4. Primary Aluminum
Hazardous
Constituents
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
S elenium
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Lead
Antimony
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Fluorine
Cyanide
Copper
Lead
Slag
10
110
7,430
0.8
18
143
250
27
4,040
166
166
1,720
—
31,100
59
72,300
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sludge
520
50
279,400
0.8
110
8,000
500
30
27,900
6,900
27
5,820
180
143,500
924
79,900
2.1
0.11
6.6
0.06
40
0.17
575
140,000
—
—
—
Dust
520
88
37,260
13
90
1,320
143
33
2,250
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
28,000
—
10,600
4,600
by
(ppm)
Potliners
& Potroom
Skimmings
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
255,000
1,050
—
—
123
-------
TABLE A-9 (Continued)
Average Concentration by
Hazardous Waste Stream (ppm)
Type of
Smelter or Refiner
5. Primary Antimony
6. Primary Mercury
7. Primary Titanium
8. Primary Tungsten
9. Primary Tin
Hazardous
Constituents
Arsenic
Lead
Copper
Zinc
Nickel
Antimony
Chromium
Cadmium
Lead
Copper
Zinc
Nickel
Mercury
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Vanadium
Chromium
Zirconium
Titanium
Chlorine
Arsenic
Lead
Copper
Zinc
Tin
Lead
Slag
16
66
50
500
—
18,000
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
10,000
100
Sludge
__
5
50
2
5
27,000
32
1.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
25,780
11,630
34,770
104,400
187,000
3.5
137
137
26
—
—
Calcine Digestion
Residue Residue
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
150
430
80
2,600
200
175
—
430
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
1.0
377
8.9
—
—
124
-------
TABLE A-9 (Continued)
Average Concentration
Hazardous Waste Stream
Type of
Smelter or Refiner
10. Primary Cadmium
11. Secondary Copper
12. Secondary Lead
13. Secondary
Aluminum
14. Iron and Steel
Hazardous
Constituents
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Tin
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Tin
Zinc
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Slag Sludge Dust
__
—
—
—
—
5
20
16,000
260
3,000
100
7,000
10,000
1.7 340
230
3,700
100
19,300 53,
700 1,
6,800
670
60
310 1,
10
300
240 6,
1,780 1,
90
40
180 2,
40 6,
— __
— —
—
—
— — — —
— —
—
—
— —
—
—
— —
— — — —
— —
30
20
5 —
000
100
— —
25
20
250
— —
140
500
070 590
720 840
180 180
510 10,900
380 53,100
by
(ppm)
Plant
Residue
280
24
1,150
215,000
39,000
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
125
-------
TABLE A-9 (Concluded)
Type of
Hazardous
Average Concentration by
Hazardous Waste Stream (ppm)
Smelter or Refiner
15. Iron and Steel
Foundries
16. Ferroalloys
Constituents
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Phenol
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Slag
1.0
33.5
77.6
6.7
10
24.6
—
21
832
80
370
8
41
Sludge
2.1
147
49
3.2
132
355
—
40
551
39
1,025
7,500
11,280
Dust
0.9
128
75
47
112
143
— —
55
1,237
1,470
2,167
100
5,533
Sand
__
8.3
4.8
28.1
53.6
6.0
1.1
—
—
—
—
—
™««
Note: Dashes indicate not available or not applicable.
Source: Calspan Corporation, 1977. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practices in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry,
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Publication SW-145c, Washington, DC, Volume II, Tables, 3, 18, 30,
45, 55, 67, 74, 81, 89, 98, 101, 112, and 120; and Volume III,
Tables 5, 12, and 17.
126
-------
concentration of various hazardous constituents found in these waste
streams. The documentation for this industry study states that—
with the exception of the iron and steel industry—53 industrial
plants were visited and sampled only once. In the case of the iron
and steel industry, a program which allowed the acquisition and
analysis of weekly composited samples was implemented. This program
enabled a composite of four weekly samples to be analyzed for the
iron and steel industry. The documentation, however, is unclear
with respect to the number of samples used to obtain the results
presented in Table A-9.
8. Electroplating and Metal Finishing Industry. While there
was no waste sampling and analysis program conducted for the job
shops study, a semi-quantitative optical emission spectographic
analysis of a sample of dewatered sludge was performed in the
captive shops study. Results from this analysis are displayed in
Table A-10. In addition, the report included responses by industry
to a questionnaire requesting information on the concentrations of
hazardous constituents in the industry's waste streams. The survey
results are contained in Table A-ll. No information is given about
respondents reporting no detections.
9. Special Machinery Manufacturing Industries. Table A-12 is
derived from an analysis of samples collected from four waste streams
at foundry operations in the iron and steel industry. The data
presented in this table are derived from combined samples of two
127
-------
TABLE A-10
CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN SELECTED WASTE
STREAMS OF THE ELECTROPLATING AND METAL FINISHING INDUSTRIES
Hazardous
Waste Stream
Dewatered Sludge
Hazardous
Constituents
Aluminum
Zinc
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Titanium
Boron
Barium
Molybdenum
Copper
Tin
Vanadium
Cadmium
Zirconium
Cobalt
Strontium
Beryllium
Average
Concentration* (wt %)
2-4
2-4
1
1
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.03
0.005
0.03
0.01
0.005
<0.02
0.1
0.01
0.01
< 0.0001
*Concentrations were estimated from 2 samples.
Source: Battelle Columbus Laboratories, January 1976. Final Report
on Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices—
Electroplating and Metal Finishing Industries—Captive
Shops, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Hazardous Waste Management Division, Washington, DC,
pp. B-20 and B-21.
128
-------
TABLE A-ll
SURVEY RESULTS FOR CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS IN SELECTED WASTE STREAMS OF THE
ELECTROPLATING AND METAL FINISHING INDUSTRIES
Hazardous
Waste
Stream
1. Dust
2 . Sludge
Hazardous
Constituents
Chromium
Aluminum
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Phosphates
Sulfates
Tin
Titanium
No. of
Respondents
1
2
2
16
17
2
5
1
12
1
15
1
2
1
1
Concentration (wt/%)
Minimum
0.032
0.0005
0.3 ppm
0.3 ppm
0.001
0.01
2.5
0.01
0.0001
Mean
1
5.7
0.0441
11.7
8.9
2.5
2.5
2.5
1
4.4
69
10-25
15
1-10
Median
5.7
0.0441
2
3.9
2.5
0.24
1.3
1
Maximum
11.1
0.0876
50
50
5
10
10.5
31
3. Finishing Chloride
Solvent
30-60
Source: Battelle Columbus Laboratories, January 1976. Final Report on
Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices—Electroplating
and Metal Finishing Industries—Captive Shops, prepared for the u7s.
Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Management
Division, Washington, DC, Table D-l. pp. D-l through D-20.
129
-------
TABLE A-12
CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN SELECTED
WASTE STREAMS OF SPECIAL MACHINERY MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
Hazardous
Waste Stream
Hazardous
Constituents
Concentration (ppm)
1. Spent foundry core sand
2. Settled dry sand sludge
3. Dryer shake-out sand
4. Settled bond sludge
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Nickel
0.5
10.0
23.0
28.0
43.0
<0.2
3.0
6.0
19.0
7.0
<0.2
4.0
6.0
3.0
71.0
0.5
32.0
880.0
51.0
85.0
270.0
Source: Wapora, Inc., March 1977. Assessment of Industrial
Hazardous Waste Practice Special Machinery Manufacturing
Industries, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Publication SW-141c, Washington, DC, Table III-ll,
p. 113.
130
-------
foundries on the same premise. In contrast to a 1975 study prepared
for EPA, the concentrations of heavy metals shown in Table A-12 are
low. Analytical results from the earlier study are displayed in
Table A-13. The authors of the 1977 industry study for special
machinery manufacturing state that the existing data base is too
sparse to explain the differences between the two sets of estimates.
Table A-14 displays estimates of concentrations for hazardous
constituents found in five major waste streams of various special
machinery manufacturing industries. Machine shops and food products
machinery are among the manufacturers studied in this report.
10. Electronic Components Manufacturing Industry. For this
industry study, 16 process waste samples were collected from the
manufacturing plants surveyed. All the samples are grab samples,
and subsequently represent characteristics of the waste only at the
time when the sample was taken. Table A-15 displays the sampling
results for five waste streams.
131
-------
TABLE A-13
CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
IN SELECTED WASTE STREAMS OF SPECIAL MACHINERY
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES IRON AND STEEL CASTING
Hazardous
Waste Stream
Hazardous
Constituents
2. Furnace emissions
3. Pouring and shakeout dust
4. Cleaning and finishing
dust
5. Waste sand
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Phenol
Concentration (ug/g)
1. Slag
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
17-150
18-52
10
10-16
10-40
1
21-100
90-300
32-60
130-310
500-7,000
50
150
130
250
2.3
100-200
40-950
130-150
<10-840
20-210
2
3-18
6-26
4-200
<10-400
6-7
1.01-1.73
132
-------
TABLE A-13 (Concluded)
Hazardous Hazardous
Waste Stream Constituents Concentration (ug/g)
6. Sand reclamation dust Chromium 41
Copper 7
Nickel
Lead 15
Zinc 30
Cadmium < 1
Source: Calspan Corporation, 1975. Assessment of Industrial
Hazardous Waste Practices in the Metal Smelting and Refining
Industry, Volume 3, Ferrous Smelting and Refining, prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
133
-------
TABLE A-14
CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN SELECTED WASTE
STREAMS OF THE SPECIAL MACHINERY MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
Hazardous
Waste Stream
1. Quench oil from heat treating*
2. Sludges from treating
electroplating wastes*
3. Spent and fresh cutting oils**
4. Degreaser solvent***
5. Paint sludge****
Hazardous
Constituents
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Cyanide
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Nickel
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Concentration
(ppm)
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.5
<0.1
<10
5
1,840
71,500
5.5
860
708
0.4
247
7,870
435
1,296
<0.1
0.7
2.0
1.3
3.3
1.5
140
45,300
2,275
7,608
134
-------
TABLE A-14 (Concluded)
FOOTNOTES
*Coneentrations for this waste stream were averaged over 4 plant
streams.
**Coneentrations for this waste stream were averaged over 6 samples.
***Concentrations were estimated from 2 samples.
****Concentrations were estimated from one grab sample.
Source: Wapora, Inc., March 1977. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practice Special Machinery Manufacturing Industries,
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Publication SW-141c, Washington, DC, Table 111-12, p. 119;
Table 111-14, p. 127; Table 111-15, p. 134; Table 111-16,
pp. 135 and 143.
135
-------
TABLE A-15
CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN SELECTED WASTE
STREAMS OF THE ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
Hazardous No. of
Waste Stream Samples
1
2
3
4
Halogenated solvent 2
wastes
. Nonhalogenated 3
solvent wastes
Wastewater 3
treatment sludges
. Oil-containing 2
wastes
Hazardous
Constituents
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Nickel
Fluorine
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Nickel
Cadmium
Carbon
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Nickel
Fluorine
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Nickel
Concentration (mg/kg)
<0.04
0.06
0.62
74
3.6
1.4
—
<0.02
0.04
0.20
7.2
153
0.08
36.3
347
3,287
29.6
13,197
1,853
—
0.16
2.3
1,285
229.1
36.8
2.4
136
-------
TABLE A-15 (Concluded)
Hazardous No. of Hazardous
Waste Stream Samples Constituents Concentration (mg/kg)
5. Paint wastes 2 Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Nickel
<0.06
216
18.8
380
998.3
2
Source: Wapora, Inc., 1977. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices; Electronic Components Manufacturing Industry,
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Publication SW-140c, Washington, DC, Tables III-ll, 111-12,
III-13, III-14, and 111-15.
137
-------
APPENDIX B
CURRENT EPA OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE INDUSTRY STUDIES DATA BASE
This appendix contains statistical summaries of data on the
concentration of hazardous constituents in hazardous waste streams
of the organic chemicals industry. Specifically, the data were
extracted and summarized from the Industry Studies Data Base (ISDB)
which has been developed as part of the Industry Studies program in
the EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW). Table B-l lists the 11 industry
segments of the organic chemicals industry contained in the data
base. Descriptive statistics were derived for the total
concentration of CERCLA hazardous constituents present in the
residuals (i.e., waste streams) included in the ISDB. The residuals
analyzed in this study are identified in Table B-2. As discussed
in Section 3, 16 dilute acids and caustics for which there are
CERCLA reportable quantities have been eliminated from the
calculations to prevent inflated concentrations. These hazardous
constituents are listed in Table B-3.
In particular, this appendix contains 20 summary tables. All
tables contain the following descriptive statistics: range of
hazardous constituent concentrations (i.e., minimum and maximum
concentrations); unweighted mean, median, and standard deviation of
the concentration data; and quantity-weighted mean, median, and
standard deviation of the concentration data. The quantity-weighted
139
-------
TABLE B-l
INDUSTRY SEGMENTS OF THE INDUSTRY STUDIES DATA BASE
Brominated Organics
Carbamate Pesticides
Chlorinated Aliphatics
Chlorinated Aromatics
Dyes and Figments
Industrial Organics
Miscellaneous Chlorinated Organics
Organic Pesticides
Organometalllc s
Plastics and Resins
Rubber Processing
140
-------
TABLE B-2
RESIDUAL CATEGORIES OF THE INDUSTRY
STUDIES DATA BASE ANALYZED IN THIS STUDY
Category
ISDB Residuals
Sludge/slurry
• Precipitates or filtration residues
• Sludges
• Heavy ends
Spent solvents
• Spent solvents
Solids
• Treatment solids
Liquids
• Decantates or filtrates
• Condensable light ends
Untreated wastewater
Untreated process wastewater
141
-------
TABLE B-3
CERCLA HAZARDOUS CONSTITUTENTS CONTAINED AS DILUTE ACIDS
AND CAUSTICS IN THE INDUSTRY STUDIES DATA BASE
Acetic Acid
Adipic Acid
Benzole Acid
Butyric Acid
Formic Acid
Fumaric Acid
Hydrochloric Acid
Hydrofluoric Acid
Isobutyric Acid
Maleic Acid
Nitric Acid
Phosphoric Acid
Potassium Hydroxide
Propionic Acid
Sodium hydroxide
Sulfuric Acid
142
-------
mean, X,,, and standard deviation, SI^, were derived as follows:
N
E
1=1
xw
N
N
z; cx±- xw)2 Ql
N
ZQi
1=1
where: X = Total concentration of hazardous constituents
in the 1th residual.
Q1 = Quantity of ic" residual generated.
N = Number of residuals included in each analysis.
The quantity-weighted median concentration was derived by rank
ordering the residuals by their total concentration of hazardous
constituents. The quantity associated with each of the rank ordered
residuals was then summed according to the rank ordering. The median
quantity-weighted concentration was defined as that concentration for
which the aggregated residual quantity was one-half the total
residual quantity.
The statistical summaries presented in this appendix were
prepared by type of residual and by waste management method used for
the residual (e.g., solids sent to landfills, solids placed in waste
piles). There are three separate analyses of the data: one considers
143
-------
only those residuals that are RCRA hazardous wastes (Tables B-4
through B-9); another considers only those residuals that are not
RCRA hazardous wastes (Tables B-10 through B-16); and the third
considers all residuals, i.e. RCRA and non-RCRA wastes (Tables B-17
through B-23).
144
-------
TABLE B-4
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS,
EXCLUDING RANGES, PRESENT WITHIN ALL RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANDFILLS
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGHT. 6RPS.
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANDFILLS
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL M6MT. 6RP9.
KE91DIML UAItbUKT: »H<*U1U5»
NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN
SAMPLES CONC. (PPM) CONC. (PPM) COHC. (PPM)
1
1
1
*
a
NO. OF
HTO. SAMPLES
1
1
1
S
0
300000 300000
200382 200362
0.1 0.1
30 559000
0.1 559000
9TY -WEIGHTED
MEAN CONC (PPM)
300000
200362
0.1
61368
70275
300000
200382
0.1
115818
134934
9TY-HEI6HTED
MED. CONC (PPM)
300000
200382
0.1
30
30
MEDIAN
CONC. (PPM)
300000
200382
0.1
10000
10000
QTY-HEIGHTED
STD. OEV.
0
0
0
174399
173537
STANDARD
DEVIATION
0
0
0
247796
206043
SOURCE! Seivnea Application* International Corporation,1986
-------
TABLE B-5
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS,
EXCLUDING RANGES, PRESENT WITHIN ALL RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
-RESIDUAL
=SLU06E/3LURRY-
NO. OF
SAMPLES
MINIMUM
CONC. (PPM)
MAXIMUM
CONC. (PPM)
MEAN
CONC. (PPM)
MEDIAN
CONC. IPPH)
STANDARD
DEVIATION
CONTAINERS
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. 6RPS.
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
13
20
1
3
13
43
NO. OF
UTO. SAMPLES
3
0.2
271
• 31
0.03
0.03
960000
984621
271
1006
350000
984621
QTY-HEIGHTED
MEAN CONC (PPM)
369403
243598
271
512
102293
215916
QTY-HEIGHTEO
MED. CONC CPPM)
200000
145350
271
500
106
82733
QTY-HEIGHTED
STD. DEV.
344691
307343
0
487
137247
294673
CONTAINERS
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. GRPS.
11
18
1
3
13
40
449357
103617
271
541
87501
77823
500000
82733
271
500
106
82733
194104
107056
0
156
127673
123927
SOURCE: Science Application* International Corporation,1986
-------
TABLE B-6
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS,
EXCLUDING RANGES, PRESENT WITHIN ALL RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
-RESIDUAL CATEGORY: »SPENT SOLVENTS-
MANAGEMENT NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN MEDIAN STANDARD
PRACTICE SAMPLES CONC. (PPMI CONC. (PPMI CONC. (PPHI CONC. (PPM) DEVIATION
TANKS 7 5 1000000 015715 990000 370647
ALL MGMT. GRPS. 7 5 1000000 015715 990000 3706*7
MANAGEMENT NO. Of flTT-HEIGHTED 9TY-HEIGHTEO QTY-HEIGHTEO
PRACTICE HTD. SAMPLES MEAN CONC (PPM) MED. CONC (PPM) STD. DEV.
TANKS 3 651373 750000 242930
ALL FGMT. GRPS. 3 6*1373 750000 242930
SOURCE: Sci«nc« Applications International Corporation.1906
-------
TABLE B-7
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS,
EXCLUDING RANGES, PRESENT WITHIN ALL RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
—RESIDUAL CATEGORYt =UNTRT. HASTEHATER-
MANAGEMENT NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN MEDIAN STANDARD
PRACTICE SAMPLES CONC. (PPMI CONC. (PPM) COHC. (PPMI CONC. (PPM) DEVIATION
T; TANKS 11 1 165000 16489 61 49359
oo ALL MGMT. GUPS. 11 1 165000 16489 61 49359
MANAGEMENT NO. OF 4TY-UEIGHTED QTY-MEIGHTED QTY-MEIGHTEO
PRACTICE HID. SAMPLES MEAN CONC (PPM) MED. CONC (PPM) STD. DEV.
TANKS 10 118 6 1237
ALL MGMT. 6RPS. 10 118 6 1237
SOURCE: Scianc* Application* International Corporation,1986
-------
TABLE B-8
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS,
EXCLUDING RANGES, PRESENT WITHIN ALL RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
NO. OF
SAMPLES
-KC31UUAL LAI til
MINIMUM
CONC. (PPM)
UHT: -ALL LAI . i
MAXIMUM
CONC. (PPM)
MEAN
CONC. (PPM)
MEDIAN
CONC. (PPM)
STANDARD
DEVIATION
CONTAINERS
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. GRPS.
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
14
21
I
4
25
58
NO. OF
WTO. SAMPLES
3
0.2
271
0.1
0.03
0.03
960000
984621
271
1006
1000000
1000000
364445
241540
271
384
304756
277136
QTY-HEIGHTED
MEAN CONC (PPM)
QTY-HEIGHTEO
MED. CONC (PPM)
250000
150700
271
265
29938
145350
QTY-WEIGHTED
STO. DEV.
331687
299709
0
473
399778
353496
CONTAINERS
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL nSMT. 6RPS.
12
19
1
4
21
SI
446951
103998
271
540
83442
78281
500000
82733
271
500
30
62733
193450
107017
0
157
169380
129076
SOURCE: Science Aeoliotform Int«rn«tion«l CorDeration,1986
-------
TABLE B-9
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS,
EXCLUDING RANGES, PRESENT WITHIN ALL RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Ln
O
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. 6RPS.
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL M6HT. GftPS.
NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM
SAMPLES CONC. (PPMI CONC. IPPM)
14
21
1
4
36
69
NO. OF
HTD. SAMPLES
12
19
1
4
31
61
3
0.2
271
0.1
0.03
0.03
960000
964621
271
1006
1000000
1000000
MEAN
CONC. IPPM)
364445
241540
271
384
216675
235583
QTY-HEIGHTED QTY-HEIGHTED
MEAN CONC (PPMI MED
446951
103998
271
540
518
3710
. CONC IPPM)
500000
82733
271
500
6
20
MEDIAN
CONC. (PPM)
250000
150700
271
265
3065
10000
QTY-MEIGHTEO
STD. DEV.
193450
107017
0
157
13129
32170
STANDARD
DEVIATION
331687
299709
0
473
358365
338144
.
SOURCEi Set area Application* International Corporation,1986
-------
TABLE B-10
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS =
EXCLUDING RANGES = PRESENT WITHIN ALL NON-RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. 6RPS.
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. 6RPS.
NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM
SAMPLES CONC. (PPM) CONC. (PI
2 200 2000
17 0.01 900000
19 0.01 900000
NO. OF QTY-HEIGHTED
HTO. SAMPLES MEAN CONC (PPM)
2 2754
12 34757
14 4452
MEAN
PM) CONC. (PPM)
1500
186532
167055
QTY-MEIGHTEO
MEO. CONC (PPM)
2800
72
2800
MEDIAN
CONC. (PPM)
1500
3000
2800
QTY-HEIGHTED
STO. DEV.
342
141946
33476
STANDARD
DEVIATION
1838
280501
270818
SOURCE: Science Application* International Corporation,1986
-------
TABLE B-ll
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS =
EXCLUDING RANGES = PRESENT WITHIN ALL NON-RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
NO. OF
SAMPLES
RESIDUAL t
MINIMUM
CONC. (PPM)
AlCbUHi: =3LUUb
MAXIMUM
CONC. (PPM)
MEAN
CONC. (PPM)
MEDIAN
CONC. (PPM)
STANDARD
DEVIATION
Ln
t-0
CONTAINERS
LANDFARMING
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. GRPS.
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
3
3
31
2
4
13
46
NO. OF
MTD. SAMPLES
293
38
2
100
2
7
2
QTY-MEIGHTEO
MEAN CONC (PPM)
350000
40
500000
10000
600
1000000
1000000
150232
39
58912
5050
170
337231
121357
QTY-MEIGHTED
MED. CONC (PPM)
100402
40
150
5050
39
200000
235
100100
1
135520
7000
207
359191
246765
QTY-NEIGHTED
STD. DEV.
CONTAINERS
LANDFARMIN6
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. GRPS.
3
3
22
2
3
13
36
8720
39
5413
9959
91
221380
10170
£93
38
4
10000
38
64000
10000
28187
1
34707
636
164
322665
51195
SOURCE: 3ci*nc« Aoolicatior« Intarmtforal Corporation.1986
-------
TABLE B-12
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS =
EXCLUDING RANGES = PRESENT WITHIN ALL NON-RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
SURFACE IMPS.
ALL MGMT. 6RP3.
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
SURFACE IMPS.
ALL MGMT. 6RP9.
NO. OF MINI
SAMPLES CONC
1
1
NO. OF
HTD. SAMPLES
1
1
MUM MAXIMUM
. (PPM) CONC. IP
* 4
4 4
QTY-HEIGHTED
MEAN CONC (PPM)
4
4
MEAN
PM) CONC. IPPM)
4
4
4TY-MEIGHTED
MEO. CONC (PPM)
4
4
MEDIAN
CONC. (PPM)
4
4
QTY-UEIGHTED
STO. OEV.
0
0
STANDARD
DEVIATION
0
0
SOOOci: Sct*He£ Aoolicatiorw International CorDeration,1986
-------
TABLE B-13
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS =
EXCLUDING RANGES = PRESENT WITHIN ALL NON-RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
LANDFILLS
TANKS
ALL MGMT. 6RPS.
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
LANDFILLS
TANKS
ALL MGMT. 6RPS.
NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN
SAMPLES CONC. (PPMI CONC. IPPHI CONC. (PPM)
1
Z
3
NO. OF
MTD. SAMPLES
1
1
I
312650 312850
610000 990000
312850 990000
QTY-HEIGHTED
MEAN CONC IPPMI
312850
610000
365912
312850
800000
637617
QTY-HEIGHTED
MED. CONC (PPM)
312850
610000
312850
MEDIAN
CONC. (PPM)
312850
800000
610000
QTY-HEIGHTEO
STO. DEV.
0
0
113806
STANDARD
DEVIATION
0
268701
339419
SOURCE« Scianca Application* International Corporation.1986
-------
TABLE B-14
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS =
EXCLUDING RANGES = PRESENT WITHIN ALL NON-RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
—RESIDUAL CATEGORYl *UNTRT. HASTEMATER-
NO. OF
SAMPLES
MINIMUM
CONC. I PPM)
MAXIMUM .
CONC. (PPMI
MEAN
CONC. (PPMJ
MEDIAN
CONC. (PPM)
STANDARD
DEVIATION
Ul
Oi
CONTAINERS
LANDFILLS
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. 6RPS.
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
I
I
6
26
35
NO. OF
HTD. SAMPLES
4
1009
4
2
2
70000
1009
24000
55000
70000
QTY-MEIGHTED
MEAN CONC (PPM)
35002
1009
6074
6701
6110
QTY-MEIGHTED
MED. CONC I PPM)
35002
1009
1106
450
300
QTY-MEIGHTED
STD. OEV.
49495
0
10668
12636
15611
CONTAINERS
LANDFILLS
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. 6RPS.
1
1
7
12
19
4
1009
9632
1924
6115
4
1009
2000
300
2000
0
0
9466
5616
9215
SOURCEi Science Aoolications International Corporatton,1986
-------
TABLE B-15
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS =
EXCLUDING RANGES = PRESENT WITHIN ALL NON-RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
O\
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANDFARMIN6
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. GRPS.
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANOFARMIN6
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL M6MT. 6RPS.
--KC9XUUAL LAICMJN
NO. OF MINIMUM
SAMPLES CONC. (PPM)
3
3
32
2
7
32
69
NO. OF
MTO. SAMPLES
3
3
23
2
6
26
S3
293
38
2
100
2
0.01
0.01
MAXIMUM MEAN MEDIAN
CONC. IPPM1 CONC. (PPM) CONC. (PPM)
350000 150232
40 39
500000 66648
10000 5050
2600 526
1000000 266096
1000000 154628
QTY-MEIGHTED 9TY- WEIGHTED
MEAN
CONC
6720
39
5979
9959
1963
104707
8322
(PPM) MED. CONC (PPM)
293
36
4
10000
2800
72
2800
100402
40
153
5050
40
165000
600
QTY-HEIGHTED
STD. OEV.
26167
1
37097
636
1253
244401
46421
STANDARD
DEVIATION
160100
1
140671
7000
IOZ5
341251
274209
SOURCEi Solane* Aooltcattoni International Corporation.1966
-------
TABLE B-16
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS =
EXCLUDING RANGES = PRESENT WITHIN ALL NON-RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
01
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANDFARMING
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. 6RPS.
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANDFARMING
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. 6RPS.
NO. OF MINIMUM
SAMPLES CONC. (PPM)
5
3
33
2
15
SB
104
NO. OF
WTO. SAMPLES
4
3
24
2
13
38
72
4
38
2
100
2
0.01
0.01 '
ICMJKTI 'ALL \.i
MAXIMUM
CONC. IPPMI
350000
40
500000
10000
24000
1000000
1000000
MEAN
CONC. (PPM)
104140
39
64853
5050
4552
160850
105319
QTY-MEIGHTED flTY-HEIGHTEO
MEAN
CONC
8305
39
4562
9959
6305
6076
7200
(PPM) MED.
CONC (PPM)
293
38
4
10000
2800
300
2000
MEDIAN
CONC. (PPM)
70000
40
156
5050
200
3500
592
QTY -WEIGHTED
STD. OEV.
27570
1
31446
636
8115
S3397
33224
STANDARD
DEVIATION
144270
1
138929
7000
8530
268182
233586
SOURCE: Science Aoolication* International Corporation,1986
-------
TABLE B-17
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS,
EXCLUDING RANGES, PRESENT WITHIN ALL ISDB WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
OO
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANDFILLS
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. 6RPS.
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANDFILLS
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. GBPS.
NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN
SAMPLES CONC. (PPM) CONC. (PPM) CONC. (PPM)
1
1
3
22
27
NO. OF
HTO. SAMPLES
1
1
3
17
22
300000 300000
200302 200382
0.1 2800
0.01 900000
0.01 900000
QTY -WEIGHTED
MEAN CONC (PPM)
300000
200302
2754
39576
5262
300000
200382
1000
170461
157538
QTY-WEIGHTED
MEO. CONC (PPMI
300000
200302
2800
72
2800
MEDIAN
CONC. (PPM)
300000
200382
200
6500
3000
QTT-MEIGHTED
STO. DEV.
0
0
342.
148704
39113
STANDARD
DEVIATION
0
0
1562
269376
249858
SOURCE I Sc<«nc« Application* International Corporation.1986
-------
TABLE B-18
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS,
EXCLUDING RANGES, PRESENT WITHIN ALL ISDB WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANDFARMING
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. 6RPS.
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANOFARMING
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. GRPS.
NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM
SAMPLES CONC. (PPM) CONC. (PPM)
16
3
51
3
7
26
69
NO. OF
HTD. SAMPLES
14
3
40
3
6
26
76
3
38
0.2
100
2
0.03
0.03
960000
40
984621
10000
1006
1000000
1000000
MEAN
CONC. (PPM)
328308
39
131338
3457
317
219762
167043
QTY-HEIGHTED QTY-MEIGHTED
MEAN CONC (PPM) MED
439512
39
34297
9695
138
162236
17496
. CONC (PPM)
500000
38
4
10000
38
64000
10000
MEDIAN
CONC. (PPM)
200000
40
585
271
40
135000
1538
QTY -WEIGHTED
STD. OEV.
202716
1
78689
1696
214
266612
66650
STANDARD
DEVIATION
327364
1
234962
5667
392
292096
274492
SOURCES Sctmc* Apolle«tlon» International Corporation,1966
-------
ON
O
TABLE B-19
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS,
EXCLUDING RANGES, PRESENT WITHIN ALL ISDB WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
MANAGEMENT NO. OF MINIMUM
PRACTICE SAMPLES CONC. (PPM)
SURFACE IMPS. 1 4
ALL MGMT. 6RPS. 1 4
MAXIMUM MEAN
CONC. (PPM) CONC. (PPM)
4 4
4 4
MEDIAN STANDARD
CONC. (PPM) DEVIATION
4 0
4 0
MANAGEMENT NO. OF QTY-HEIGHTED QTY-UEIGHTED QTY-WEIGHTED
PRACTICE HTD. SAMPLES MEAN CONC (PPM) MED. CONC (PPM) STO. DEV.
SURFACE IMPS. 14 40
ALL MGMT. GRPS. 14 40
SOURCEi Sei«nc« Aoolications Intarnatfon*! Coroor«tloo,19M
-------
TABLE B-20
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS,
EXCLUDING RANGES, PRESENT WITHIN ALL ISDB WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
-RESIDUAL CATEGORY: =3PENT SOLVENTS-
MANAGEMENT NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN MEDIAN STANDARD
PRACTICE SAMPLES CONC. I PPM) CONC. (PPM) CONC. (PPM) CONC. (PPM) DEVIATION
LANDFILLS 1 312650 312050 312650 312650 0
TANKS 9 5 1000000 612223 990000 334990
ALL MGMT. GRPS. 10 5 1000000 762265 990000 353111
MANAGEMENT NO. OF QTY-UEIGHTEO QTY-HEIGHTEO QTY-UEIGHTEO
PRACTICE NTD. SAMPLES MEAN CONC (PPM) MED. CONC (PPM) STD. DEV.
LANDFILLS 1 312650 312850 0
TANKS 4 661266 750000 206379
ALL MGMT. GRPS. S 464615 312850 220614
SOURCE: Sci*nc« Application* International Corporation,1966
-------
TABLE B-21
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS,
EXCLUDING RANGES, PRESENT WITHIN ALL ISDB WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANDFILLS
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL HGMT. GRPS.
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANDFILLS
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL M6HT. GRPS.
NO. OF MINIMUM
SAMPLES CONC. IPPM)
E
1
8
37
46
NO. OF
WTO. SAMPLES
1
1
7
22
29
4
1009
4
1
1
MAXIMUM MEAN
CONC. (PPM) CONC. IPPM)
70000
1009
24000
165000
165000
9TY-MEIGHTED
MEAN CONC
4
1009
9632
622
2341
(PPM)
35002
1009
60 74
9611
10114
QTY-HEIGHTEO
MED. CONC IPPM)
4
1009
2000
50
51
MEDIAN
CONC. IPPM)
35002
1009
1106
300
300
9TY-HEIGHTEO
STD. DEV.
0
0
9466
3250
6309
STANDARD
DEVIATION
49495
0
106M
20429
27264
SOURCE! Scionca Application* International Corporation.1906
-------
TABLE B-22
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS,
EXCLUDING RANGES, PRESENT WITHIN ALL ISDB WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANOFARHING
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. 6RP3.
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANDFARMING
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. GRPS.
MtSIUUAL CAItbUKIS =ALL tAI .
NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM
SAMPLES CONC. (PPM) CONC. (PPM)
17
3
51
3
U
57
127
NO. OF
HTD. SAMPLES
15
3
42
3
10
47
104
3
38
0.2
100
0.1
0.01
0.01
960000
40
984621
10000
2600
1000000
1000000
M/U M3IMAICK-
MEAN
CONC. (PPM)
326643
39
136066
3457
475
294260
210576
QTY-HEIGHTED QTY-HEIGHTEO
MEAN CONC (PPM) MED
437313
39
34651
9695
1915
99912
13777
. CONC (PPMI
400000
36
4
10000
2600
72
2600
MEDIAN
CONC. (PPM)
200000
40
600
271
40
170000
3767
QTY-HEIGHTED
STD. DEV.
201661
1
79626
1696
1259
229614
60316
STANDARD
DEVIATION
317062
1
231919
5667
636
364756
317587
SOURCES Science Aoolication* International Corporation!1966
-------
TABLE B-23
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS,
EXCLUDING RANGES, PRESENT WITHIN ALL ISDB WASTES
FOR EACH RESIDUAL GROUP - BY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANOFARMINS
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IHPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. WPS.
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
CONTAINERS
LANOFARMIN6
LANDFILLS
PILES
SURFACE IMPS.
TANKS
ALL MGMT. GAPS.
NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM
SAMPLES CONC. (PPMI CONC. (PPMI
19
3
54
3
19
94
173
NO. OF
HTO. SAMPLES
16
3
43
3
17
69
133
3
30
0.2
100
0.1
0.01
0.01
QTY-UEI6HTEO
960000
40
984621
10000
24000
1000000
1000000
MEAN
CONC. (PPMI
295944
39
133565
3457
3674
162230
157274
QTT-HEIGHTED
MEAN CONC (PPMI MEO
436033
39
27421
9695
6219
2111
5542
. CONC (PPM)
400000
30
100
10000
2000
50
51
MEDIAN
CONC. (PPM)
200000
40
004
271
200
3500
1100
QTY -WEIGHTED
STO. OEV.
202270
1
71727
1690
0005
30763
32774
STANDARD
DEVIATION
312970
1
230454
5667
7725
316192
206306
SOURCES Setone* Apolfe«tlon» International Corporation,1906
-------
APPENDIX C
FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES DATA BASE FOR WASTE OIL COMPOSITION
This appendix contains a brief description of the waste oil
concentration data collected, compiled, and analyzed by Franklin
Associates, Ltd.* for the EPA Office of Solid Waste. Between 1981
and 1984, waste oil data and samples were collected and analyzed by
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Analytical results were obtained for more
than 1,000 waste oil samples.** As a result of these analyses, a
data base characterizing the composition and concentration of waste
oil was developed. The sampling techniques used to determine
concentrations, however, were not reported.
The major contaminants found in waste oil are: 1) heavy
metals, especially lead and zinc; 2) organic solvents, such as
benzene, xylene, and toluene; and 3) chlorinated solvents,
particularly trichlorotrifluorethane. Table C-l summarizes the
number of samples and the estimated concentration of hazardous
constituents found in waste oil. Additional information is provided
in Table C-2, which shows the concentration of potentially hazardous
contaminants at the 75th and 90th percentile. Information about the
*Franklin Associates, Ltd., November 1984. Composition and
Management of Used Oil Generated in the United States, Final
Report, EPA/530-SW-013, prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC.
**Samples were taken from establishments storing waste oil in
aboveground tanks, belowground tanks, and drums.
165
-------
TABLE C-l
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS FOUND IN WASTE OIL*
Total
Analyzed
Samples
Samples in which
Contaminant
Detected
Number Percent
Mean
Concentration**
Concentration
Range
(ppm)
Low
High
Median
Concentration
(pom)
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
537
752
744
756
835
810
135
675
271
592
760
799
25
89
36
78
91
98
17.26
131.92
3.11
27.97
664.5
580.28
0.01
0
0
0
0
0.5
100
3,906
57
690
21,700
8,610
5
48
3
6.5
240
480
Chlorinated Solvents
Dichlorodifluoromethane 87
Trichlorotrifluoroethane 28
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 616
Trichloroethylene 608
Tetrachloroethylene 599
51
17
388
259
352
58
60
62
42
58
373.27
62,935.88
2,800.41
1,387.63
1,420.89
1
20
1
1
1
2,200
550,000
110,000
40,000
32,000
20
160
200
100
106
Total Chlorine
590
568
96
4,995
40
86,700
1,600
-------
TABLE C-l (Concluded)
Total
Analyzed
Samples
Samples in which
Contaminant
Detected
Number Percent
Mean
Concentration**
(pom)
Concentration
Range
(ppm)
Low High
Median
Concentration
(ppm)
Other Organics
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
PCBs
Naphthalene
236
242
235
27
65
753
25
118
198
194
20
38
142
25
50
81
82
74
58
18
100
961.2
2,200.48
3,385.54
71.3
24.55
108.51
475.2
1
1
1
5
1
0
110
55,000
55,000
139,000
660
405
3,800
1,400
20
380
550
12
10
5
330
*1,071 different waste oil samples were included in the Franklin Associates waste oil study.
**Calculated for detected concentrations only. For the purpose of determining mean concentrations,
undetected levels were assumed by Franklin Associates to be equal to the detection limit.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd., November 1984. Composition and Management of Used Oil Generated
in the United Statesf Final Report, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, Table 2, pp. 1-12.
-------
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY OF WASTE OIL CONCENTRATION
AT THE 75TH AND 90TH PfiRCENTILE*
Concentration Concentration
Number at 75th at 90th
of Percentile** Percentile***
Samples (ppm) (ppm)
Metals
Arsenic 537 5 18
Barium 752 120 251
Cadmium 744 8 10
Chromium 756 12 35
Lead 835 740 1,200
Zinc 810 872 1,130
Chlorinated Solvents
Dichlorodifluoromethane 87 160 640
Trichlorotrifluoroethane 28 1,300 100,000
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 616 1,300 3,500
Trichloroethylene 608 200 800
Tetrachloroethylene 599 600 1,600
Total Chlorine 590 4,000 9,500
Other Organics
Benzene 236 110 300
Toluene 242 1,400 4,500
Xylene 235 1,400 3,200
Benzo(a)anthracene 27 30 40
Benzo(a)pyrene 65 12 16
PCBs 753 15 50
Naphthalene 25 560 800
168
-------
TABLE C-2 (Concluded)
FOOTNOTES
*For the purpose of determining percentile concentrations, undetected
levels were assumed by Franklin Associates to be equal to the
detection limit.
**75 percent of the analyzed waste oil samples had contaminant
concentrations below the given value.
***90 percent of the analyzed waste oil samples had contaminant
concentrations below the given value.
Source: Franklin Associated, Ltd., November 1984. Composition and
Management of Used Oil Generated in the United States, Final
Report, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,*
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC,
Table 2, pp. 1-12.
169
-------
concentration of these contaminants by the type of unit in which
they are stored (i.e., aboveground tanks, belowground tanks, and
55-gallon drums) is not available.
170
-------
APPENDIX D
DEFINITIONS OF WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS
This appendix provides definitions for each of the major waste
management practices discussed in this report. These definitions
are based on the RCRA definitions (40 CFR 260.10).
Drum or Container: Any portable device in which a material is
stored, transported, treated, disposed of, or
otherwise handled.
Injection Well: A well into which fluids are injected.
Underground injection is the subsurface
emplacement of fluids through a bored,
drilled, or driven well; or through a dug
well, where the depth of the dug well is
greater than the largest surface dimension.
Landfarm:
Landfill:
Pile:
Surface Impoundment:
A facility or part of a facility at which
hazardous waste is applied onto or
incorporated into the soil surface.
A disposal facility or part of a facility
where hazardous waste is placed in or on land
and which is not a landfarm, a surface
impoundment, or an injection well.
Any noncontainerized accumulation of solid,
nonflowing hazardous waste.
A facility or part of a facility which is a
natural topographic depression, manmade
excavation, or diked area formed primarily of
earthen materials (although it may be lined
with manmade materials), which is destined to
hold an accumulation of liquid wastes or
wastes containing free liquids, and which is
not an injection well; examples of surface
impoundments are holding, storage, settling,
and aeration pits, ponds, and lagoons.
171
-------
Tank: A stationary device, designed to contain an
accumulation of hazardous waste which is
constructed primarily of nonearthen materials
(e.g., wood, concrete, steel, plastic) which
provide structural support.
172
-------
APPENDIX E
AVAILABILITY OF WASTE COMPOSITION DATA BY SITE IN THE
SUPERFUND SITE INSPECTION AND REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORTS
This appendix explicitly references the sites for which waste
composition data were available from the site inspection and
remedial investigation reports. Table E-l lists the 44 sites for
which site inspections reports provided waste composition data. The
table also identifies the particular type of waste management
units/wastes for which data are available for each site. Table E-2
provides similar information for the 16 NPL sites for which data
were obtained from remedial investigation reports.
173
-------
TABLE E-l
AVAILABILITY OF WASTE COMPOSITION DATA
IN SUPERFUND SITE INSPECTION REPORTS
Site Name
Waste Management Units/Wastes
Revere Textile
Arky Property
Cosden Chemical Coating Corp.
Kane and Lombard
Hunterstown Road
Middletown Airfield
Shriver's Corner Road
L.A. Clark and Sons
First Piedmont Rock Quarry
Saunders Supply Co.
Mobay Chemical Corp.
Morgantown Ordnance Works
Sydney Mine
G.C. Singleton
By Pass 601
Sangamo/Twelve Mile/Hartwell
NL Industrial Tara Corp Lead Site
Parson's Casket Hardware
Torch Lake
Motor Wheel Disposal Site
Rockwell Int'l Corp.
Ormet Corporation
City of Stoughton Landfill
Midland Products
Drums
Drums
Drums
Drums
Drums, surface impoundment
Surface impoundment, tanks
Drums
Surface impoundment
Drums
Tanks
Surface impoundment
Drums
Surface impoundment
Drums
Surface impoundment
Sludge, landfill
Waste piles
Surface impoundment
Mine tailings
Tanks
Surface impoundment
Surface impoundment
Drums
Surface impoundment
174
-------
TABLE E-l (Concluded)
Site Name
Waste Management Units/Wastes
Sand Springs Petrochemical Co.
Passes Co.
Brio Refining
Stewco, Inc.
Texarkana Wood Preserving
Sheridan Disposal Services
Midwest Manuf./No. Farm Site
Lawrence Todtz Farm Site
Lindsay Manufacturing
Monroe Auto Equipment Co.
Smuggler Mountain
Burlington No. Tie Treating Facility
Montana Pole and Treating Plant
Mayflower Mountain Tailings
Tooele Army Depot
Micronutrients International
Apache Powder Co.
Queen City Farms
Midway Landfill
Naval Undersea Warfare Eng. Station
Surface impoundment
Drums
Surface impoundment
Surface impoundment
Surface impoundment
Surface impoundment, landfarm
Surface impoundment
Surface impoundment
Surface impoundment
Surface impoundment
Mine tailings
Surface impoundment
Sludge, tanks
Mine tailings
Surface impoundment
Waste piles
Surface impoundment
Surface impoundment
Surface impoundment
Sludge
175
-------
TABLE E-2
AVAILABILITY OF WASTE COMPOSITION DATA
IN SUPERFUND REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORTS
Site Name
Reference
Waste Management
Units/Wastes
Beacon Heights Landfill
Hocomonco Pond
Bridgeport Rental & Oil
Services
Krysowaty Farm
Swope Oil & Chemical Co.
Drake Chemical
McAdoo Associates
Mill Creek Dump
Arcanum Iron & Metal
Laskin/Poplar Oil Co.
Old Mill
Cecil Lindsey
Bayou Sorrell
Cleve Reber
Old Inger Oil Refinery
Celtor Chemical Works
NUS Corporation, 1985d
TRC Environmental
Consultants, 1985
NUS Corporation, 1984b
NUS Corporation, I984a
NUS Corporation, 1985c
NUS Corporation, 1985e
NUS Corporation, 1984c
NUS Corporation, 1985b
CH2M Hill, 1985c
CH2M Hill, 1985d
CH2M Hill, 1984
CH2M Hill, I985a
CH2M Hill, 1985b
CH2M Hill, 1985e
Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources, 1983
CH2M Hill, 1985f
Sludge
Surface impoundment
Surface impoundment,
tanks
Drums
Surface impoundment
Surface impoundment
Tanks
Drums
Rubber chips
Surface impoundment,
tanks
Drums
Drums
Surface impoundment,
spent lime cells
Drums
Sludge, surface
impoundment, tanks
Mine tailings
176
-------
APPENDIX F
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1976. Hazardous Waste Generation, Treatment
and Disposal In the Pharmaceutical Industry, prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Publication SW-508, Washington, DC.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories, September 1976a. Assessment of
Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices—Electroplating and Metal
Finishing Industries—Job Shops, prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Publication SW-136c, Washington, DC.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories, January 1976b. Final Assessment of
Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices—Electroplating and Metal
Finishing Industries—Captive Shops, prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Blackman, W. C., R. L. Garnas, J. E. Preston, and C. M. Swibas,
March 1985. "Chemical Composition of Drum Samples from Hazardous
Waste Sites," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Enforcement Investigations Center, Denver, CO.
Boynton, L., March 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Sample Management Office, personal communication, Washington, DC,.
Calspan Corporation, 1977. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry, Volumes 1,
3, and 4, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Publication SW-145c, Washington, DC.
CH2M Hill Ecology and Environment, July 1985a. Draft No. 2 Remedial
Investigation Report for Cecil Lindsey Site, Newport, Arkansas,
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
CH2M Hill Ecology and Environment, July I985b. Remedial
Investigation Report Bayou Sorrel, Louisiana, Draft, Volume 1 of 2,
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
CH2M Hill Ecology and Environment, June 1985c. Draft Remedial
Investigation Report, Volume 1, Arcanum Iron and Metal Site,
Arcanum, Ohio, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
177
-------
CH2M Hill Ecology and Environment, May 1985d. Draft Remedial
Investigation Report, Volume 1, Laskin-Poplar Oil Co. Site"7
Jefferson, Ohio, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
CH2M Hill Ecology and Environment of May 1985e. Remedial
Investigation Report, Volume 1 2, Cleve Reber Site, Ascension
Parish, Louisiana, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
CH2M Hill Ecology and Environment, April 1985f. Remedial
Investigation Report, Celtor Chemical Works Site, Hoopa, California,
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
CH2M Hill Ecology and Environment, December 1984. Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, Old Mill Site, Rock Creek, Ohio,
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
Eckel, W. P., D. P. Trees, and S. P. Kovell, May 1985. "Distribution
and Concentration of Chemicals and Toxic Materials Found at
Hazardous Waste Dump Sites," proceedings of the National Conference
on Hazardous Wastes and Environmental Emergencies, Cincinnati, OH.
Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1978. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practices, Rubber and Plastics Industry, prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Publication SW-163c, Volumes 1-4,
Washington, DC.
Franklin Associates, Ltd., November 1984. Composition and
Management of Used Oil Generated in the United States, Final Report,
EPA/530-SW-013, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
Freund, J. H., 1971. Mathematical Statistics, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Friedman, P. H., W. P. Eckel, D. P. Trees, and B. Clemens, November
1984. "Construction of a Data Base from Hazardous Waste Site
Chemical Analyses," The 5th National Conference on Management of
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Washington, DC.
Haan, Charles T, 1979. Statistical Methods in Hydrology, The Iowa
State University Press, Ames, IA.
Hollander, M. and D. A. Wolfe, 1973. Nonparametric Statistical
Methods, John Wiley and Sons, NY.
178
-------
Jacobs Engineering Co., 1976. Assessment of Hazardous Waste
Practices in the Petroleum Refining Industry, prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Publication SW-129c, Washington, DC,
Liroff, S. D., M. Hoffman, G. Sessler, and C. Shulock, 1978.
Management of Environmental Risk: A Limited Integrated Assessment
of the Waste Oil Rerefining Industry, prepared for the National
Science Foundation by Teknekron, Inc., Berkeley, CA.
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, October 1983. Remedial
Investigation-Phase One Element I, Old Inger Abandoned Hazardous
Waste Site, Darrow, Louisiana, (Final Report), Baton Rouge, LA.
NUS Corporation, August 1985a. Feasibility Study for Bog Creek
Farm Site, Howell Township, New Jersey, prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
NUS Corporation, August 1985b. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study Report, Mill Creek Site, Erie County Pennsylvania, prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
NUS Corporation, June 1985c. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study of Alternatives, Swope Oil Company Site, Pennsauken Township,
Camden County, New Jersey, prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; Washington, DC.
NUS Corporation, April 1985d. Remedial Investigation Report, Beacon
Heights Landfill Site, Beacon Falls, Connecticut, Appendix, prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
NUS Corporation, April 1985e. Remedial Investigation Report, (Phase
II), Drake Chemical Site, Lock Haven, Clinton County, Pennsylvania,
(Revised), prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
NUS Corporation, October 1984a. Remedial Investigation Report and
Feasibility Study for Krysowaty Farm Site, Township of Hillsborough,
Somerset County, New Jersey, prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
NUS Corporation, July 1984b. Remedial Investigation Report,
Bridgeport Rental and Oil Services Site, Logan Township, New Jersey,
(Draft), prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
NUS Corporation, May 1984c. Remedial Investigation Report, McAdoo
Associates Site, Kline Township, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania,
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
179
-------
PEDCo Environmental, Inc., November 1983. Evaluation of Management
Practices for Mine Solid Waste Storage, Disposal, and Treatment.
Volume 1, Characterization of Mining Industry Wastes, (Draft),
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
R. E. Wright Associates, Inc., July 1985. Draft Remedial
Investigation Report and Feasibility Study of Alternatives, Helen
Kramer Landfill Site, Mantua Township, Gloucester County, New
Jersey, prepared for the NUS Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA.
Science Applications International Corporation, 1986. Unpublished
Data from Industry Studies Data Base (ISDB), McLean, VA.
SCS Engineers Inc., 1976. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices — Leather Tanning and Finishing Industry, prepared for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication SW-131c,
Washington, DC.
Siegel, S., 1956. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral
Sciences, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., NY.
Swain, J. W., Jr., et al., 1977. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Management Petroleum Re-refining Industry, prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication SW-144c,
Washington, DC.
TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc., 1985. Hocomonco Pond Site
Westborough, Massachusetts, Remedial Investigation Report, (Draft),
prepared for NUS Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA.
TRW, Inc., 1976. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices, Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and Explosives Industries,
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication
SW-118c, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984. Uncontrolled Hazardous
Waste Site Ranking System; A Users Manual, HW-10, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. Subtitle C, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), Final Environmental
Impact Statement Part I—Appendices, Office of Solid Waste,
Washington, DC.
Versar, Inc., 1976. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices, Textiles Industry, prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Publication SW-125c, Washington, DC.
180
-------
Versar, Inc., 1975a. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices; Inorganic Chemicals Industry, prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Publication SW-l04c, Washington, DC.
Versar, Inc., 1975b. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices; Storage and Primary Battery Industries, prepared for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication SW-102c,
Washington, DC.
Wapora, Inc., 1977a. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices; Electronic Components Manufacturing Industry, prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication SW-l40c,
Washington, DC.
Wapora, Inc., 1977b. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices; Special Machinery Manufacturing Industries, prepared for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication SW-141c,
Washington, DC.
Wapora, Inc., 1975. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices: Paint and Allied Products Industry, Contract Solvent
Reclaiming Operations, and Factory Application of Coatings, prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, Washington, DC.
181
------- |