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

-------