PB-241 204
ASSESSMENT OF INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PRACTICES,
STORAGE AND PRIMARY BATTERIES INDUSTRIES
VERSAR, INCORPORATED
PREPARED FOR:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JANUARY 1975
DISTRIBUTED BY:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
PHIC DATA
1. Report No.
EPA/530/SW-102C
PB 241 204
/Subtitle
^sment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
ige and Primary Batteries Industries
°. McCandless, R. Wetzel, J. Casona, and K. Slimak
ing Organization Name and Address
or, Inc.
1 Electronics Drive
mgfield, Virginia 22151
Coring Organization Name and Address
A, Hazardous Waste Management Division
fice of Solid Waste Management Programs
ashington, D. C. 20460
5. Report Date
January 1975
6.
8. Performing Organization Kept.
No44V
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
EPA No. 68-01-2276
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered FJna|
April to September 1974
14.
elementary Notes
P. A. Project Officer - Sam Morekas
tracts inis report, wfiicn covers Darrery manufacturing operations, is one ot a series ot several
s which examine land-destined wastes from selected industries. The battery industry is
,ed into two groups by the Bureau of Census: Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 3691 Storage
^rt&ries (such as lead-acid automobile batteries) and SIC 3692 Primary Batteries (such as carbon-zinc
^tishlight batteries). The battery industry was studied because heavy metals such as mercury, cad-
mium, zinc, and lead are used in some of its manufacturing processes. These metals can be toxic in
certain concentration and forms. The potentially hazardous wastes destined for land disposal from the
battery industry consist of industrial processing wastes, refect cells, and sludges from water pollution
control devices. The amount of sludges destined for land disposal is expected to experience a large
short term increase as water effluent guidelines are implemented. The impact of water effluent
guidelines on land disposal of wastes is the largest single factor in determining future trends for this
Industry.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis.
I7o. Descriptors
Hazardous Wastes Sludges
Primary Batteries Lead
Storage Batteries Cadmium
Solids Mercury
Zinc
Chromium
Landfills
Disposal Technology
Disposal Costs
I7b. Idemifiers/Open-Ended Terms
17c. COSATI Field'Group
18. Availability Stntemenr
19. Security Class (This
Report)
1QJCLASSIE1EI
llMri-ASSIFIED
utity CliiVs (Thii
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
•«M NTIMS (NEV. «0-7W ENDORSED BY ANSI AND OWtSOO.
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
USCOMM-DC •**«-<*74
-------
NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Hazardous Waste Management Division,
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, EPA, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or com-
mercial products constitue endorsement or recommendation for use.
it
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Pa9e
1 .0 INTRODUCTION .................... 1
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................. 3
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE STORAGE AND PRIMARY
BATTERIES INDUSTRIES ... .............. H
3.1 Introduction .................... H
3.2 Economic Structure and Products of the Storage
and Primary Batteries Industry ...... « . . . . H
3.3 Storage Batteries Industry (SIC 3691) Produbts
and Processes ................... ^
3.3.1 Lead-Acid Storage Batteries ....... 16
3.3.2 Nickel-Cadmium Batteries. ....... 16
3.3.3 Cadmium-Silver Oxide Storage Cell . . . 17
3.3.4 Zinc-Silver Oxide Secondary Cell. ... 18
3.3.5 Other Secondary Batteries ....... . 18
3.3.5.1 Iron-Nickel Oxide Alkaline Storage
Cell (Edison) .............. 18
3.3.5.2 Nickel-Zinc Secondary Cell ...... 18
3.3.5.3 Silver-Lead Secondary Cell ...... 18
3.3.5.4 Mercury-Cadmium Secondary Cell ... 19
3.4 Primary Battery Industry (SIC 3692) Products
and Processes ................... 19
3.4.1 Carbon-Zinc Dry Cell .......... 19
3.4.2 Carbon-Zinc Air Cell ...... .... 20
3.4.3 Aikaline Manganese Dioxide Dry Cell . . 20
3.4.4 Mercury Cell Primary Batteries ..... 20
3.4.5 Magnesium-Carbon Dry Cell ....... 20
3.4.6 Zinc-Silver Oxide Dry Cell ....... 21
3.4.7 Other Primary Batteries . . . ...... 21
3.4.7.1 Lead Reserve Cell ........... 21
3.4.7.2 Low Temperature Carbon-Zinc Dry Cell 21
3.4.7.3 Magnesium-Silver and Copper-Chloride
Cells ............. t. . . . 22
3.4.7.4 Zinc-Silver Chloride Cell ........ 22
3.5 Future Battery Industry Developments ....... 22
3.6 Program Methodology ............... 23
3.6.1 Data Acquisition ............ 24
3.6.2 Data Analysis .......... .... 24
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued
Section
4.0 INDUSTRY CHARACTERIZATION ............ 26
4.1 Introduction .................... 26
4.2 General Observations of the Industry . ...... 26
4.3 Statistical Characterization of SIC 3691 Storage
Batteries ...................... 28
4.4 Statistical Characterization of SIC 3692 Primary
Batteries ..................... 32
5.0 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ............. 36
5.1 Introduction .................... 36
5.2 Waste Characterization for SIC 3691 Storage
Batteries ..................... 37
5.2.1 Lead-Acid Storage Battery ........ 37
5.2.2 Nickel-Cadmium Storage Battery .... 43
5.2.3 Cadmium-Silver Oxide Storage Cell ... 46
5.2.4 Zinc-SMver Oxide Secondary Cell. ... 50
5.2.5 Iron-Nickel Oxide Alkaline Storage
Cell (Edison) ............... 53
5.2.6 Nickel-Zinc Storage Cell ........ 53
5.2.7 Silver-Lead Storage Cell ........ 54
5.2.8 Mercury-Cadmium Secondary Ceil . ... 54
5.3 Waste Characterization for SIC 3692 Primary
Batteries ..... , ............... 55
5.3.1 Carbon-Zinc Dry Cell ......... 55
5.3.2 Carbon-Zinc Air Cell ......... 58
5.3.3 Alkaline Manganese Dioxide Dry Cell . . 63
5.3.4 Mercury Cell Primary Batteries ..... 65
5.3.5 Magnesium-Carbon Dry Cell ....... 72
5.3.6 Zinc- Silver Oxide Dry Cell ....... 75
5.3.7 Lead Reserve Cell . ; .......... 78
5.3.8 Low Temperature Carbon- Zinc Dry Cell . 78
5.3.9 Zinc-Silver Chloride Cell . . ...... 8?
5,3.10 Magnesium-Silver and Copper Chloride
Cell ................... 83
5.3.11 Thermal Cell Primary Battery ....... 87
5.3.12 Nuclear Battery ............. 87
5.3.13 Lithium Primary Cell ..... ...... 87
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued
Section Page
5.0 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION - continued
5.4 Summary of Waste Streams Containing Potentially
Hazardous Constituents 88
5.4.1 SIC 3691, Storage Batteries Waste
Streams Summary 88
5.4.1.1 Lead-Acid Battery 88
5.4.1.2 Nickel-Cadmium Battery 94
5.4.1.3 Other Storage Batteries 98
5.4.1.3.1 Cadmium-Silver Oxide Battery .... 98
5.4.1.3.2 Zinc-Silver Oxide Secondary Battery . 98
5.4.2 SIC 3692, Primary Batteries Waste
Streams Summary 102
5.4.2.1 Carbon-Zinc Battery 102
5.4.2.2 Alkaline-Manganese Battery 102
5.4.2.3 Mercury Ruben Battery 102
5.4.2.4 Magnesium-Carbon Battery 109
5.4.2.5 Zinc-Silver Oxide Battery ..;..,. 109
5.4.2.6 Other Primary Batteries ........ 119
5.4.2.6.1 Carbon-Zinc Air Cell 119
5.4.2.6.2 Lead-Acid Reserve Cell . 119
5.4.2.6.3 Mercury Weston Cell 119
5.4.3 Summary of Hazardous Waste Streams . . 119
6.0 TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY 126
6.1 Introduction 126
6.2 Treatment and Disposal in Storage Batteries
127
6.2.1 Lead-Acid Battery . . . 127
6.2.2 Nickel-Cadmium Battery. ........ 134
6.3 Treatment and Disposal in Primary Batteries
Manufacture (SIC 3692) 135
6.3.1 Carbon-Zinc Battery 136
6.3.2 Alkaline Manganese Battery 137
6.3.3 AirCell 137
6.3.4 .Magnesium Carbon 137
6.3.5 Mercury Ruben Cell 137
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued
Section Page
6.0 TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY - continued
6.3 Treatment and Disposal in Primary Batteries
Manufacture (SIC 3692) - continued
6.3.6 Lead Acid Reserve . . 137
6.3.7 Mercury Weston Cell 138
6.4 Treatment and Disposal Technology Levels as
Applied to Hazardous Wastes From The
Manufacture of Specific Batteries 138
6.4.1 SIC 3691, Storage Batteries Treatment
and Disposal Technology Levels 14Q.
6.4.2 SIC 3692, Primary Batteries Treatment
and Disposal Technology Levels ...... 140
6.5 General Treatment Technologies 140
6.5.1 Chemical Detoxification 140
6.5.2 Neutralization 140
6.5.3 pH Control 140
6.5.4 Precipitation 149
6.5.5 Recovery and Reuse 149
6.5.6 Burning and Incineration 150
6.5.7 High Temperature Processing 150
6.5.8 Open Dumping 150
6.5.9 Municipal Sewers 150
6.5.10 Burirl Operations 151
6.5.11 Public and Private Landfills 151
6.5.12 Disposal Ponds or Lagoons 151
6.5.13 CtoepWell Injection 151
6.5.14 Ocean Barging 152
6.6 Land Disposal Practices 152
6.6.1 Landfill Types 152
6.6.1.1 General Purpose Landfills 152
6.6.1.2 Approved Landfills 152
6.6.1.3 Approved Landfill for Large Volume
Hazardous Wastes 153
6.6.1.4 Secured Landfills 153
6.6.2 Safeguard Practices 154
Vl
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued
Section
6.0 TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY - continued
6.6 Land Disposal Practices - continued
6.6.2 Safeguard Practices - continued
6.6.2.1 Direct Plastic/Concrete Encapsulation . 154
6.6.2.2 Steel Drums 155
6.6.2.3 Clay or Asphalt Encapsulation in Bulk . 155
6.6.2.4 Leachate Collection and Treatment . . 155
6.6.2.5 Chemical Fixation 155
6.6.2.6 Practical Landfill Disposal Factors ... 156
6.6.2.7 Coordinate Records 157
6.6.2.8 Safeguards Presently Used in Disposal . 157
6.6.2.9 On-Site vs. Off-Site Disposal 157
6.7 Private Contractors and Service Organization . . 157
7.0 COST ANALYSIS 158
7.1 Summary . . 158
7.2 Contractor Treatment and Disposal Costs 161
7.2.1 Transportation Costs 161
7.2.1.1 Local Hauling 161
7.2.1.2 Long Distance Hauling 161
7.2.2 Treatment and Disposal Costs. 164
7.2.2.1 Costs for Direct Land Disposal 164
7.2.2.2 Landfill Costs 164
7.2.3 Contractor Cost Basis Summary 166
7.3 Cost References and Rationale 166
7.3.1 Interest Costs and Equity Financing
Charges 166
7.3.2 Time Index for Costs 168
7.3.3 Useful Service Life 168
7.3.4 Depreciation 168
7.3.5 Capital Costs 169
7.3.6 Annualized Capital Costs ........ 169
7.3.7 Treatment of Land Costs 170
7.3.8 Operating Expenses 170
*7.4 Definition of Technology Levels 171
7.5 Individual Battery Hazardous Waste Disposal
and Treatment Costs - 172
vn
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued
Section
7.0
COST ANALYSIS - continued
7.5 Individual Battery Hazardous Waste Disposal
and Treatment Costs - continued
7.5.1 SIC 3691, Storage Batteries Waste
Disposal 172
7.5.1.1 Lead Acid Battery 172
7.5.1.2 Nickel-Cadmium Storage
Cell 173
7.5.1 .3 Cadmium-Silver Oxide and Zinc-
Silver Oxide Batteries 178
7.5.2 Treatment and Disposal of SIC 3692
Primary Batteries Hazardous Wastes ... 178
7.5.2.1 Carbon-Zinc 179
7.5.2.2 Alkaline Cell 179
7.5.2.3 Air Cell 179
7.5.2.4 Mercury Ruben Cell 179
7.5.2.5 Mercury Weston Cell . . . 184
7.5.2.6 Magnesium Carbon 184
7.5.2.7 Lead Acid Reserve 184
8.0 REFERENCES 188
APPENDIX A . A-l
APPENDIX B B-l
APPENDIX C C-l
APPENDIX D D-l
APPENDIX A REFERENCES
VIII
-------
LI STOP FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Flow of Lead in the United States (1973) ......... 4
2 Flow of Cadmium in the United States (1973) ....... 5
3 Flow of Mercury in the United States (1973) ....... 6
4 Flow of Zinc in the United States (1973) ......... 7
5 Characterization of the Battery Industry ......... 27
6 SIC 3691 - Storage Batteries, Distribution of
Establishments ................... . . . . 29
7 SIC 3692 - Primary Batteries, Distribution of
Establishments ................. ...... 33
8 Major Profr»e*to» Operations in Lead- Acid
Storage Battery Manufacture ............... 40
9 Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Nickel-
Cadmium Sintered-Plate Storage Battery Manufacture ... 45
10 Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Cadmium-
Silver Secondary Cell Production ....... ...... 49
11 Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Zinc-
Silver Oxide Secondary Battery .............. 52
12 Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Carbon-
Zinc Battery Manufacture ........... « ..... 57
13 Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Carbon-
Zinc Air Cell Primary Battery Manufacture ........ 61
14 Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Alkaline
Dry Battery Manufacture ................. 64
15 Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Mercury
Battery (Ruben) Manufacture ............... 67
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES - conHnued
ioure Page
16 Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Weston
Standard Mercury Cell Manufacture 70
17 Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Magnesium-
Carbon Dry Cell Manufacture 73
18 Major Operations in Zinc-Silver Oxide Dry
Cell Manufacture 76
19 Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Lead
Acid Reserve Cell Manufacture 79
20 Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Low
Temperature Carbon-Zinc Cell Manufacture 82
21 Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Zincr-
Silver Chloride Dry Cell Manufacture 84
22 Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Magnesium-
Silver Chloride Reserve Dry Cell Manufacture 85
23 Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Magnesium-
Copper Chloride Reserve Dry Battery Manufacture .... 86
24 Major Production Operations in Lead-Acid Storage
Battery Manufacture 132
25 Regional Transportation Costs 162
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
SIC 3691 , General Statistics/ by Geographic Areas -
1972
SIC 3691, Type, Quantity and Value, Products- 1972 .
SIC 3692, General Statistics, by Geographic Areas -
1972
SIC 3692, Type, Quantity and Value, Products - 1972 .
Product Category - 3691 Storage Batteries
SIC 3691 , Distribution of Annual Production — Lead-
Acid, Nickel-Cadmium and Other (1972, Production
SIC 3692, Distribution of Annual Production of
Lead-Acid Typical Plant
Air Cell Typical Plant
Alkaline-Manganese Dioxide Typical Plant
Mercury Cell (Weston) Typical Plant
Page
9
12
13
14
15
30
31
34
35
42
47
51
59
62
66
69
71
XI
-------
LIST OF TABLES - continued
Table No. Page
18 Magnesium-Carbon Typical Plant 74
19 Zinc-Silver Oxide Dry Gel I Typical Plant 77
20 Lead- Fluoboric Acid Reserve Gel I Typical Plant 80
21 3691, Amount of Lead-Acid Battery Hazardous Wastes
Destined for Land Disposal.(1972) 91
22 3691, Amount of Lead-Acid Battery Hazardous Wastes
Destined for Land Disposal (1977) 92
*
23 3691, Amount of Lead Acid Battery Hazardous Wastes
Destined for Land Disposal (1983) 93
24 3691, Amount of Nickel-Cadmium Battery Hazardous
Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1977) 95
25 3691, Amount of Nickel-Cadmium Battery Hazardous
Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1977) 96
26 3691, Amount of Nickel-Cadmium Battery Hazardous
Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1983) 97
27 3691, Amount of Other Storage Battery Hazardous
Wastes (1973) 99
28 3691, Amount of Other Storage Battery Hazardous
Wastes (1977) 100
29 3691, Amount of Other Storage Battery Hazardous
Wastes (1983) 101
30 3692, Amount of Carbon-Zinc Battery Hazardous
Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1973) 103
31 3692, Amount ofCarbon-Zinc Battery Hazardous
Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1977) 104
XII
-------
LI STOP TABLES-continued
Table No. Page
32 3692, Amount of Carbon-Zinc Battery Hazardous
Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1983) 105
33 3692, Amount of Alkaline-Manganese Battery Hazardous
Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1973) 106
34 3692, Amount of Alkaline-Manganese Battery Hazardous
Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1977) 107
35 3692, Amount of Alkaline-Manganese Battery Hazardous
Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1983) 108
36 3692, Amount of Mercury Cell Hazardous Wastes
Destined for Land Disposal (1973) 110
37 3692, Amount of Mercury Cell Hazardous Wastes
Destined for Land Disposal (1977) Ill
38 3692, Amount of Mercury Cell Hazardous Wastes
Destined for Land Disposal (1983) 112
39 3692, Amount of Magnesium-Carbon Battery Hazardous
Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1973) 113
40 3692, Amount of Magnesium-Carbon Battery Hazardous
Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1977) 114
41 3692, Amount of Magnesium-Carbon Battery Hazardous
Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1983) 115
42 3692, Amount of Zinc-Silver Oxide Battery Hazardous
Wastes (1973) 116
43 3692, Amount of Zinc-Silver Oxide Battery Hazardous
Wastes (1977) 117
44 3692, Amount of Zinc-Silver Oxide Battery Hazardous
Wastes (1983) 118
XIII
-------
LIST OF TABLES - continued
Table No. Page
45 3692, Amount of Other Primary Battery Hazardous
Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1973) 120
46 3692, Amount of Other Primary Battery Hazardous
Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1977) 121
47 3692, Amount of Other Primary Battery Hazardous
Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1983) 122
48 Battery Production Hazardous Wastes 124
49 Summary of Typical Plant Treatment and Disposal of
Land Destined Hazardous Wastes From Storage
Batteries Manufacture (SIC 3691) 128
50 Summary of Typical Plant Treatment and Disposal of
Land Destined Hazardous Wastes From Primary
Batteries Manufacture (SIC 3692) 129
51 Treatment and Disposal Technology for Sludge From
Lead Acid Battery Production . 141
52 Treatment and Disposal Technology for Scrap Cells From
Production of Nickel-Cadmium Batteries 142
53 Treatment and Disposal Technology for Water Treatment
Sludge From Production of Nickel-Cadmium Batteries . . 143
54 Treatment and Disposal Technology for Carbon-Zinc/
Air, and Alkaline Rejected Cells 144
55 Treatment and Disposal Technology for the
Mercury Cell 145
56 Treatment and Disposal Technology for the
Mercury Weston Cell 146
57 Treatment and Disposal Technology for Magnesium
Carbon Cell Sludge 147
XIV
-------
LIST OF TABLES - continued
Table No. Page
58 Treatment and Disposal Technology for Scrap and
Sludges From Lead-Fluoboric Acid Reserve Cell .... 148
59 Summary of Typical Plant Costs for Treatment and
Disposal of Land Destined Hazardous Wastes From
Storage Batteries Manufacture (SIC 3691) 159
60 Summary of Typical Plant Costs for Treatment and
Disposal of Land Destined Hazardous Wastes From
Primary Batteries Manufacture (SIC 3692) . . •. . . . . 160
61 1973 U.S. Motor Rate Transportation Rates Estimated
From 1971 I.C.C. Information 163
62 Bulk Liquid and Sludge Disposal Costs in Landfill Areas 165
63 Drum Disposal Costs — Landfill Area 165
64 Segregated Burial or Secured Landfill Costs 167
65 Lead-Acid Battery Typical Plant Costs For Treatment
end Disposal 174
66 Lead-Acid Battery Typical Plant Costs For Treatment
and Disposal 175
67 Nickel-Cadmium Battery Typical Plant Costs For
Treatment and Disposal 176
68 Nickel-Cadmium Battery Typical Plant Costs For
Treatment and Disposal 177
69 Carbon-Zinc Battery Typical Plant Costs For
Treatment and Disposal 180
70 Alkaline Manganese Battery Typical Plant Costs
For Treatment and Disposal 181
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES - continued
Table No
71 Air Cell Battery Typical Plant Costs For
Treatment and Disposal ................. 1 82
72 Mercury Ruben Battery Typical Plant Costs For
Treatment and Disposal ... .............. 183
73 Mercury Weston Battery Typical Plant Costs For
Treatment and Disposal ................. 185
74 Magnesium Carbon Battery Typical Plant Costs For
Treatment and Disposal ................. 186
75 Lead-Acid Reserve Battery Typical Plant Costs For
Treatment and Disposal ............. .... 187
XVI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is the result of a study commissioned by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to assess "industrial Hazardous Waste Practices—Storage and
Primary Batteries Industries". Concurrently, the U.S. EPA is pursuing similar
studies of other industry categories. This program is intended to provide the U.S.
EPA with detailed and pertinent information on the generation, management,
treatment, disposal, and costs related to wastes considered to be "potentially
hazardous". Such information will be used by the U.S. EPA in developing guide-
lines or standards for the management of hazardous wastes.
This report contains the essential elements of the technical information in
four major sections:
(a) Section 4.0 — Industrial Characterization
Characterizes the industry with regard to the number, location, size, and
production of manufacturing establishments;
(b) Section 5.0 — Waste Characterization
Identifies and quantifies those hazardous wastes which are or will be
generated by the battery manufacturing industry;
(c) Section 6.0 — Treatment and Disposal Technology
Describes current practices for treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes
and determines the control technologies which might be applied to reduce
potential hazards presented by these wastes upon disposal; and
(d) Section 7.0 — Cost Analysis
Estimates the cost and control technology implementation.
The individual elements of each of these are presented in detail in their respective
sections of this report.
Throughout this report, wherever the terms "hazardous wastes" or "poten-
tially hazardous wastes" are used it should be kept in mind that no final judgments
are intended as to such classification. It is recognized and understood that addi-
tional information will be required as to the actual fate of such materials in a given
"disposal" or "management" environment, before a final definitionxjf "hazardous
-------
waste" evolves and is used. As an example, for certain of the waste streams
Identified in this report the U.S. EPA is currently supporting other studies designed
to investigate leaching characteristics in various soil and moisture conditions.
-2-
-------
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report, which covers battery manufacturing operations, is one of a series
of several studies which examine land-destined wastes from selected industries. The
battery industry is divided into two groups by the Bureau of Census: Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) 3691 Storage Batteries (such as lead-acid automobile batteries) and
SIC 3692 Primary Batteries (such as carbon-zinc flashlight batteries). The battery industry
in the U.S. is relatively small. The industry consists of 262 plants, employs approxi-
mately 30,000 people and the value of products shipped amounts to $1.3 billion a year.
The battery industry was studied because heavy metals such as mercury, cadmium,
zinc and lead are used in some of its manufacturing processes. These metals can be
toxic in certain concentrations and forms.
Large quantities of lead, cadmium, zinc, and mercury are used in battery manu-
facture and thus appear in the wastes produced by the industry, though they are present
in only 5% of the wastes destined for land disposal and in low concentrations. The
amounts of heavy metals which are reported by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (1973) for
battery production in the U.S. are 698,038 kkg lead (50% of U.S. consumption), 848.3
kkg cadmium (15% of U.S. consumption), 408.2 kkg mercury (22% of U.S. consumption),
and 27,210 kkg zinc (20% of U.S. consumption). The production and consumption of
these metals in the U.S. are shown in flow chart form in Figures 1 through 4.
The land destined wastes from the battery industry contain a small percentage of
heavy metals compared to the industry's total consumption. Only 0.007% of the total
lead used by these industries is lost as waste, while 0.3% of the total cadmium, 0.5%
of the total mercury, and 1.5% of the total zinc are lost.
There are 219 plants producing storage batteries, with 202 of these producing lead-
acid batteries. These plants are located throughout rfie continental U.S. with the ex-
ception of a few states in the North West Central, North Mountain, and North North East
regions. Thus, the geographical distribution of wastes from these plants is relatively
widespread.
There are a relatively few plants in the primary battery industry, only 44; thus,
the distribution of waste materials is concentrated in a relatively small number of loca-
tions primarily in the North East Central, North East, and Middle Atlantic regions. For
example, mercury batteries are manufactured in eight plants and seventeen plants manu-
facture batteries containing cadmium.
The potentially hazardous wastes destined for land disposal from the battery indus-
try consist of industrial processing wastes, reject cells, and sludges from water pollution
control devices. The amount of sludges destined for land disposal is expected to experi-
ence a large short term increase as water effluent guidelines are implemented. The
impact of water effluent guidelines on land disposal of wastes is the largest single factor
in determing future trends for this industry.
-3-
-------
. BAGS)
/?&,
US.
US.
S8S, /&>
AMP St/UMW)
(1) All figures supplied by the Bureau of Mines 1974
Mineral industry Surveys
Figure 1. Flow of Lead in the United States (1973)0)
Metric Tons/Year
-4-
-------
as.
WSJ
oc/t
2,944
IMPORTS
JWST
45.34,
ST0CX
S/97Z)
(1) Includes Ni-Cd and Ag-Cd batteries.
(2) All figures supplied by Bureau of Mines,
Mineral Industry Surveys, 1974.
Figure 2. Flow of Cadmium in the United States (1973)(2)
Metric Tons/Year
-5-
-------
09.6
Miue
PK9^™*J
MfiaATS
/jffrr
~
££Z&UBA/?Y
fyt0£X/CTMU
994.
jjfr'
s~nyc/s
£7Z>&CSa£xt£e
4^f
JiMMSTMAL
t/S£3
/ £43
fXrtSrtTS
/0.3
•*
••
L
£££eT&C4L
ArrTxEffTl/S
W?t
M/o/jf*/nn.
4f&jr
c-
''*C/K
«#J
(1) Baste Data Supplied by Bureau of Mines 1974 Mineral
Industry Survey.
(2) Versar estimate.
Figure 3. Flow of Mercury in the United States (1973) (1)
Metric Tons/Year
-6-
-------
(1) includes electrical transmission equipment, household
appliances and communication equipment.
(2) Includes roiled zinc, lithographic plates, Jewelry,
stationary and decorative applications.
(3) All figures supplied by the Bureau of Mines 1974 Mineral
Industry Surveys.
Figure 4. Flow of Zinc in the United States (1973)(3)
Metric Tons/Year
-7-
-------
The wastes from the two categories of batteries differ greatly. Land-destined
wastes from the storage battery industry (SIC 3691) consist largely of sludges from
water effluent treatment along with a much lesser amount of rejected and scrap
batteries. The greatest volume of potentially hazardous waste stems from lead-acid
battery wastewafer treatment sludges. Wastes from the primary battery industry
(SIC 3692) are almost exclusively batteries rejected by quality control procedures.
For primary batteries, the waste volume is small (about 1% of production), but the
concentration of the potentially hazardous portion ofthe waste is larger than that
for the storage batteries.
Table 1 summarizes the quantities of potentially hazardous materials (dry basis)
and total waste streams (wet basis) destined for land disposal from the production of
storage and primary batteries at the current time period and future projections for
1977 and 1983.
The storage battery industry (SIC 3691) currently disposes of 47.3 kkg of poten-
tially hazardous constituents on land in a total waste stream of 9,235 kkg consisting
of water effluent treatment sludges and rejected and scrap cells. Projections for
1977 for land disposal indicate that these figures will grow to 467 kkg of hazardous
constituents contained in a total waste stream of 162,800 kkg. By 1963, land dis-
posal of hazardous wastes will increase to 625 kkg in a total waste stream of
207,700 kkg.
The greatest amount of wastes destined for land disposal from this industry stems
from lead-acid battery production. A large increase in hazardous waste for 1977
and 1983 is projected on the basis of future wastewater treatment guidelines. These
projections were based on information obtained from industry on future growth of
the industry along with possible changes in the wastewater treatment area, which
will affect the amount of wastes destined for land.
The primary battery industry (SIC 3692) currently disposes of 448 kkg of
potentially hazardous constituents in a total waste stream of 1,202 kkg as primarily
rejected and scrap cells together with water effluent treatment sludges and furnace
residues. By 1977, projections indicate that 514 kkg of hazardous constituents in
a total waste stream of 1,500 kkg will be destined for land. By 1983, projections
indicate that 502 kkg of hazardous constituents in a total waste stream of 1,350 kkg
will be land disposed. The decrease of wastes going to land from 1977 to 1983 is
due to projections concerning recovery of valuable scrap from the waste stream and
a projected decrease in hazardous wastes from mercury cell production.
The wastes from battery production are generally not water soluble, and
would normally have only minimal migration in a landfill environment. However,
solubility varies greatly with small changes in pH,"arid pH varies in soils, ground-
-8-
-------
Table 1. Battery ProducHort Hazardous Wastes
(1)
andProceM
QUANTITY
SIC 3QT1 Storage Batteries
(a) Lead-Acid
(b) Nickel-Cadmium
(c) Cadmium-Silver Oxide
-------
waters, and necessarily in landfill environments. For this reason those wastes con-
taining heavy metals in any form or concentration have been considered potentially
hazardous for this report due to the possibility of leaching into surface or groundwater.
The prevalent method of treatment and disposal for potentially hazardous wastes
from the storage batteries industry is land storage of wastewater treatment sludges and
reclaimation, where possible,of reusable heavy metals such as lead, nickel and cadmium
scrap. The best available technology currently used for the wastes from this industry is
a segregated landfill equipped with (eachate collection and treatment. Disposal in
secured landfills is considered an environmentally adequate level of technology for small
volume wastes with a relatively large hazardous waste content. Disposal of large vol-
ume sludges with a lower hazardous waste content in approved disposal facilities, with
I eachate treatment and monitoring, is also considered environmentally adequate.
For the primary batteries industry, the prevalent method of treatment and disposal
is disposal in a simple landfill. The best available technology currently used for the
wastes from this industry is segregated landfill equipped with leachate monitoring. Dis-
posal in secured landfills is considered an environmentally adequate technology for the
small volume, relatively high levels of hazardous wastes from this industry. Approved
and secured landfills are defined in the text.
The cost of disposing of the small volume wastes in secured landfills does not ap-
pear to have significant economic consequences to the industry. The only area where
relatively large costs are involved is the disposal of calcium sulfate water treatment
sludges containing lead from the lead-acid storage battery industry.
In terms of total quantities, larger amounts of mercury, cadmium, and zinc are
disposed of as discarded used batteries by the consumer than from manufacturers. However,
each plant typically disposes of solid waste at one location, which increases the concen-
tration and the potential for migration of hazardous materials at that location. The study
of disposal of used batteries by consumers was not within the scope of this report.
-10-
-------
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE STORAGE AND PRIMARY BATTERIES INDUSTRIES
i
3.1 I ntroduction
The products of the Industry covered in this report are listed under two
categories in the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual. These are SIC
3691, Storage Batteries, and SIC 3692, Primary Batteries, Dry and Wet. The
production and other overall statistics of the industry grouped by codes are pub-
lished by the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, in the Census
of Manufactures, Industry Series. Much of the information presented in this overall
industry characterization is from the Preliminary Report, 1972 Census of Manu-
factures which is the most recent one available. Other sources of information were
the individual battery producers.
3.2 Economic Structure and Products of the Storage and Primary Batteries Industries
In 1972, the value of products shipped and miscellaneous receipts of estab-
lishments classified in the SIC 3691 Storage Batteries Industry amounted to $960
million, and represents an increase of 66% over the 1967 total. The value added
by manufacture was $474 million in 1972 •*• 83% above value added in 1967.
Average employment in the industry increased by 14% from 1967 making a total of
22,000 employees in 1972>(1)* A general statistical description of the SIC 3691
Storage Batteries Industry by geographical areas is shown in Table 2, and the types
of products, quantities and value for the industry are shown in Table 3.
For the SIC 3692 Primary Batteries Industry, the value of products shipped
and miscellaneous receipts amounted to $348 million, an increase of 13% over the
1967 total. The value added by manufacture at $222 million in 1972 was 18% above
the value added in 1967. The average employment in the industry showed a decrease
of 24% from 1967 to a total of 8,400 employees in 1972. (2) A general statistical
description of the SIC 3692 Primary Batteries Industry by geographical area is shown
in Table 4 and the types of products, quantities and value for the Primary Batteries
Industry are given in Table 5.
3.3 Storage Batteries Industry (SIC 3691) Products and Processes
In the SIC 3691 category over 95% of the batteries produced are lead-acid
storage cells, nickel-cadmium storage cells, cadmium-silver storage cells, or
zinc-silver storage cells.
*Rgures in parentheses refer to References in Section 8.0
-11 -
-------
Tobl« 2. SIC 3691, General Statistic-,, by Geographic Areas - 19720)
Geographic Area
United States, Total
Middle Atlantic Division
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
t-ist North Central Division
Ohio
Illinois
South Region
South Atlantic Division
Georgia
Florida
East South Central Division
Tennessee
West South Central Division
Texas
West Region
Maintain Division
Pacific Division
Oregon
California
Establishments
Total
(number)
208
30
7
8
15
32
4
11
62
28
8
10
12
6
22
17
54
6
48
7
34
With 20
Employees
or. more
(number)
117
19
4
5
10
20
3
5
35
16
5
5
7
3
12
8
24
3
21
4
17
AH Employees
Number
(1,000)
22.0
4.5
.3
1.2
3.0
5.0
.3
1.1
6.8
3.4
1.0
1.4
1.1
.3
2.3
1.6
2.9
.2
2.7
.4
2.3
Payroll
(million
dollars)
208.4
45.0
3.0
11.9
30.0
49.4
2.3
10.0
59.4
28.6
9.1
11.4
10.3
2.7
20.6
13.7
27.4
1.4
25.9
3.5
22.3
Production Workers
Number
(1,000)
17.9
3.5
.2
1.0
2.3
4.0
.2
.8
5.7
2.8
.9
1,2
1.0
.3
1.9
1.4
2.3
.1
2.2
.3
1.9
Man-
Hours
(millions)
35.8
7.1
.5
1.9
4.8
7.8
.4
1.6
11.3
5.6
1.8
2.4
1.9
,6
3.9
2.9
4.7
.3
4.5
.6
3.9
Wages
(million
dollars)
158.9
34.3
2.2
9.7
22.3
39.0
1.6
7.2
44.7
21.2
7.2
8.3
7.8
2.3
15.8
10.6
20.4
.8
19.6
2.4
17.0
Value
Added By
Manu-
facture
(million
dollars)
474.3
115.2
3.7
28.2
83.2
117.0
3.7
26.1
125.7
63.0
24.9
22.2
19.3
7.5
43.4
30.6
64.8
3.2
61.6
7.6
53.4
Cost of
Materials,
fuels,
etc.
(million
dollars)
507.2
97.3
8.4
26.0
62.8
120.7
8.1
33.2
152.2
67.8
25.1
21.0
34.0
12.2
50.4
32.7
72.1
2.6
69.6
10.9
57.9
Value of
Industry
Shipment
(million
dollars)
959.6
209.0
11.8
53.7
143.4
235.7
11.4
58.4
269.4
127.1
49.3
40.9
52.0
19.1
90.3
58.9
132.5
5.5
127.0
18.0
107.6
"CapU"1
Expendi-
hres,
New
(million
dollars)
28.6
4.4
(P)
(D)
2.8
3.6
.4
.8
12,5.
4.5
1.3
2.3
.7
.2-
7.4
7.1
5.6
.8
4.7
.4
4.3:
12
-------
Table 3. SIC 3691,Type, Quantity and Value, Products -19720)
Product
Cad*
1A91* — -
36911 "~
36911 13
36911 21
3691 1 23
34911 27
36911 28
36911 32
36911 35
36911 42
3691 1 45
36911 51
3691 1 71
36911 98
36911 00
36912 —
3691 2 1 1
3691219
3691 2 31
3691 2 61
3691 2 72
3691 2 73
3691 2 75
3691277
3691 2 81
3691 2 83
3691298
369! 2 91
3691200
3691000
36910 02
Product
Motor vehicle batteries, Including (motor,
aircraft, and marine; Parting, lighting, and
Ignition types, complete unit*
Automobile, truck, farm tractor, and but:
Automotive types (all tjeos primarily
designed to fit passenger eon, regardlm
of application)!
For original equipment, 6 volt and 12 volt.
ror roplocwiwntt
W.I:
6 volt
12volt
Dry chorg«
12 volt
Heavy-duty traraport, motor coach and but,
and diesel starting batteries (excluding
marine and railway dtetel trotting batteries):
For original equipment:
6 volt
] 2 volt
For replacement:
6 volt
12 volt
Marine
Other starring, lighting, and Ignition type
Storage Batteries, Other Than SLI Type,
Including Parti far Storage latter lei,
All Types
Motive power type:
Other motive power type storage
batteries, Including mining and
Industrial locomotive, and railway.,..
Communication storog* batteries. Including
radio station, telephone, telegraph, and
Railway dlesel starting batteries
Nickel-cadmium
Sealed:
lotteries
Cells
Vented:
Batteries
Celli
Lead acid:
Cetli
Other storage batteries, Including farm
and emergency lighting, and railway air
conditioning and ear lighting
Partt and supplies for storage batteries. . . .
Storage batteries, other than SLI type.
Storage batteries for establishments with 10
Storage botterlei for establishments with leu
— era —
of
Measure
Million units,
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
-
Ml II ton units
do
1 ,000 units
Mil. batteries
Million celli
Mil. batteries
Million cells
Mil . batteries
Million cells
Quantity
(X)
(X)
11.8
2.2
18.0
2.7
16.7
.9
.6
1.0
1.1
.1
.2
(X)
(X)
.7
1.0
(X)
19.9
11.7
33.2
4.6
8.6
9.9
(NA)
426.7
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
-VBU '"
MHton
dollars)
945.3
696.2
131.0
25.0
210.9
31.8
'206.1
12.9
10.3
14.3
20.7
3.9
3.3
25.9
225.6
63.9
18.4
30.3
6.6
31.1
' (X)
16.5
(X)
17.9
' (X)
17.6
•22.3
1.0
14.8
8.7
(X) Not applicable. (NA) Not evallable.
-13-
-------
Tobte 4. SIC 3692 General Statistics, by Geographic Areas - 1972^
Geographic Area
United States, Total
North Central Region
Pacific Division
California
Estoblis
Total
(number)
49
17
5
5
iments
With 20
Employees
or more
(number) .
32
13
_
-
AH Em
Number
(1,000)
8.4
4.0
•»
ployeei
•••
Payroll
(million
dollars)
64.8
30.5
.1
.1
Production Workers
Number
(1,000)
£.8
3.3
_
-
Mon-
Hours
(millions)
13.6
6.4
—
-
Wages
(million
dollars)
46.6
22.3
.1
.1
Value
Added By
Manu-
facture
(million
dollars)
221.9
98.2
.3
.3
Cost of
Materials,
fuels.
etc.
(million
dollars)
130.7
57.1
.2
.2
Value of
Industry '
Shipment
(million
dollars)
348.3
Copiia,
pExpe^ !: -
& tures,
§Hfew
million
rdollars)
7.3
153.3 3.2
.4
•* .
14
-------
Table 5. SIC 3692, Type, Quantity and Value, Products
Product
Code
3692
36920 12
36920 16
36920 21
36920 25
3692029
3692031
3692055
3692058
3692072
3692076
3692079
36920 92
WrAV *fc
3692092
3692095
3692000
36920 02
Product
Dry Cell (Leclanche Type), Except Military:
General purpose (6 inches or equivalent)
1 .5 volts:
Multiple unit
Flashlight cells (single cell only):
Alt other single flashlight ceil batteries,
including AA- and AAA-size penlight
Lantern and other multiple- cell batteries.
. including general purpose industrial RR-
type emergency and other multiple cells. .
Radio A-B and C cells:
Portable radio and instrument batteries.
All other radio A-B and C cells,
including farm radio A-B packs,
Kanrinn n'A /•«!)« nfX^ «J>«rf*»fl ""h
Dry Cell, Except Laclanche Type and
Military:
Alkali
Wet Cell, Military type, including general
purpose 1 .5 volts, standard flashlight, and
Primary batteries, dry and wet, n.s.k., for
establishments with more than 10 employees..
Primary batteries, dry and wet, n.s.k., for
establishments with less than 10 employees. . .
Unit
of
Measure
Mil . batteries
do
Mil. cells
do
do-
Mil. batteries
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
— —
—
(X)
\ f
5.3
370.3
669.4
669.4
669.4
669.4
669.4
669.4
208.9
208.9
1.0
1.0
(X)
» * .
(X)
(X)
Value
(million
dollars)
316.7
5.4
51.1
149.6
149.6
149.6
149.6
149.6
149.6
59.9
59.9
8.3
8.3
14.7
4.8
.6
(X) Not applicable. (NA) Not available.
-15-
-------
For the sake of completeness, however, a description of the remaining battery types
such as the nickel-iron (Edison) storage cell, the nickel-zinc storage cell, the
silver-lead storage cell, the cadmium-mercury and the zinc-mercury storage cell
is given.
At the present time, a total of 132 companies are identified as producers of
storage batteries. According to the Bureau of the Census, the number of plants
involved in this activity in 1972 was 208, while this survey revealed 219 plants in
current production. The geographic distribution of these facilities will be covered
below according to the specific types of storage batteries produced, while process
data, typical plant descriptions, and diagrams of the major operations in the battery
manufacture will be treated in Section 5.0.
3.3.1 Lead-Acid Storage Battery
Two hundred and two plants are identified as primary producers of lead-acid
storage batteries. In Regions I through X, the number of plants are 10, 10, 18,
35, 38, 23, 14, 3, 39, and 12, respectively, and the states haying the highest
concentration of plants are California, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Texas.
The lead-acid battery represents the type of storage cell in widest use. The
majority of these cells are used either for starting or for lighting and ignition
functions (SLI) in automotive and industrial applications. Whereas production plants
in the past have been small and located close to their markets, the present trend is
toward larger plants with an attendant increase in efficiency and capacity. The
industry is expected-to continue its normal growth rate of 4 to 5% over the -
next ten years. A marketing analyst for one of the big lead-acid battery producers
feels that a high demand for this battery will continue through the year 2000. The
production of over 50,000 electric or battery-powered cars is expected between
1978 and 1983, and maintenance-free batteries will be original equipment in at
least 50% of U. S. passenger cars by about 1980. (3)
3.3.2 Nickel-Cadmium Batteries
The rechargeable nickel-cadmium battery is the storage cell in next widest
use today. These cells are produced both in vented and sealed types, with sizes
ranging from small button cells (less than 14 mm in diameter) to large rectangular
cells of 113 mm in height, 91 mm in length and 38 mm wide.
-16-
-------
There are two distinct types of nickel-cadmium cells — the pocket plate
(Jungner type) cell and the sintered-plate cell. Industry sources have indicated
that only a limited number of pocket plate type batteries are now being produced
in the U.S., the major production having been transferred to the sintered plate
cell.
Ten plants have been identified as producers of nickel-cadmium storage
batteries, and only one state has more than one plant. There are three major
producing companies in the nickel-cadmium battery field.
In recent years, the use of nickel-cadmium batteries has expanded into
calculators, walkie-talkies, pacemakers, portable appliances,and tools. Calcu-
lators currently are the biggest market for the battery. The demand for nickel-
cadmium batteries almost doubled in 1973, and should settle into an annual
growth pattern of between 15 and 20% over the next few years'(according to the
director of marketing of one of the major producers). In addition to the new
expanding field of application, the battery has a stable market in both the
persona! appliance field and in a I aim systems and emergency lighting. To meet
this growinc, demand, one company has doubled production capacity over 1972 and
plans still father expansions in the future. Furthermore, recent battery research
by another nickel-cadmium producer has ytelded a nickel-cadmium cell (introduced
in 1973) for portable garden and power tools and hobby equipment. This cell
charges to 90% of its capacity in 15 minutes. (4)
The availability of cadmium, however, is a problem that is starting to con-
cern this industry. With the probable depletion (in 1974) of the available cadmium
supply from General Services Administration, increased imports and domestic pro-
duction will be required and further price increases may be expected. (6, 7)
3.3.3 Cadmium-Silver Oxide Storage Cell
There are seven plants producing cadmium-silver oxide or zinc silver oxide
secondary cells. The cadmium-silver cell was developed in the late 1950's to meet
demands for a longer life battery that could stand as high a rate of discharge as the
silver-zinc system. Since its inception, the cadmium-silver oxide cell has found
many uses in satellites and other space applications. Recently and in spite of its
generally higher cost, this cell has been used commercially In appliances, tools,
and portable television sets. The types of batteries available include rectangular
vented cells, sealed cyclindrical cells, and sealed button cells. This storage cell
is a specialty battery and is only produced in limited quantities and, indeed, the
high cost and limited availability of cadmium and silver are expected to inhibit
expanded commercial use of this cell. The production is expected to grow at a
nominal rate of 5% per year over the next 5 years.
- 17-
-------
3.3.4 Zinc-Silver Oxide Secondary Cell
This battery is also a specialty item produced primarily for military uses in
limited quantities. The most valuable feature of the zinc-silver cell is its high
energy density (which can be as much as 6 times that of the nickel cadmium cell).
The high cost of this cell has restricted its use to military and aerospace applica-
tions where cost is of minor importance. The cells currently produced in the U.S.
are either vented rectangular or sealed cylindrical type.
3.3.5 Other Secondary Batteries
Four plants in the U.S. produce secondary batteries other than those treated
above, though some duplication of plants producing secondary batteries is obviously
possible.
3.3.5.1 Iron-Nickel Oxide Alkaline Storage Cell (Edison)
The only manufacturer of this battery discontinued production in June 1974.
However, this company has recently established connections with the international
Nickel Company of Canada, so the production of the iroivnickel oxkte alkaline
storage cells may be resumed in the future.
The iron-nickel oxide storage cell was used mainly for motive power in indus-
trial vehicles such as fork lift trucks, electric cranes, mine shuttle cars and loco-
motives, motorized hand trucks, and railroad switching locomotives. Other appli-
cations were in the lighting area; e.g., portable miners' lights and fan emergency
light. These batteries have largely been replaced by the lead-acid storage battery
because it is less expensive to produce.
3.3.5.2 Nickel-Zinc Secondary Cell
Although this system was developed as early as 1899 and was used in limited
quantities for lighting and motive power in the 1930's, new investigations of the
system may again warrant its use in lighting and motive power applications. This
cell is currently a limited production item.
3.3.5.3 Silver-Lead Secondary Cell
This cell was developed as a stable low voltage power source and is produced
in small quantities chiefly for military use.
- 18-
-------
3.3.5.4 Mercury-Cadmium Secondary Cell
This cell is used as a low voltage power source and has the dual advantages
of a long storage life at elevated temperatures and a relatively constant voltage
under load. Most of the cells produced are of the button type and are used by the
military In artillery fuses, fail-safe units, missiles,and satellites.
3.4 Primary Battery Industry (SIC 3692) Products and Processes
For the SIC 3692 category/ the types of batteries produced include the barbon-
zinc cell, the carbon-zinc air cell, the alkaline-manganese cell, the mercury Ruben
and Weston cells, the magnesium-carbon cell, the zinc-silver cell, the lead reserve
cell, and others. The above named cells comprise more than 95% of Hie merchant
production of the SIC 3692 primary cells, though, again a description of batteries
contained in the "other" category (such as Hie low temperature carbon-zinc cell,
the zinc sliver chloride cell, the magnesium reserve ceil, the thermal cell, the
nuclear cell, and the lithium cell) is also given.
Twenty-five companies have been identified as producers of primary batteries,
with 43 plants engaged in the production activity. Maryland, North Carolina, and
Wisconsin are the states with the greatest number of plants.
3.4.1 Carbon-Zinc Dry Cell
The forerunner of the present-day carbon-zinc cell was introduced by Georges
Leclanche in 1866, and the first true dry cell was developed by Carl Gassner between
1886 and 1888. The carbon-zinc dry cell was the first practical portable power source
and is still the most widely wsed when portability is the prime requisite. (5)
The Leclanche or carbon-zinc dry cell is the primary battery manufactured in
the greatest quantify in the United States. Four general types of carbon-zinc cells
are available from most battery manufacturers, and the four areas of application for
these types are radio, general purpose, flashlight and photoflash, and heavy-duty
industrial. The different cells vary in physical characteristics depending on their
intended application, and the size of these cells ranges from the tiny button cell
through cylindrical flashlight cells and flat cells used in transistorized equipment,
to the 9 cm (6 inch) cell which weighs about one kilogram.
The total number of plants reported as producing carbon-zinc dry cells is 15.
-19-
-------
3.4.2 Carbon-Zinc Air Cell
The carbon-zinc air cell utilizes an air-depolarized carbon cathode, zinc
anodes, and a solid sodium hydroxide electrolyte, thereby differing greatly from
the carbon-zinc dry cell.
The carbon-zinc air cell is used in portable transceivers, semaphore devices,
highway flashing systems, lighthouses, railway signals, night vision devices, and
satellite communications. Rectangular cells are produced in various sizes according
to their application.
3.4.3 Alkaline Manganese Dioxide Dfy Cell
The alkaline dry cell is marketed as a higher performance cell with higher
cost than the carbon-zinc cell. 'his cell has found wide usage in flashlights,
camera equipment, battery powered toys, radios, tape recorders, etc., slnae*rh'e*
alkaline cell yields an improved performance over carbon-zinc cells particularly
in the area of heavy or continuous current drains. These cells are produced pri-
marily in button and cylindrical configurations. Seven plants are presently reported
to be producing alkaline batteries.
3.4.4 Mercury Cell Primary Barferies
The Ruben mercury cell is used as a power source for electric watches, hearing
aids, cameras, electronic instruments, depth finders,and transceivers. It has also
found uses as a secondary standard of voltage in regulated power supplies, radiation
detection meters, portable potentiometers, electronic computers,and voltage recorders.
Mercury ceils exhibit the following desirable operational characteristics: (a) high
energy for a given volume and weight; (b) long shelf life; (c) no recovery period
needed during discharge; and (d) relatively constant voltage during discharge. The
button and cylindrical cells are the primarily manufactured configurations. Due to
environmental considerations the quantity of mercury cells produced is expected to
decrease.
The Weston mercury cell is used exclusively as a voltage standard and istocf-
tained in a glass vessel. Eight plants make mercury cells.
3.4.5 Mognes?um-Carbon Dry Cell
The magnesium-carbon dry cell has a longer storage life and can withstand
heat better than the carbon-zinc dry cell. By far the greatest use of this ceil is
military, although some cells are used commercially In aircraft emergency systems
and marine and mining operations. Three plants are reported as producers of
magnesium-carbon batteries.
-20-
-------
3.4.6 Zinc-Silver Oxide Dry Cell
Zinc-silver oxide cells are used in hearing aids, electronic instruments,
photoelectric devices, electric watches,and as a reference voltage source. The
cells are manufactured in button, cylindrical, and rectangular configurations.
Twelve plants are reported as producers of the zinc-silver oxide dry cell.
3.4.7 Other Primary Batteries
There are 17 plants in the United States producing primary batteries of types
other than those covered above. Duplication with other primary batteries is,
again, an obvious possibility.
3.4.7.1 Lead Reserve Cell
The lead-acid reserve cell is one of a class of cells designated "reserve"
because they are supplied to the user in a non-activated state. For example, the
lead-acid reserve cell is produced with all the components in a dry or non-activated
state. When the cell is ready to be used, an acid is released into the cell and
within a short period of time the cell is activated to a ready state. The cell then
continues to supply power until the electrochemical reactions have proceeded to
completion. Thus, the battery is stored (hence the name reserve cell), activated,
and used (once) until depleted.
The lead-acid reserve cell is a limited production item designed solely for
military use> There are currently only two producers in the U.S., and its manufac-
ture varies widely with military requirements. The average annual production of
these batteries over the last ten years has been approximately 113,500 kg per
year. (19)
3.4.7.2 Low Temperature Carbon-Zinc Dry Cell
This specialty battery is a limited production item which is produced in a
fashion identical to that of the standard carbon-zinc dry cell with only the substi-
tution of non-freezing electrolytes in place of the zinc and ammonium chloride.
The low temperature cell is used almost entirely in military applications, and
the same four areas of application for carbon-zinc dry cells are applicable for the
low temperature cell; i.e., radio, general purpose, flashlight and photoflash, and
heavy-duty industrial.
-21 -
-------
3.4.7.3 Magnesium-Silver ond Copper-Chloride Cells
The magnesium reserve cells are used commercially for life-jacket, life-raft
and lifebuoy lights, signal flare initiators, radio distress-beacon power supplies,
flare-path markers, portable hand lamps, flashing beacons, and divers' and frog-
men's lights. Military usage (in addition to the above) includes depth-charge
initiators and radio power supplies. Cylindrical cells and flat cells are most com-
monly manufactured, although the sizes and shapes of this cell vary widely accord-
ing to its intended use.
3.4.7.4 Zinc-Silver Chloride Cell
Industry sources indicate that this cell is not currently being produced in the
U.S.
3.5 Future Battery Industry Developments
A highly sought item in the battery field is a practical battery for electric-
powered vehicles. There are many efforts underway in this area; one being a battery
which stores chlorine as a hydrate (an ice-like compound formed by bubbling the gas
through a liquid) and uses a sine-carbon anode. The chlorine is released gradually
as warm electrolyte is pumped over the chlorine hydrate. (4)
In various stages of development and use are a new generation of powerful
lightweight batteries which deliver more power per unit mass. With improvements
in the economy of their production and the safety in handling some of their haz-
ardous ingredients, they could compete with the carbon-zinc and mercury batteries.
Most of the efforts in powerful light-weight batteries are still in the development
stage, but some of these new batteries are in use in military and limited commercial
applications. (4)
A material which has been considered for battery use for the past ten years by
a number of companies is lithium. However, its great reactivity is a drawback to
its use. In the past few years a number of lithium batteries using non-aqueous
electrolytes have been developed and one primary battery is now on the market.
However, large-scale production of rechargeable lithium batteries requires further
safety and reliability tests. A member of Argonne National Laboratory (which has
been doing research on lithium batteries since 1969) does not expect any general
use for power plant energy storage or electric-powered vehicles until 1980. One
company has an organic lithium cell which is operational from-4CP.
-------
Another company is now marketing a primary lithium organic battery in the U.S.
The high interest in organic lithium batteries can be appreciated when their
characteristics are examined; e.g., they deliver twice the current of ordinary
cells, are expected to have very long shelf lives and energy densities of 95 watt-
hours/lb. for typical models, compared with 19.5 for a carbon-zinc cell.
Solid-state materials (for example, lithium iodide) can be used where liquid
electrolytes are impractical. The conductivity is greatly reduced and, though high
voltages can be generated, only weak currents can be drawn. The solid-state
batteries are among the most reliable of the new generation of batteries. When
used for powering heart pacemakers, they require replacement only once every ten
years — compared with every two years for the mercury cells now in use. Several
companies have been marketing solid-state batteries in a range of 2 to 200 volts
since January 1973 for research, medical electronics, and security-system
applications. (4)
Molten-salt electrolyte lithium batteries deliver the greatest power but require
high temperatures to keep the cells molten. For example, one lithium-sulfur cell
does not function until it reaches 400° C. Generally, molten-salt cells of the
rechargeable type are still in the experimental stage. Results to date indicate the
cells could deliver up to seven times the power of conventional lead-acid storage
batteries of similar weight and could operate 100 times longer on a single charge.
The improvements in performance of new battery systems both those developed
recently and those still in the developmental stage — could have a considerable
impact on the battery industry in the future. Unfortunately, the future environ-
mental impact of the production of these batteries is difficult to assess due to the
proprietary nature of these products and the obvious unwillingness of the producers
to talk about quantities of production or the constituents of the cells.
3.6 Program Methodology
All information released by the industry for this project was done so on a
voluntary basis. As a result, most manufacturers were not cooperative in supplying
requested information, while others were cooperative. Although good information
was gathered on most manufacturing processes, some processes were either highly
proprietary or detailed information was simply not available.
-23-
-------
3.6.1 Data Acquisition
The data needed for this study was obtained by four different methods. The
first was by reviewing published information and data in the technical literature,
trade journals, government reports/and technical surveys conducted by the industry
associations. A complete list of references is presented in Section 8,0 of this
report.
The second method involved trade association participation. The following
three trade associations were contacted and ail expressed a willingness to assist in
Hie program:
Trade Association Location
Battery Council International 'Burlingame, California
independent Battery Manufacturers Largo, Florida
Association, Inc.
National Electrical Manufacturers New York, New York and
Association Washington D. C.
The names of member companies who are producers of batteries in the SIC 3691
and 3692 categories were given to the Contractor by these trade associations. How-
ever, the trade associations left the degree of participation in the study up to the
individual producers, and the degree of this participation ranged from none to full
cooperation.
The third method of data acquisition was by personal visits by the contractor
to battery manufacturing establishments and waste disposal sites. A better and more
thorough understanding of the generation of wastes destined for land disposal from
battery production was obtained through personal interviews.
The fourth method of data acquisition was by letter-request — sentto all known
battery producers which were not contacted personally for information on the genera-
tion of hazardous wastes destined for land disposal from their operations.
The results of the overall methodology were generally fruitful in that informa-
tion was obtained from 30 companies, representing 90% of the production of the SIC
3691 industry and 97% of the production of the SIC 3692 industry.
3.6.2 Data Analysis
The major tasks involved in the data analysis were:
(a) To review the collected data for consistency, sufficiency, and probable
accuracy;
-------
(b) To assemble the more reliable data elements Into a data base sufficient to
allow meaningful projections to be made; and
(c) To utilize the data base and subsequent waste factors to allow tabulation
of wastes on a state by state, federal EPA region, and national basis.
For the SIC 3691 category, there is only a limited data base for the nickel-
cadmium and "other" product categories. The estimated accuracy of the projections
for these categories is ±40%. For the lead-acid product category of SIC 3691, the
accuracy of the dara base is estimated to be ±20%, however, since the hazardous
wastes to land disposal projections were made on the basis of as yet unestablished
water pollution guidelines, the accuracy of these projections cannot be estimated.
For the SIC 3692 category, there was a more complete data base for all
product categories with the exception of zinc-silver oxide, magnesium-reserve and
other miscellaneous cells. The accuracy of the projections for carbon-zinc, alka-
line, mercury, magnesium-carbon/'air cell, and Weston cell is estimated to be
± 15%. The accuracy of the data base for the other primary batteries is estimated
to be ±40%. The accuracy of the data base and projections could be improved by
the passage of legislation which would require manufacturers to divulge information
concerning hazardous materials.
-25-
-------
4.0 INDUSTRY CHARACTERIZATION
4.1 Introduction
The first phase of this assessment of hazardous waste practices for the storage
and primary batteries industries involved a statistical characterization of the industry
in terms of the number and location of manufacturing plants, a distribution of the
size of the plants according to the number of employees, the age of the facilities,
and the products produced for each category of the industry.
The industry categorization is by 4@digit SIC code classification. This gives
two major categories:
SIC 3691 — Storage Batteries^ and
SIC 3692 - Primary Batteries, Dry and Wet.
Figure 5 shows the product distribution for the two categories.
4.2 General Observations of the Industry
The storage and primary batteries industries as a whole have the following
general characteristics:
(a) There are many diverse product types and processes;
(b) The sizes of companies vary from very large (one thousand employees) to
very small (two to four employees);
(c) Many of the products and processes are highly proprietary;
(d) There is a lengthy development-production cycle to bring new products on
the market;
(e) In consumer product lines, there is a great deal of cost competition among
producers;
(f) There is a basic conservatism in the industry for product or process modification;
and
(g) There are severe product quality constraints which prevent short term product
or process modification.
-26-
-------
SIC 369T.T
-SILVER
^
MANGANESE
MERCURY CR..L3
OFI.I.S.
Figure 5. Characterization of the Battery Industry
-27-
-------
4.3 Statistical Characterization of SIC 3691 Storage Batteries
Tobies 6 through 7 present pertinent data for the SIC 3691 category. The
tables include the following state-by-state data partitions:
(1) number of establishments;
(2) establishment size grouping by number of employees;
(3) establishment age grouping;
(4) grouping by battery process type; and
(5) annual production by metric tons of batteries.
The total number of facilities producing batteries in the SIC 3691 group was
found to be 219, and Figure 6 shows the geographical distribution of these
establishments.
Table 6 — This table presents the following information:
(a) The number of storage battery manufacturing plants on a state-by-state and
Federal region basis. Ref. - 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 and 14.
(b) The distribution of sizes, based upon number of employees, for the storage
battery plants on a state-by-state and Federal region basis. Ref. -1,2
and 14.
(c) The distribution of ages for the storage battery plants on a state and regional
basis. Ref. - 10, 11, 14 and 15.
(d) The number of manufacturing locations on a national basis producing three
types of storage batteries; i^e., lead-acid, nickel-cadmium,and others. The
"other" category includes storage batteries which are of limited production
for specialized applications. Ref. - 1, 10, 11, 12 and 14.
Table 7 — This table shows the distribution of annual production of lead-acid,
nickel-cadmium and other batteries on a state and regional basis.
Information on the nickel-cadmium battery is based on 1972 Census
Data and an estimate of distribution made by Versar. Information on
"other" storage batteries (such as amir-silver and cadmium-silver) is
chiefly an estimate of distribution/node by Versar based upon informa-
tion from various sources. Ref. - 1, 10, 11, 14 and 15.
-28-
-------
r
I >
I ^>
'>0
6 ESTABLISHMENTS
ALASKA-0
HAWWI-0
Figure 6. SIC 3691 - Storage Batteries, Distribution of Establishments
-------
Tabls 6 - Product Category *• 3691 Storage Batteries
.
OpCI ON/STATE
IV~~ALABAMA
X ALASKA
13 APIZONA
VI ARKANSAS
TX" CALIFORNIA
VIII COLORADO
I CONNECTICUT
III DELAWARE
IV FLORIDA
IV GEORGIA
TV HAWAII
v TOAHO
V ILLINOIS
y I.NOIANA_
VII KANSAS
IV KENTUCKY
VI LOUISIANA
I MAINE
TTJJIARYLAND _ ...
I MASSACHUSETTS
..*MKHICAN
V MINNESOTA
JUf_HISJSISJLIJ»PI
VII MISSOURI
VIII KfiRTANA.
VII NEBRASKA
IX NFVADA
I NEW HAMPSHIRE
II NE> JFRSEV .
VI NEW MEXICO
IV NORTH CAROLINA
VIII NORTH DAKOTA
V OHIO
VI OKLAHOMA
X OREGON
HI PENNSYLVANIA
I RHODE ISLAND
IV. SCUTH CAROLINA
VIII SOUTH DAKOTA
IV TENNISSfE.
VI TEXAS
VIII UTAH
I VERMONT
III VIRGINIA
X WASHINGTON
III WEST VIRGINIA
V WISCONSIN
yiTJ WYOMING
TOTAL US
REGION
REGION 1
• F.GION 2
REGION 3
REGION 4
REGION 5
REGION 6
REGION 7
REGION 8
REGION 9
REGION 10
TOTAL
I
' ' 1 " '
1
39
5
3
1
11
J
0
0
10
.... ..8...
4
... 3. .
4
0 '
6
8 .
.2
7
P. ..
2
0
0
_ .6. ._
1
. &_ ...
3
0
6
2
9
IS.
2
.-. .2,.
0
ie~ "
i ~~~
.. .... Jt
3
0.
4
.0
219
TOTAL..
12
12
19
37
41
24
16
5
40
13
PLANT SIW
A 6 C BE * 9
1010000
1000 0 0 0 ._
1000000
0100000
21 4 4 9 1 0 6"
1 03 1000
2 0 C 1 0 0 0
0000100
"5"! 2Tr~0"l "0
1 0._3 2 1 0 0.
6 o o o o o o
0000000
4112200
2 I .0_2_X_0 5
2110000
0101 .Q_JL .0
300 0 0 1 0
1 1 0__0_. 0 0 . p..
oooo oo b
i 000 00 0
2 1 3 "1 0 0 0
2 "l 0~~1 i "tf~C
010 1 0 0 _ Q
2201200
0 .0. 0 _0.j.O__0_C
1 010000
0 0 _0 "(L 0 0_ .0 .._.
0 0 0 000 0
i b b b~ o b b"
4 1 0_J__q__-O..JL
0101100
0 0 5, QuO__JL__0
2 2 O 1 0 1 0
L 0 .0 _l._0_J> .«_. .
4122000
• J 1 9 tL \ O
Jf ..A . -r,,—f r- — .T^.^ • •.- X.ii — --•-
0 1 0 0 1 C 0
0_ 0 JL_I JL..(L_0.:._
PL*
H I
T l
0 1
b 1
0 0
•Tab
1 3
-0"2~
0 1
i 9
0 7
-o~ b
0 0
2 t
P 7
1 3
0 3
2 ~2
0 2
jf b'
0 1
1 3
~0" 5
-H
C 0
i 'i
0 0
b b
0 4
~c i
_1..A
0 2
.P_ P
i 4
"is
..J^_12
0 2
.JJL-JL
». a ...0. 2.-Q.. 0 -P. M-a.
11 0 1 3 2 1 0 3 14
Q. 0_fl-.JE- fl- 0 J> -O— S-
0000100 01
~ 3~ 0 0~ Q 0 0 C 1 2
0 0 -0. .ft__CL..JL_.P .. -P..O
2 0 10 01 0
6 21 '
202 10
-30-
-------
TABLE 7.
SIC 3691, DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL PRODUCTION, LEAD-ACID,
N!CKEL
-------
4.4 Statistical Characterization of SIC 3692 Primary Batteries
Tables 8 and 9 present pertinent data for the SIC 3692 category. The tables
include the following state-by-state data partitions:
(1) number of establishments;
(2) establishment size grouping by number of employees;
(3) establishment age grouping;
(4) grouping by battery process type; and
(5) annual production by number of batteries.
The total number of facilities producing batteries in the SIC 3692 group was found
to be 43, and Figure 7 shows the geographical distribution of these facilities.
Table 8 — This table shows the following information:
(a) The number of dry and wet primary battery manufacturing plants on a state-
by-state and Federal region basis. Ref. - 2, 12, 13 and 14.
(b) The distribution of sizes, based upon number of employees, for the primary
battery plants on a state and regional basis. Ref. - 2, 13 and 14.
(c) The distribution of ages for the primary battery plants on a state and regional
basis. Ref. - 14 and 15.
(d) The number of manufacturing locations on a national basis producing six types
of primary batteries;, i.e., carbon-zinc, alkaline, mercury, magnesium, silver
and others. The "other" category includes primary batteries such as the air
cells, magnesium and lead reserve eel Island solid electrolyte cells. These
batteries are of limited production for special applications. Ref. - 2, 12 and
14.
Table 9 — This table shows the distribution of annual production of six types of pri-
mary batteries on a state and regional basis. The battery types covered
include carbon-zinc, alkaline-manganese, mercury cell, magnesium,
silver,and others. (This information is based upon 1972 Census data,
aggregate data supplied by NEMA and industry sources with Versar
estimates.) Ref. - 2, 15 and 16.
-32-
-------
i
•
WO
f OR MORE
,
•
jHL.ASKA-0
MAWWl-0
-
Figure 7. SIC 3692 - Primary Batteries, Distribution of Establishments
-------
Tafcla 8 - Product Category - 3692 Primary Batteries
REGION/STATE
IV ALABAMA
X ALASKA
IX ARIZCNA
VI ARKANSAS
IX CALIFORNIA
VIII CCLCRADO
I CONNECTICUT
III OELAW4PF
IV FLOR.IPA
IV GE.ORGI&
IX HAWAII
X_ IDAHO
V ILLINOIS
..JUNDIANA___
VII IOWA
VI1.KANSAS . _ . _
IV KENTUCKY
VJ LCUISIANA
I MAINE
ILL MARYLAND
I MASSACHUSETTS
V MICHIGAN
V MINNESOTA
IV MISSISSIPPI
VII MISSOURI
VIII MONTANA
•VII NEBRASKA
IX NEVADA
I NB( HAMPSHIRE
II NEW JFRSFY
VI NEW MEXICO
II NEW YORK
IV NORTH CAROLINA
VIII NCPTH DAKOTA
V OHIO
-VI OKLAHOMA
X OREGON
III PENNSYLVANIA
I KHCDE ISLAND
IV SOUTH CAROLINA
VHI SOUTH DAKOTA
iV_TJW*FSSEf _...-
VI T«-XAS
VIII UTAH _..
I VERMONT
lil VIRGINIA
X WASHINGTON
III KEST VIRSIMLA ...
V WISCONSIN
VIII taYOMINC
TOTAL us
.MSIOM._
REGION 1
REGION 1
REGION 3
REGION *
REGION 5
REGION 6
REGION T
ReGION 8
REGION 9
.REGION 10
TOTAL US
TOTAL
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
2_
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
. 1
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
5
0
3
0
0
z
2
1
0
1
1
SL.
2
0
0
.0_..
4
0
44
TOTAL
5
6
6
8
12
1
2
2
2
0
44
PLANT SIZE
A B C 0 E f G
0000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0
0000000'
0000000
2000000
0020000
0100000
0000000
0001000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0110010
1001000
0000100
0000000
0000000
0 0 0 0 0 C 0
0000000
1120000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000100
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
1001100
0000000
1010100
0001220
0000000
0000201
ooooooo
0000000
0010100
0 1 0 0 1 0 0
0001000
ooooooo
0000010
0000010
.0. .CL_JJ 0 fl...fl_JL-
0 0 0 0 ? 0 0
o o c o 8 o o
ooooooo
0_0..._0 Q.,_Q_0 Q.
0002200
ooooooo
6 4 7 7 14 5 1
PLANT Size
A "• C"0" f" t "6"
0200*60
2011200
1130100
0003230
1113 "V i"T"
0 0 C 0 0 1 0
ooo o" 2 6~"6
0020000
2000000
0 0 0 0 Q 0 0
64 7 7__]±_5_ 1
. — - .
PLANT *6f
H I J X
0000
0000
0000
0000
1100
0 2 0 0
0 1 C 0
0000
0100
coco
0000
0000
1 2 C 0
o_2 q o
0100
0000
0000
0000
0 0 tO 0
1210
0 0 C 0
0000
0 0 C 0
0 0 C 0
0100
oooo
0000
0000
0 0 C 0
0210
0 0 C 0
I 2 C 0
0500
0 0 C 0
0102
0 C 0 0
0000.
£ 2 0 0
» -0 1 10
J 0 0 HJ
o o o- o
0 i n o
0100
a -0 .C,;P_
0 0 C Z
0000
0000
^_-o...ji_pi_c_.
1 3 CO
0 0 C 0
6 31 3 4
PLANT ACf
B Z J X
o 2 i 2
1410
1410
1700
2 8"' 0 2 "
0100
— 0~f b o
0200
1100
0000
* 31 3 4
PROCESS TYEE
L H N'O P Q
KEY FOR SIZES
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
LESS THAN
BETWEEN
BETWEEN
BETWEEN
BETWEEN
BETWEEN
GREATER THAN
20
20 and 50
50 and 100
100 and 250
250 and 500
500 and 1000
1000
KEY FOR AGES
H LESS THAN 5
Z BETWEEN 5 and 30
J BETWEEN 30 and 50
X GREATER THAN 50
KEY FOR PROCESSES 6 PRODUCTION
N
0
J?
0
CARBON ZINC
ALKALINE
MERCURY
MAGNESIUM
SILVER
OTHER
A STATE BY STATE LISTING OF
PROCESS TYPES CANNOT BE GIVEN
TO AVOID DISCLOSURE OF INDIVIDUAL
PLANTS
15 7 8.3 12 18
PROCESS TYPE
L M S 0 P Q
A REGIONAL LISTING OF
PROCESS TYPES CANNOT BE
GIVEN TO AVOID DISCLOSURE
OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
15 7 8 3 12 18
-34-
-------
TABLE-'*.
SIC 3692 DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAt:PRODUCTION OF PRIMARY
BATTERIES ( METRIC TONS)
1
REGION/STATE
Totci
No.
IV Alabama 0
X Alaska 0
IX Arizona j 0
Carbon
Zinc
1973,
0
0
Mkaiine-
Vkmoanese
197,3
0
0
0 i 0
VI Arkansas i 0 0
IX California
VIII Colorado
2 0
2 (j
I Connecticut Conjoined with
III Delaware 0 ! 0
IV Florida | Combined with
IV Georgia 0
tx Hawaii
X Idaho
0
u
V Illinois 3
V Indiana I 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vermont
0
Mercury
1973
0
\Aagnesium
Carbon
!973
0
0 | U
0 i 0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
South Carolina and Tqnnessee
0
U
0
2837.5 | 0
0 j 0 •
'•J
0
325.5
0 j Q u
VII Iowa Combined wttbjMissouri
U
0
0
u
Silver
Oxide
1973
0
0
0
0
13.6
22. /
"*
\j
.U
0
0
0
O.^i
Other*
1972
l>
0
0
0
0
1 13.0
0
0
'J
0
61.3
j '
VII Kansas G ' •..• j 0 J U u | u
IV Kentucky 0 ; U
VI Louisiana u u
I Maine j 0 0
III Maryland
I Massachusetts
4
0
U 0
V Michigan 0 U
V Minnesota i U U
IV Mississipoi
VII Missouri
VIII Montana
VII Nebraska
0
2
0
0
TV vrr,»»~y3-. o
0
2996.4
0
0
u
u
0
d
o:
0
u
0
0
0
u
U u U c«
"U"
0
0
• u
u
u
0
0
0
u
U { U
Q 01-0
1 . 0
u
u
u
0
0.^'
0
\j
u
0
U j 27.2
0 0
0 U
Q ! 'J J
I New Hampshire 0 0
II New Jersey 3
VI New Mexico 0
II New York 3
2837. 5
0
0
IV North Carolina i 5 P0,021
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
Vl Oklahoma
X Oregon
III Pennsylvania
I . Rhode Island
IV South Carolina
VIII South Dakota
IV Tennessee
ViT Texas
0
3
0
0
34,43V
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
4313
0
0
0
0
0
54B.V
3BI.4
U
0
0 1 0 "
o
1 2,270 ! 233.4
2
r
Combined with [Florida and
6 i 0
3 227
1
Vill Utah 0
A Vermont
3
III Virginia 0
0
0
0
u
0 ! U
736.4
0
X . Washington j 0 0
ill West Virginia 0
V Wisconsin
4
0
1 9,536
VIII Wyoming [ 0 0
TOTAL 44 95,920.2
Region I
5
736.4
II 6 2,b3/.5
III o i 2,2>0
IV B i30,24d
V 12 136,832
VI ' 0
VII 2 i 2,996.3
VIII \2 0 -
131.7
0
0
0
7640.4
0
14,0b7.2
131.7
0
233.4
6,db!.B
7,640.4'
0
0
0
IX 200
u
0
0.91
Tennessee
0
lo.Z
u
u
59
0
0
0
511.2
0
1845. 1
59
548.9
0
3Vv. 5
836.7
0
0
0
0
x . o 1 o i o i o
'-'
0
u
0
0
2/bl
U
0
0
0
w>
10. b
0
o
ij
0
iD«y
i *
u
•^
0 0
U 1634.4
0 U
ou.y /2.e-
zry.y 68.1
u u
0 :
0
0
U | U
0
94
8(7.2
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
3692.2
0
0
0
2874.7
0
817.2
0
49.9
0
0
u
u
60.8
0
0
0
90.8
0
524.8
110. 8
30.9
5.4
217.9
yo.z
0
27.2
0 j 22.7
0 ! 13.6
0 JO
1043.6
0
U
U
0
0
u
u
40
0
0
0
0
0
5133.4
40.9
1707
10. b
68.1
I6U4.V
0
1589
113.5
0
U
*T973 data not available.
35
-------
5.0 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
5.1 Introduction
The previous section on industry characterization described the Storage and
Primary Batteries Industries in terms of plant sizes and locations, plant ages, types
of products, and product production in order to present an overview of the nature
of the industry and provide a data base for projection of industry wastes on a
national basis.
This section further assesses the industries by describing the production pro-
cesses involved, the individual wastes which result from each process, the identi-
fication of those wastes destined for land disposal which are considered to be
potentially hazardous to the environment, and the quantities of waste generated
by each segment of the industry. (For discussion of rationale see Section 5.4.3.)
Projections for the amounts of potentially hazardous wastes which will be produced
in 1977 and 1983 are based upon two considerations:
(a) Changing production patterns and methods within the industry; and
(b) The effects of future air and water regulations on the generation of potentially
hazardous wastes destined for land disposal.
The waste characterization will be discussed and analyzed on a product type
basis within each SIC code. Wherever it is possible, a typical mass balanced
process diagram is given for each of the major battery types which go to make up
the 95% level of the merchant production within the SIC code. However, due to
proprietary considerations, a mass balanced process diagram could not be constructed
for many of the specific battery types, and in such cases the potentially hazardous
wastes from the process were identified and the amounts of these wastes were quanr
tified on the basis of a unit of product. In all cases, the mass balances or hazardous
waste factors are based upon 1000 units of mass of the dry product. For example,
the average amount of zinc metal waste from the production of carbon zinc batteries
was found to be about 3.812 kg per 1000 kg of carbon-zinc batteries produced. In
most instances, the process diagram-mass balance not only concerns itself with the
potentially hazardous waste materials from the battery production process, but it
also identifies the other materials which comprise the remainder of the battery.
Often the quantities of non^hazardous materials as well as the quantities of hazard-
ous materials used to manufacture the battery product are considered by the battery
producers to be proprietary, and thus were not divulged to the contractor. Generally,
however, some information concerning the magnitude of the amount of hazardous
waste destined for land disposal was made available.
-36-
-------
TKe waste factors for potentially hazardous materials were derived for a
"typical plant" by using production weighted averages of wastes from a number of
plants. For the purposes of this study the determination of a "typical" plant was
made on the following basis:
(a) The weighted average of the production output for all plants producing the
given battery;
(b) Similar weighted averages for age; and
(c) Geographical location of all plants. For example, if all plants producing
a specific battery-type are in Northeastern U.S., this is noted as "typical"
for this type of production. If locations are widely scattered around the
U.S., then this is noted as "typical" for this type of production. Finally
if two plants exist, one on the West Coast and one on the East Coast, this
situation is described as "typical" for the particular industry.
The use of "typical plants" rather than actual plants has a number of distinct
advantages including maintenance of confidentiality of supplied information and
avoidance of using "atypical" facilities. Experience has shown that industry is soon
able to identify any plant designated by number or other simple code. This loss of
confidentiality (which makes some industry members hesitant to supply information)
is largely avoided by the typical plant approach, although it must be pointed out that
riie defined "typical plant" may not necessarily conform to any existing plant. The
description of the "typical plant" for eadh battery type is discussed in the appro-
priate waste characterization section.
5.2 Waste Characterization for SIC 3691 Storage Batteries
As noted earlier, the lead-acid storage cell, the nickel-cadmium storage cell,
the cadmium-silver storage cell, and the zinc-silver storage cell constitute greater
than 95% of the merchant production in the SIC 3691 category.
5.2.1 Lead-Acid Storage Battery
The lead-acid battery is comprised of two electrodes and a sulfuric acid
electrolyte. The anode contqins lead, leadsulfateand lead monoxide, while the
cathodes contain lead dioxide and other lead containing species. The plates
(electrodes) of these batteries are made up of two components: the first being an
inactive lead grid which provides mechanical support for the active materials and
a conductive path for the current, and the second being a lead-oxide-sulfate paste
which is applied and bonded to the grids. The plates are then activated as follows:
-37-
-------
(a) For the cathodes, the lead-oxide-sulfate is oxidized to PbOs; and
(b) For the anodes, the lead oxide is reduced to lead.
In addition to lead the grid and electrode materials also contain other ele-
ments (such as antimony) which are added to the lead used for the grids. Some tin
may also be alloyed with the lead used in the grid construction.
In preparation of the active materials, lead oxide (black lead) is used. The
oxide is produced (by other companies) by a modified Barton process so that the
resulting product consists of lead oxide with elemental lead dispersed through it.
Some of the lead oxide is then used to produce lead sulfate, which is also utilized
for battery production. In addition to the lead oxides and sulfates, several other
materials (e.g., wood flour, Dynel fibers) are used as binders in electrode prepara-
tion. With the electrode materials and the dilute sulfuric acid electrolyte other
materials used in lead-acid battery production include:
(a) Separator components, commonly plastics or rubber; and
(b) Container components, commonly vulcanized rubber, polyethylene, nylon,
or acrylics.
The polymeric materials are almost always purchased and are only formed to
give desired product shapes. The major production operations involved in lead-
acid storage battery manufacture are shown in Figure 8. This figure shows a mass-
balanced flow diagram of a "typical" plant based upon 1000 mass units of dry
product. Two electrode activation procedures are shown on the diagram; the dry
charge line and the wet charge line. Many plants will use either one or the other
of these procedures and some plants will use both procedures. For the "typical"
plant, the process diagram shows 80% of the production going through the dry
charge line and 20% through the wet charge line.
In the dry charge battery line, the electrode element stacks are placed in
containers filled with acid and electrical connections are made for the forming
process. This charging operation convertsthe paste to sponge lead in the negative
plate and to lead peroxide in the positive plate. During the process, the sulfuric
acid becomes slightly more concentrated, and the time required varies from 4 to 20
hours. After the element has been formed, it is removed from the container, per-
mitted to drain for a very short period, rinsed in fresh water, and placed in an
oven (or other apparatus) to dry. The dried elements are assembled to a battery
case, and the battery posts are then welded in place and the cover sealed to the
case. The completed battery is then sent on to washing, painting, and shipping.
-38-
-------
in the wet charge battery line, the elements are first placed in a battery
case, welded together, posts connected to them, and the battery filled with acid.
These batteries then undergo the same forming process as the dry batteries. After
forming, the acid is dumped (and, generally, recovered), fresh acid added, and
the battery boost charged. Fresh acid is added to the dumped dilute acid, and the
mixture is used in batteries entering the forming process. The battery is then washed,
painted, and shipped.
The amount of lead solid wastes produced from treatment of wastewater streams
is difficult to assess at the present time due to the lack of EPA guidelines or pre-
treatment standards for wastewater from a lead acid plant. In the absence of guide-
lines for this industry, a modeled treatment system was developed based upon current
industrial practices and the results of this modeled treatment yield quantities of lead
in the treated effiuenr and the amount of lead removed which can be assumed to be
the maximum amount destined for land disposal. The treatment system is described
in Section 6.2 and this description of the modeled wastewater treatment technology
was sent to several companies for their comments and has been subsequently revised
to reflect the modifications suggested.
As shown on the process diagram, the wastes from lead-acid battery production
include the following:
(a) Wastes produced from the manufacture of grid materials—these will include
dusts, dross,and rejects of the raw materials and alloys used. This waste
amounts to 30 kg per 1000 kg of product-and is comprised of lead and lead alloys.
(b) Wastes produced from the cathode and anode paste preparations. This waste
amounts to about 2 kg per 1000 kg of product as lead and lead oxide paste.
(c) Wastes produced from clean-up of the pasting area. This amounts to 5 kg per
1000 kg of product in the form of lead oxide and lead powders suspended in
a water effluent of about 750 kg of water.
(d) Wastes produced from reject plates in the curing cycle. These wastes gener-
ally consist of 10 kg of lead monoxide and 20 kg of lead per 1000 kg of
product.
(e) Wastes produced from reject assembled elements. These rejects consist of
10 kg of lead monoxide and 20 kg of lead per 1000 kg of product.
(f) Wastewater solutions. There are water-borne raw wastes comprised of sulfuric
acid (typically 2 to 4%) in water containing suspended and dissolved lead.
The sources of lead containing wastewater- include the pasting area, the dry
-39-
-------
^ifs *QLumoN anacxt &u.s no too
PHLCAD
HHSTT HHTEK rxetruevr
tatue soouu
Oft LIMC
Figure 8. Major Production Operations in Lead-Acid
Storage Battery Manufacture
-40-
-------
and wet charge forming areas, and the assembled battery washing area. Also
in cases where a battery breaker is located on site with the battery plant,
there will be an additional wastewater stream. A typical plant producing
20% wet charge and 80% dry charge batteries would have a lead raw waste
factor of 0.331 kg of lead (suspended and dissolved) per 1000 kg of batteries.
(g) Sludges recovered from treatment of wastewater streams. These wastes con-
sist of lead hydroxide and lead sulfate at 0.541 kg per 1000 kg of product
(80% solids basis) for those plants using sodium hydroxide neutralization.
The composition of the sludge typically will include lead sulfate (0.293 kg per
1000 kg), lead hydroxide (0.140 kg per 1000 kg) with a water content ranging
from 20 to 65%. For those plants using lime neutralization, a calcium sulfate
sludge is produced of 735 kg (dry basis) per 1000 kg of product. The compo-
sition of the sludge typically will include calcium sulfate (2101 kg per 1000 kg
at 35% solids basis), lead hydroxide (0.140 kg per 1000 kg), lead sulfate (0.293
kg per 1000 kg) with a lead content of approximately 150 mg per liter.
Information received from a number of large and small manufacturers of lead-
acid batteries indicates that all the scrap wastes from the process (e.g. grids,
paste mix, reject plates, etc.) are recovered and sent to a lead smelter for process-
ing as secondary lead and reuse. This recovery and recycle will not be covered
herein, since it is not considered a treatment or disposal technology, but part of
the basic process. Hence, with regard to the raw wastes mentioned above, all of
the solids, dusts and pastes from (a), (b), (d), (e) and some of suspended lead in
(c)/ (f), and (g) are recovered and recycled to a lead smelter as a course of normal
operation.
The "typical" lead-acid battery plant described herein employs 100 to 250
people, is 20 years old and produces 8,233,300 kg of batteries annually.
A typical location is within a large population center (usually a metropolitan area)
with access to'tnunicipal water and sewage systems.
The potentially hazardous wastes resulting from a typical lead-acid battery
manufacturing process generally result from the wastewater effluent treatment systems.
The sludge from the treatment systems typically contains lead sulfate, lead hydroxide
and a small amount of suspended lead. These materials constitute a potentially *
severe environmental hazard due to their relative solubilities and toxicity as des-
cribed in Appendix A.
Table 10 summarizes the wastes resulting from a "typical" lead-acid battery
manufacturing process. The assumptions used to construct the typical plant are:
(a) 1000 kg of batteries (dry weight) as the production basis;
-41 -
-------
Table 10. Lead-Acid Typical Plant
A. Annual Production = 8,233,300 kg (dry basis) of batteries
Dry Charge Type = 6,586,630kg
Wet Charge Type = 1,646,670 kg
B. Waste Characterization
1. Wastewater Treatment Sludge Using Caustic Soda Neutralization
Pb raw waste factor = 0.331 kg per 1000 kg batteries
Pb effluent factor = 0.01 kg per 1000 kg batteries
Pb sludge factor = 0.324 kg per 1000 kg batteries
Composition of sludge
PbSO4 = 0.293 kg per 1000 kg batteries
Pb(OH)s = 0.140 kg per 1000 kg batteries
Water = 20 to 65%
80% solids total sludge » -Q.541 kg per 1000 kg batteries
= 4456 kg per year
OR
2. Wastewater Treatment Sludge Using Lime Neutralization*
CaSO4 factor = 735 kg (dry basis) per 1000 kg
batteries
= 2101 kg sludge basis (35% solids)
per 1000 kg batteries
= 17,298,163 kg per year
= 17,298 metric tons per year
Sludge Characterization
CaSO4 = 2101 kg per 1000 kg batteries
Pb(OH)a = 0.140 kg per 1000 kg batteries
PbSO4 =0.293 kg per 1000 kg batteries
Pb = 150 mg per liter
* Approximately 20% of the plants in the U.S. use this treatment.
-42-
-------
(b) 14.88 kg of lead contained in atypical battery;
(c) 70 gallons (265 liters) of water used to produce one dry charge battery;
(d) 20 gallons (75.5 liters) of water used to produce one wet charge battery; and
(e) that the pi ant process wastewater stream contains 4% sulfuric acid and
50 mg per liter of iead.
The information used to derive the typical plant was supplied by 12 lead-
acid plants located throughout the U.S. and has been reviewed by four corporations
which, together, produce over 60% of the lead-acid batteries in the U.S.
Historically, lead-acid manufacturing plants have been relatively small
which allowed the plants to be located close to their markets and thus decreased
transportation costs. However/ the current trend in the industry is to consolidate,
so that a smaller number of larger plants can produce virtually the same number of
batteries as before. This trend achieves two goals:
(a) Faster and more efficient machinery can be used in each plant, and
(b) The increased efficiency and higher capacity allows a greater control over
hazardous wastes.
The lead-acid battery industry is expected to grow at their normal growth rate
of 4 or 5% over the next ten years.
5.2.2 Nickel-Cadmium Storage Battery
There are two distinct types of nickel-cadmium cells — the pocket plate
(Jungnertype)cell and the sintered-plate cell. Industry sources have indicated
that only a limited number of pocket plate type batteries are now being produced
in the U.S.
The positive and negative plates of the pocket plate cell are usually similar
in construction, consisting of perforated pockets which contain the active materials.
The pockets for both positive and negative plates are made from nickel-plated
perforated steel ribbon. Pockets of the negative plates are filled initially with
cadmium oxide or cadmium hydroxide, either of which is reduced to metallic cad-
mium on charging. Some manufacturers of these cells add iron (5 to 30%) to the
cadmium in order to obtain the required degree of fineness of the cadmium. The
pockets of the positive piate are filled with nickel powder.
-43-
-------
Industry sources indicate that the production of pocket-plate type batteries
does not generate any water-borne hazardous waste. This is because the active
chemicals used are solids and not solutions or pastes. When good housekeeping
methods are used within the plant, cells rejected in quality control operations are
the only waste generated, and these cells are re I calmed through sale to scrap
processors.
The manufacture of sintered-plate batteries, however, does generate some
potentially hazardous waste. This type of cadmium battery differs materially in
constructionOand performance from the pocket-plate battery described above. In
particular, it contains a cadmium anode, a potassium hydroxide electrolyte and a
nickel oxide cathode. For the electrodes, sintered placques containing the active
materials are used, and in one process, the placques are made by impregnating
binder materials with nickel and cadmium nitrate salts. The nickel and cadmium
nitrates are converted to hydroxides in potassium hydroxide solution, and the plates
are then washed thoroughly and dried in a hot oven. The impregnation cycle is
repeated to deposit the desired amount of active material. The plates then go
through a formation treatment which removes impurities and brings the active mate-
rials to a condition similar to that existing in working electrodes. The cell is then
assembled into final form using an absorbent plastic separator and a nickel-plated
steel case. With the addition of the alkaline electrolyte, the batteries are ready
for electrical testing, packing,and shipping.
There are currently three distinct manufacturing processes used for preparing
the electrodes of the sintered plate batteries, and the preceding paragraph described
the worst case (from an environmental standpoint) of the three, due to the high
concentration of cadmium and nickel compounds contained in the wash water. The
other processes in use are:
(a) An electrolytic deposition process which deposits active materials directly
on the sintered plates. This process does produce wastewater containing
nickel and cadmium compounds, though the amounts are not as great as in
the impregnation process described above; and
(b) A pressed-powder process involving active materials mixed with binders in
a dry powder form. The powder mix is pressed onto a wire mesh or expanded
metal grid in a mold. This is a dry process and no wastewater is involved.
A mass-balanced process flow diagram for the impregnation-sintered plate •..-.
process is shown in Figure 9, and the potentially hazardous wastes from the produc-
tion of this type of battery include the following:
(a) Wastewaters containing cadmium and nickel salts together with potassium
hydroxide. The source of this waste is the washing steps, and the magnitude
-44-
-------
U1CKEL PLATED
STEEL
UICKEL POWDER
32.
AJ/TftfTE
SINTERED
STRIP FORMED
4-9.7 CADMIUM
WTRATE SOLUTION
tMPR&WCriNQ
\
~\
*
DRYING
1
K0H
IMMERSIOU
/
f 3.
S 7.96
EFFLUENT
WASHING
\
CAUSTIC
TREATMENT
i i
&ZLUL0SE SEPARATOR
34,4 MCKEL PLATED—*
STEEL CASE
ASSEMBLY
SLUDGE (DRY)
S33&&&H),
S2.Q KOH,Li'0H -*•
TEST
AAJD
RACK
REJECT
CELLS
IOOO
PRODUCT
/.47
S.20&
Rgure 9. Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Nickel-Cadmium
Stnterad-Plate Storage Battery Manufacture
-45-
-------
of the waste is estimated to amount to 3.24 kg nickel nitrate and 7.96 kg
cadmium nitrate per 1000 kg of product in the untreated wastewater;
(b) Solid wastes recovered from treatment of wastewaters. These are estimated
to contain cadmium hydroxide (5.339 kg) and nickel hydroxide (1.660 kg)
per 1000 kg of product; and
(c) Rejected batteries from the test and package step. They contain 1.47 kg
nickel and 5.20 kg cadmium per 1000 kg of product.
Waste materials comprised of cadmium and nickel and their compounds must
be considered hazardous when destined for land disposal because of their potential
solubilities and their hazardous effect upon the environment as described in
Appendix A.
Table 11 summarizes the wastes generated by the typical nickel cadmium
battery plant. These data reflect information supplied by three plants which
account for 42% of the U.S. production of that battery type. The waste factors
for nickel and cadmium in the rejected cells were calculated from plant supplied
data, while the waste factors for cadmium hydroxide and nickel hydroxide in the
wastewater treatment sludge were estimated by the contractor on the basis of the
amount of cadmium in the treated effluents from two plants and the reported
efficiencies of the impregnation process.
The typical nickel cadmium plant has a geographical location in the eastern
half of the United States within a populated metropolitan area where municipal
water and sewage facilities are available. The age of the plant is 10 to 15 years.
Industry sources have indicated that the two waste streams shown in Table 11
are not in most cases destined for land disposal. In none of the plants surveyed were
both of these waste streams going to land disposal. In fact, of the nine plants cur-
rently producing nickel cadmium batteries, three plants have no effluent due to
their dry production processes, two plants are using on-site impoundment areas (set-
tling ponds) and the remaining plants are selling the sludges to scrap reclaimers.
Only two plants were found to use land disposal of scrap batteries, all others selling
the scrap to reprocessors.
5.2.3 Cadmium-Silver Oxide Storage Cell
Cadmium-silver oxide cells are manufactured in a process similar to the nickel
cadmium cell. Fabrication of the silver electrode begins by impregnating a sintered
nickel strip with a silver salt solution. The strip is then dried in a hot oven and
immersed in a solution of potassium hydroxide to deposit silver hydroxide in the pores
-46-
-------
Table 11. Nickel-Cadmium Typical Plant
A. Annual Production
= 446,700 kg of batteries
B. Waste Characterization
1. Nickel
Cadmium
Cadmium
Hydroxide
C.
4. Nickel
Hydroxide
Waste Stream
1 . Scrap batteries
2.
Wastewater
treatment
sludge
1.47 kg per 1000 kg of batteries
from scrap cells
656.6 kg per year
5.20 kg per 1000 kg of batteries
from scrap cells
1,323 kg per year
5.34 kg per 1000 kg of batteries
2,385.4 kg per year (dry basis)
from wastewater treatment sludge
6,815.4 kg per year (35% solids
basis)
1.66 kg per 1000 kg of batteries
741.5 kg per year (dry basis)
from wastewater treatment sludge
2,118.6 kg per year (35% solids
basis)
5,360 kg per year
8,934 kg per year
-47-
-------
of the electrode. The strip is then thoroughly washed with de-ionized water and
allowed to dry. The cadmium electrode is constructed by impregnating a sintered
nickel strip with a cadmium salt solution and is dried, immersed and washed as
before.
Silver leads are welded to the electrodes and the cell is assembled into final
form by wrapping the plates with a two component separator, securing the silver
leads to the terminals, andinserting the assembly in a plastic container. Generally,
a 30-40% solution of potassium hydroxide is utilized for the electrolyte. The com-
pleted cell undergoes quality control testing before it is packed and shipped. The
washing operation produces wastewater containing silver and cadmium salts in an
alkaline effluent. Other wastes
-------
PLAGUE
V
0
STRIP FORMED
I
CA0MIVMSALT S0LUTMAJ
1
C4LC/U/AJG
K0H
±
IMMERSIOU
WATER EFFLUEUT
3.01 AS MO*
7.96
WASHING
£4t/ST/C
TKEATMEAJT
SILVER LEADS
SEPARATOR-
T0
O
A 2061 A* 4 5.
—
I
(0KY)
M=tAP PLATES
SECURE LEADS
SEPARATOR-~
WRAP ADDWAUAL
EL£M£NT
I
ELECTROLYTE
TEST AMD
1
PACK
CELLS
Rgure 10. Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in
Cadmium-Silver Secondary Cell Production
-49-
-------
of product remains. The waste stream is made up of 435 kg of batteries per year
as scrap cells in addition to the sludge previously mentioned from wastewater
treatment as summarized in Table 12.
These plants are found on both the east and west coastal regions and are
typically located within a municipality where a water source and sewer facilities
are available. The typical plant age is estimated to be 10 years. The production
figures were based upon three plants. The amount of rejected cells in the waste
stream was computed by assuming a 1.2% rejection rate from the process.
The characterization of the wastes for the typical plant were estimated to be
the same as for nickel cadmium with adjustments made for differences in formula
weights for different compounds. For example, the waste factor for nickel in
rejected nickel cadmium cells (1.47 kg per 1000 kg batteries) was adjusted for the
higher formula weight for silver to arrive at the 2.70 kg per 1000 kg batteries for
rejected silver in cadmium-silver oxide cells.
The actual amounts of hazardous waste destined for land disposal from the
production of this cell could not be determined from industry sources, but the
reclamation of valuable materials such as silver and cadmium would be an economic
necessity for the manufacturers of this battery type. On the basis of economic
considerations and information from industry sources, there are no potentially haz-
ardous wastes destined for land disposal from this process.
5.2.4 Zinc-Silver Oxide Secondary Cell
The details of the fabrication of the zinc-silver oxide battery are rather
limited in the unclassified literature, and.production techniques vary according
to the manufacturer. The most generally used process involves the use of dry
powder press techniques for the zinc electrode and a sintered powder technique for
the silver electrode. The fabrication of the silver electrode consists of sintering
silver powder onto an expanded metal grid. The zinc electrode is constructed by
pressing a powdered zinc oxide mix onto a zinc mesh screen in a mold. The mix
contains zinc oxide powder, 4 to 10% mercuric oxide/and organic binding agents.
The electrode undergoes a formation treatment in a 5% solution of potassium
hydroxide. The plates are then rinsed in water, drained, and air-dried in a cir-
culating air chamber. The electrodes are then assembled with a separator of
multiple layers and inserted in a steel or plastic case. An electrolyte of potassium
hydroxide (concentration 30 to 45%) is added, and the battery goes through quality
control testing before it is packaged. (17) A process flow diagram for construction
of the cell is shown in Rgure 11.
-50-
-------
Table 12. Cadmium-Silver Oxide Typical Plant
A. Annual Production
= 36,240 kg of batteries per year
B.
Waste Characterization
I. Silver
2. Cadmium
3. Silver oxide
4.
Cadmium
Hydroxide
C. Waste Stream
= 2.70 kg per 1000 kg batteries
= 97.8 kg per year
= 5.20 kg per 1000 kg batteries
= 188.4 kg per year
= 2.24 kg per 1000 kg batteries
as sludge (dry basis)
= 81.2 kg per year
= 5.34 kg per 1000 kg batteries
as sludge (dry basis)
= 193.5 kg per year
= 435 kg of scrap batteries per year
D. Typical geographical location is in a large metropolitan
area with water and sewer facilities available.
E. Typical age — 10 years
-51 -
-------
£XPAMD£D MZTAL-+*
&XMET)
S/L VEX POWQE* —•
Figure 11. Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Zinc-
Silver Oxide Secondary Barrery
-52-
-------
The wastes from the production of this cell could not be determined from
industry sources, but there appear to be no hazardous water-borne wastes from this
process aside from potassium hydroxide. The potentially hazardous waste products
from rejected ceils would be zinc, mercury,and silver, but since the scrap cells
contain silver, they are sold to scrap reclaimers for their silver content.
No typical plant was derived for this battery, due to lack of industry supplied
data on its production. On the basis of economic considerations and information
from industry sources, there are no potentially hazardous wastes destined for land
disposal from this process.
5.2.5 Iron-Nickel Oxide Alkaline Storage Cell (Edison)
This storage cell was produced in large quantities in the U.S. over the past
40 years, but, in recent times, has become only a limited production item. Accord-
ing to industry sources, this battery is not in production at-the present time and there
are no plans to resume production in the near future.
Earlier the cell was produced in a fashion similar to that of the pocket type
nickel cadmium cells. The pockets for both positive and negative plates are made
from perforated steel ribbon, and the pockets of the negative plate are filled I -
initially with a mixture of powdered nickel and nickel peroxide, which is reduced
to metallic nickel on the first charge. The pockets of the positive plate are filled
with iron powder. The positive and negative plate pockets are attached to a frame,
connected,and spaced with the necessary hardware,and rubber or plastic insulators
are inserted. The assembly is then placedr^vithin a nickel plated steel container, a
20% potassium hydroxide — litrmim/fejiArcodck^sotaHon is added, and the cell is
sealed, painted, tested,and packaged. (17)
Again, the wastes from the production of this cell could not be determined
from industry sources, but there would appear to be no water-borne wastes from this
process. The possible waste products would be powdered iron and nickel and their
oxides from electrode preparation, as well as quality control rejected batteries.
A typical plant could not be derived from this cell and there are no projec-
tions of waste to land disposal, since this battery type is not being produced at the
present time.
5.2.6 Nickel-Zinc Storage Cell
This battery is a specialized and limited production item with no significant
non-military production at the present time.
-53-
-------
The negative electrode Is produced from a mixture of zinc and zinc hydroxide,
white the positive electrode is produced from sintered nickel. This battery normally
operates as a semi-dry battery in that the electrolyte (composed of potassium hydrox-
ide saturated with zinc oxide) is absorbed into the plates and plastic separators. (17)
The wastes from the production of this ceil could not be determined from indus-
try sources, but there would appear to be no water-borne wastes from this process.
The possible potentially hazardous waste products would be zinc, zinc hydroxide,
zinc oxide7and nickel from electrode production as well as quality control rejected
batteries.
No typical plant was derived for this battery, due to its limited production
status.
5.2.7 Silver-Lead Storage Gel I
This battery is a specialized item designed primarily for military use and is
produced only in limited quantities.
The silver-lead cell is produced in a configuration and size similar to a small
primary mercury button cell. The cathode is produced as a pellet of silver peroxide
powder mixed with graphite and pressed into a conducting container of steel. The
aoode is also a pressed pellet composed of powdered lead or lead-mercury amalgam.
A ceramic disc separator is pieced in the container between the anode and cathode,
and an absorbent sleeve impregnated with potassium hydroxide Is Inserted. An outer
steel cover completes the assembly. (17)
The wastes from the production of this cell could not be determined from indus-
try sources. The potentially hazardous waste products from scrap cells would be lead,
mercury,and silver. However, the use of silver in this cell would preclude the
manufacturer from (and disposal of these cells. The scrap cells from this process
would be sold to a scrap reclaimer.
No typical plant was derived from this battery due to its specialized use and
limited production.
5.2.8 Mercury-Cadmium Secondary Cell
This battery is a very specialized item, produced only in limited quantities
for military application and primarily in small button sizes.
The cadmium cathode is formed by corrugating a cadmium ribbon and pressing
It Into a steel cose. A ceramic insulator-spacer and an absorbent sleeve is then
inserted into the case, and a potassium hydroxide electrolyte is impregnated into
-54-
-------
the sleeve. The zinc-mercury anode is fabricated by pressing zinc amalgam into
a pellet and inserting it into the case. An inner steel case is then inserted into the
assembly and a steel outer cover added. The celi is quality control tested and
packaged for shipment. (17)
The wastes from the production of this cell could not be determined from
industry sources. The potentially hazardous waste products from scrap cells would
be cadmium, zinc,and mercury. In general, industry sources indicated that scrap
cells containing mercury are sold to scrap reclaimers.
5.3 Waste Characterization for SIC 3692 Primary Batteries
The carbon-zinc ceii, the carbon-zinc air cell, the alkaline manganese cell,
the mercury Ruben and Weston cells, the magnesium-carbon cell, the zinc-silver
cells,and the lead reserve cell constitute more than 95% of the merchant production
in the SIC 3692 category.
With one exception, these batteries can be characterized as being produced
without the use of process water in the production operation. The largest amount of
potentially hazardous wastes comes from rejection of scrap cells in the product
quality control operation. Two other processing steps, the electrode blending opera-
tions and the forming operations, contribute a comparatively minor amount of waste
— which industry sources claim is totally recycled to the process.
In genera!, disposal of refected batteries appears to be the primary contribu-
tor to potentially hazardous waste destined for land disposal from production of this
battery type. This problem is very similar to that of the disposal of consumer-used
batteries which normally go to a'mufiicipal landfill or incineration system — except
that battery producers must dispose of a larger number of batteries in a limited area.
5.3.1 Carbon-Zinc Dry Cell
The Leclanche or carbon-zinc dry cell is the type of primary battery manu-
factured in the greatest quantity in the United States.
This dry cell consists of a zinc alloy container anode, a paste type electrolyte
of zinc and ammonium chlorides, water and various inert materials added to maintain
the electrolyte in a semi-solid form, and a depolarizer and cathode consisting of
manganese dioxide and carbon.
In addition to the manganese dioxide, ammonium and zinc salts,and zinc metal,
several other materials are also incorporated into the batteries:
-55-
-------
(1) To minimize corrosion, the zinc used is frequently amalgamated. The
quantity of mercury used (approximately 0.014% by weight) is optimized
by economics and the physical consideration of zinc embrittlement; and
(2) A wide variety of materials are used as separators to prevent electronic
shorting of the electrodes. Generally, these are:
(a) Anunsupported gel electrolyte paste of wheat, flour and cornstarch,
or
(b) A paper board supported paste.
The production of carbon-zinc dry cells begins by shaping or purchasing a
container from a zinc alloy sheet. A separator of paper board coated with a paste
containing mercuric chloride or a gel is then inserted into the container. The
separator is followed by a depolarizer of manganese dioxide and carbon black, and
an electrolyte of ammonium chloride and zinc chloride. A carbon rod current col-
lector is inserted into the container and is held by a paperboard support washer. The
cell undergoes a quality control inspection before it is sealed with amasphair com-
pound. Top and bottom covers of tin plated steel are formed and attached to the
cell. An outer case of steel or paper is decorated, formed, and attached to the
cell, and an electrical testing step takes place before the product is finally packs?*
aged for shipment.
The wastes from the production of carbon-zinc batteries consist of mercury,
zinc, zinc chloride, manganese dioxide, cadmium/and lead. These wastes are
contained in rejected batteries from the test and package step of the process dia-
gram shown in Figure 12. These wastes have been quantified in the form of waste
factors based upon 1000 kg of batteries produced. The quantities of other constitu-
ents used in the cell are considered to be proprietary and were not given to the
contractor. The amount of wastes from rejected batteries include 0.0073 kg mercury,
3.812 kg zinc, 0.248 kg zinc chloride, 6.147 kg manganese dioxide, 0.00027 kg
cadmium,and 0.00031 kg lead per 1000 kg of batteries produced. The amounts of
cadmium and lead are based on the zinc alloy used in making drawn cans. The alloy
used in extruded cans may contain approximately ten times the lead and rogghly
twice the cadmium of that used in drawn cans, although the use of this type of can
is not predominant in the industry.
These waste factors and other "typical plant" data were derived by using
weighted averages of production wastes from seven plants accounting lor approxi-
mately 61% of the total U.S. production of carbon-zinc dry cells.
The waste mercury, zinc, zinc chloride, cadmium, and lead are considered
potentially hazardous to varying degrees. The hazards of these wastes are discussed
in detail in Appendix A.
-56-
-------
/
WA?
*%PEtf B0ARD Z WO SHEET
PAPER B0ARD
C0ATED WITH
PASTE
1
-------
The typical carbon-zinc dry cell plant has an annual production of 2,270,000
kg of batteries. Wastes from the typical plant stem entirely from rejected completed
cells. The wastes consist of mercury in the amount of 0.0073 kg per 1000 kg pro-
duct, zinc at 3.812kgperlOOOkgproductzinc chloride at 0.248 kg per 1000 kg
product, manganese dioxide at 6.147 kg per 1000 kg product, cadmium at 0.00027
kg per 1000 kg product, and lead at 0.00031 kg per 1000 kg product. The waste
stream of the typical plant consists of 22,700 kg of batteries.
A typical location of a carbon-zinc dry cell plant is in the Eastern U.S. in a
relatively small population center where municipal or private landfills may be used
at low cost. The typical age of a dry cell plant is approximately 40 years.
The waste factors (kg of each waste per 1000 kg of battery production) were
computed and production weighted from the amounts of wastes supplied by these
plants. A rejection rate of 1% was used to arrive at the total waste stream of bat-
teries rejected by the typical plant. The characteristics of the typical plant are
summarized in Table 13.
In the past it has not been economically justifiable to recycle rejected carbon-
zinc dry cells and batteries. Several factors may reverse this trend or lead to a
reduction of plant wastes.
(a) Zinc and manganese dioxide have experienced large increases in price;
(b) Use of a relatively new process in which paper separators replace the old
gelatinous type. The paper separators are more easily removed from the cell
and thus allow the zinc to be reclaimed more economically;
(c) Better quality control operation; and
(d) Price and scarcity of raw materials.
For these reasons, industry sources feel that a significant reduction in solid
waste generated by the carbon-zinc plants will occur in the next 5 to 10 years
which implies that a corresponding decrease in the quantity of waste destined for
land disposal can be expected.
5.3.2 Carbon-Zinc Air Cell
The manufacturing process of carbon-zinc air cells begins with the formation
of a molded plastic container. Lime is placed in the bottom of the container and a
porous activated carbon electrode is inserted. Two amalgamated zinc electrodes
-58-
-------
Table 13. Carbon-Zinc Typical Plant
A. Annual Production
= 2,270,000 kg of batteries
B. Waste Characterization
1 . Mercury
2. Zinc
3. Zinc Chloride
4. Manganese
Dioxide
5. Cadmium
6. Lead
C. Waste Stream
= 0.0073 kg per 1000 kg batteries
= 16.6 kg per year
= 3.812 kg per 1000 kg batteries
= 8,653 kg per year
= 0.248 kg per 1000 kg batteries
= 563 kg per year
= 6.147 kg per 1000 kg batteries
= 13,950 kg per year
= 0.00027 kg per 1000 kg batteries
= 0.613 kg per year
= 0.00031 kg per 1000 kg batteries
= 0.704 kg per year
= 22,700 kg of batteries
-59-
-------
are formed and placed on either side of the carbon electrode and solid sodium
hydroxide is cast around the electrodes. Next a cover and terminals are formed,
attached to the case, and the zinc electrode is sealed. (The carbon electrode is
left unsealed to allow air to enter and absorb onto the carbon to act as the
depolarizer.) Quality control testing takes place before the cells are packed for
shipment.
This specialty battery contains a carbon cathode and an amalgamated zinc
anode with a solid sodium hydroxide electrolyte. The battery is activated by
addition of water to the cell. The zinc anode is amalgamated with mercury. The
wastes from this process are in the form of rejected batteries from the test and pack
step of the process diagram shown in Figure 13. The wastes contained in the re-
jected cells are 0.294 kg zinc and 0.00117 kg mercury per 1000 kg of batteries
produced.
The waste zinc and mercury from the production of carbon-zinc air cells are
considered potentially hazardous when destined for land disposal. The hazardousness
of these wastes and related discussions are contained in Appendix A.
The typical carbon-zinc air cell plant has an annual production of 1,540,000kg
of batteries. Wastes from the typical plant stem entirely from rejected complete cells,
and consist of zinc in the amount of 0.294 kg per 1000 kg of product or 453 kg per
year, and mercury at 0.00117 kg per 10001
-------
LJM&
I
MJ0QVCT
Figure 13. Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Carbon-
Zinc Air Cell Primary Battery Manufacture
-61 -
-------
Table 14. Air Cell Typical Plant
A. Annual Production
= 1,540,000kg batteries
B. Waste Characterisation
1. Mercury
2. Zinc
0.00117 kg per 1000 kg batteries
1.80 kg per year
0.294 kg per 1000 kg batteries
453 kg per year
C. Waste Stream
= 15,400 kg of batteries
D. Typical Location
= .Eastern U.S.
E. Typical Age
= 40 years
F. Number of Employees = 250-500
-62-
-------
5.3.3 Alkaline Manganese Dioxide Dry Cell
The manufacturing process for the alkaline dry cell begins with the formation
of a container from a nickel plated steel sheet. Carbon and manganese dioxide are
pressed together to form a cathode and inserted into the container. Next a separator
of polyethylene is formed and inserted. Mercury is then amalgamated with powdered
zinc to form the anode and inserted. An electrolyte of potassium hydroxide is then
added, and a brass current collector, a nylon seal/and a rivet are formed and inserted
into the container. The cells are then inspected in a pre-test step prior to final
assembly. Finally, a nickel plated steel pressure spring is added to the cell, nickel
plated steel end covers are formed and attached, and a steel jacket is decorated,
formed and placed around the cell. A quality control test is performed on the com-
pleted cell before it is packaged for shipment.
This variety of battery differs from the carbon-zinc type primarily in the
electrolyte used. For the alkaline batteries 30% potassium hydroxide is employed.
In commercial practice, the cathode (which is a mixture of finely divided
manganese dioxide and graphite) is held together by either a mechanical packing
or the use of organic binders and inert fibers. Polyethylene type materials are used
in the separators and zinc powder is used in production of the anodes. In these
electrodes, zinc powder is combined with an appropriate gelling agent •-•'•
carboxymethylcellulose,which containstheelectrolyte. The zinc anode is amalgama-
ted with mercury (approximately 3 to 6% by weight) to minimize corrosion.
The wastes from this process are in the form of rejected batteries from the test
and package step of the process diagram shown in Figure 14. The wastes contained
in the rejected batteries are 0.076 kg mercury, 1.622 kg zinc,and 2.744 kg man-
ganese dioxide per 1000 kg of product.
The zinc and mercury wastes associated with the production of the alkaline dry
cell must be considered potentially hazardous when destined for land disposal. The
mercury wastes are potentially toxic to both the environment and man, while the
zinc wastes present a lesser degree of hazard to the environment. The biological and
environmental effects of these materials are discussed at length in Appendix A.
The typical alkaline plant produced 2,038,000 kg of batteries per year.
Wastes associated with alkaline cell production include mercury at the rate of 0.076
kg per 1000 kg product, or 155 kg per year; zinc at 1.622 kg per 1000 kg product,
or 3,306 kg per year; and manganese dioxide at 2.744 kg per 1000 kg product, or
5,592 kg per year. The total waste stream from the typical plant consists of 20,389
kg batteries per year.
-63-
-------
STEEL
PRESSUKSSPflMQ
ST££L-
77X/-
TIN PLATED ST££L
JACtcerDS&KATeD
AND WtMED
JACKET
ATTACHED
T£ST AMD PACK
0.07&
Zn
Figure 14. Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in
Alkaline Dry Battery Manufacture
-64-
-------
A typical location of an alkaline plant is in the eastern U.S. in a relatively
small population center where municipal or private landfills may be used. The
typical age of a plant is approximately 6 years. A summary description of the
typical plant is given in Table 15.
The typical plant for alkaline cells was derived from responses by four plants
representing 53% of the total U.S. production of this battery type. The waste
factors were computed and weighted by production from information supplied by the
plants. A rejection rate of 1% was used to arrive at the total waste stream.
5.3.4 Mercury Ceil Primary Batteries
This section covers all primary dry batteries of commercial significance which
contain large amounts of mercury in the cell. Specifically, there are three of them:
the Ruben cell, the Weston cell, and the cadmium-mercury cell.
The manufacturing process of the Ruben cell begins with the fabrication of a
nickel plated steel case followed by the formation of a cathode of mercuric oxide
and graphite which is pressed into the case. A neoprene disc which serves as the
insulator-spacer is formed and added to the base of the cell case. A microporous
plastic sleeve is then inserted and impregnated with an alkaline electrolyte.
Next, a zinc amalgam anode is produced and placed in the case. The cell
undergoes an electrical testing step before it is sealed with a steel inner top and a
nickel plated steel outer top. A final testing step is made before it is packed for
shipment.
The Weston cell is constructed by first forming a compartmented vessel from
glass. Platinum wire is then sealed into the lower end of each I eg of the vessel. In the
bottom of one leg is placed mercury and mercurous sulfate, and cadmium amalgam is
placed in the bottom of the other leg. The vessel is filled with a cadmium sulfate
solution and the open.ends of the vessel are sealed. The cell is then tested before
it is packed for shipment.
The mercury-cadmium cell is very similar in construction to the •'Ruben mercury
cell with certain proprietary changes in the composition of the electrodes. The
positive electrode is manufactured like the mercuric oxide electrode in the burton
Ruben cells. The negative electrode is made up of cadmium which may be amalga-
mated with mercury in proportions up to 20% by weight.
The wastes from the Ruben cell process are in the form of rejected batteries
from the test and pack step of the process diagram shown in Figure 15. Greater
than 95% of the rejected batteries are reclaimed, but some are sent to landfills.
-65-
-------
Table 15. Alkaline-Manganese Dioxide Typical Plant
A. Annual Production
= 2,038,000 kg batteries
B. Waste Characterization
1. Mercury
2. Zinc
3. Manganese
Dioxide
C. Waste Stream
= 0.076 kg per 1000 kg batteries
= 155 kg per year
= 1.622 kg per 1000 kg batteries
= 3306 kg per year
= 2.744 kg per 1000 kg batteries
= 5,592 kg per year
= 20,389 kg batteries
D. Typical Location
= Eastern U.S,
E. Typical Age
= 6 years
F. Number of Employees = 250-500
- 66 -
-------
MCKEL
STAMPED
OR
6XIDE
PRESSED WO
CASE
D/SC)
I
APOED 70 BASE
S1EEVE
IUSERTED
_L
AAJ0DE
A
/AJT6
T£ST
STEEL
PRODUCED
T0P
ASTER TOP
ADDED
I
Rgure 15. Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in
Mercury Battery (Ruben) Manufacture
-67-
-------
(Some plants have their own reclaim furnaces, but others send fheir scrap ceils to
dealers.) The wastes from refected batteries are 1.61 kg mercuric oxide, 0.39 kg
mercury and 5.60 kg zinc per 1000 kg product. Wastes from the reclaim furnace
consist of unreacted residue which is typically deposited in a landfill.
The typical mercury Ruben cell plant produces 453,000 kilograms of cells
annually. Wastes from the typical plant consist of mercuric oxide in the amount of
1.61 kg per 1000 kg of product or 729 kg per year, mercury at 0.392 kg per 1000
kg of product or 178 kg per year, and zfnc at 5.60 kg per 1000 kg of product or
2537 kg per year. The waste stream consists of 4,530 kg of batteries, 95% of which
is reclaimed. Mercury in the amount of 853 kg is sent to reclaim each year, and It
is estimated that 95% or 810.5 kg per year is actually reclaimed. The remaining
42.5 kg goes to landfill as does 2537 kg of zinc and 1087 kg of iron in a total waste
stream of 3667.5 kg of furnace residue. The typical location of the Ruben cell
alant is in the eastern U.S. and the age is 10 years.
The characteristics of the typical mercury cell plant are summarized in
Table 16.
The Weston cell differs from the above described Ruben eel! in that a cadmium
amalgam is used as the anode and mercury metal is used as the cathode. The electro-
lyte in this case consists of a mixture of cadmium and mercury suI fates. A process
flow diagram is shown in Figure 16.
The wastes from this cell are in the form of rejected batteries from the test and
package step of the process. The Weston mercury cell typical plant as described in
Table 17 produces 906 kg batteries annually. The wastes consist of mercury at
1.854 kg per 1000 kg of product or 1.680 kg per year, mercuric sulfate at 0.618 kg
per 1000 kg of product, or 0.560 kg per year, cadmium sulfate at 0.795 kg per
1000 kg of product or 0.720 kg per year,and cadmium at Ow442 kg per 1000 kg of
product or 0.400 kg per year. The waste stream consists of about 9 kg batteries per
year. The typical location of a Weston cell plant is the northeastern U.S. and its
age is approximately 40 years.
Waste factors from the cadmium-mercury primary cell could not be derived from
industry sources. However, since these cells are generally produced by the same
plants which produce the mercury Ruben cell, one could expect the waste factors for
cadmium and mercury to be similar to those for zinc and mercury in the Ruben cell.
In general, industry sources have indicated that, like the Ruben cell, the scrap ceils
containing mercury are reb!aimed either on-site or by outside scrap reclaimers.
-68 -
-------
Table 16. Mercury Cell (Ruben) Typical Plant
A. Annual Production
= 453,000 kg of batteries
B. Waste Characterization
1. Mercuric Oxide
2. Mercury
3. Zinc
1.61 kg per 1000 kg batteries
729 kg per year
0.392 kg per 1000 kg batteries
178 kg per year
5.60 kg per 1000 kg batteries
2537 kg per year
C. Waste Stream
= 4,530 kg batteries
D. Amount Reclaimed
Amount to Landfill
853 kg of mercury to reclaim
each year
810.5 kg of mercury per year
(assume 95% reclaimed)
42.5 kg per year of mercury
2537 kg per year of zinc
1087 kg per year of iron
Total Waste Stream = 3667.5 kg of furnance residue
E. Typical Location
= Eastern U.S.
F. Typical Age
= 10 years
G. Number of Employees = 250-500
-69 -
-------
628GLASS
OF
MEKCVXY-
suuvrre
/AJ
AMALGAM
PLACE /x/ a#rT6M
I
ADD 7Z>
1
T&STAU0
f
Rgure 16. Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in
Weston Standard Mercury Celi Manufacture
-70-
-------
Table 17. Mercury Cell (Weston) Typical Plant
A. Annual Production
= 906 kg of batteries
B. Waste Characterization
1. Mercury
2. Mercuric
Sulfate
3. Cadmium
Sulfate
4. Cadmium
1.854 kg per 1000 kg batteries
1.680 kg per year
0.618 kg per 1000 kg batteries
0.560 kg per year
0.795 kg per 1000 kg batteries
0.720 kg per year
0.442 kg per 1000 kg batteries
0.400 kg per year
C. Waste Stream
= 9 kg of batteries
D. Typical Location
= Northeastern U.S.
E. Typical Age
= 40 years
-71 -
-------
The waste mercuric oxide, mercury, zinc/ mercuric sulfate, cadmium sulfate,
and cadmium from the production of Ruben, Weston,and cadmium-mercury cells are
considered potentially hazardous when destined for land disposal. The potential for
release of hazardous materials from these wastes, particularly soluble mercury and
cadmium, necessitates the categorization of these wastes into the severely hazardous
group.
The typical Ruben cell plant was based on data from three plants representing
56% of Ruben mercury cell production in the U.S. The waste factors were computed
from quantities of wastes supplied by the plants. A refection rate of 1% was assumed
to compute the total waste stream. The amounts of waste materials reclaimed and
the composition of the mercury reprocessing furnace residue were estimated. The
typical Weston cell plant was based on one plant in the U.S. currently producing
the cells. No typical plant was derived for the cadmium-mercury cell due to the
lack of information from industry sources, but it is believed to have characteristics
quite similar to the Ruben mercury cell plant.
5.3.5 Magnesium-Carbon Dry Cell
The manufacturing process for the magnesium-carbon cell begins with the
fabrication of a magnesium alloy container which serves as the anode. The container
is cleaned and treated with chromic acid for corrosion resistance and a paper liner is
inserted. The depolarizer of manganese dioxide and carbon and the electrolyte of
magnesium perch I orate are then added. The cathode carbon rod is added to the con-
tainer and is supported by a paperboard washer. An inspection step then takes place
before the container is sealed with a plastic sealing compound. The tin plated steei
top and bottom covers are formed and attached to the cell, and a steel outer case
completes the assembly. Quality control testing takes place before the cells are
packed for shipment. A process flow diagram is shown in Rgure 17.
The wastes from the production of this battery consist of quality control re-
jected cells containing manganese dioxide at 14.73 kg per 1000 kg of product and
water effluent treatment sludges of 11.07 kg of chromium hydroxy carbonate per
1000 kg of product.
The typical magnesium carbon dry cell plant summarized in Table 18 produces
1 ,359,000 kg of batteries annually. The wastes from the typical plant are manganese
dioxide in the amount of 14.73 kg per 1000 kg of product or 20,000 kg per year,
chromium hydroxy carbonate at 11.07 kg per 1000 kg of dry product or 15,000 kg per
year, and chromium at 0.00021 kg per 1000 kg of product or 0.185 kg per year in the
wastewater effluent. The scrap battery waste stream of the typical plant contains
approximately 40,770 kg of batteries. The sludge waste stream is estimated to be
37,500 kg per year. The typical location of this type of plant is the eastern U.S.,
and the typical age is approximately 15 years.
-72 -
-------
Rgure 17. Simplified Diagram of Major Operations tn
Magnesium-Carbon Dry Cell Manufacture
-73-
-------
Table 18. Magnesium-Carbon Typical Plant
A. Annual Production
= 1,359,000 kg batteries
B. Waste Characterization
1. Manganese
Dioxide
= 14.73 kg per 1000 kg of batteries
= 20,000 kg per year
2. Sludge from treatment of chromic acid wastewater as:
Cr8(OH)4CO3 = 11.07 kg per 1000 kg of batteries
= 15,000 kg per year
3. Total Cr to effluent = 0.00021 kg per 1000 kg of batteries
= 0.285 kg per year
C. Waste Stream
1. Scrap cells
2. Sludge (40%
solids basis)
40,770 kg
37,500kg
D. Typical Location
E. Typical Age
F. Number of Employees
Eastern U.S.
15 years
250-500
-74-
-------
The waste trivalent chrome containing sludge from the production of magnesium
carbon dry cells may be potentially hazardous when destined for land disposal. The
degree of hazara'ousness of this waste is discussed in Appendix A.
The typical plant was derived from data supplied by two plants representing
78% of the U.S. production of magnesium carbon dry cells. The waste factors were
computed and production weighted from the quantities of wastes supplied by the
plants. The rejected-battery waste stream was calculated by assuming a 3% rejection
rate. The sludge waste stream was estimated to contain 40% solids by weight.
5.3.6 Zinc-Siiver Oxide Dry Cell
The manufacture of the zinc-silver oxide cell begins with the fabrication of a
nickel plated steel case. Silver oxide and graphite form the cathode which is then
pressed Into the case. A neoprene disc serves as the insulator-spacer which is added
to the base of the case. A microporous plastic sleeve is then inserted and impregnated
with the potassium hydroxide electrolyte. Next a zinc amalgam anode is formed and
placed in the case. Preliminary testing is then performed before final assembly. The
cell is sealed with a tin plated steel inner top and a nickel plated bottom before final
testing and packaging.
This cell is a widely produced miniature battery produced in a similar fashion to
the mercury (Ruben) ceil. A mercury zinc amalgam is used as the anode material and
a silver oxide-carbon material is used as the cathode. The electrolyte and depolarizer
is a paste containing silver oxide and potassium hydroxide.
The wastes from this process are in the form of rejected batteries from the test
and package step of the process diagram shown in Figure 18, The wastes from the
rejectee batteries are 0.00109 kg of mercury, 0. Of 87 kg of zinc, and 0.0047kgof silver
oxide per 1000 kg of product. The waste ceils from this production contain valuable
materials and are sold to outside scrap reclaimers. Industry sources indicate that there
are no hazardous wastes destined for land disposal from the production of this battery.
The typical zinc-silver oxide plant summarized in Table 19 produces 59,100 kg
of cells annually. Wastes from the typrcal plant include mercury in the amount of
0.00109 kg per 1000 kg of product or 0.064 kg per year, zinc at 0.0187 kg per 1000
kg of product cr 1.105 kg per year, and silver oxide at 0.0047 kg per 1000 kg of
product or 0.28 kg per year. The waste stream of the typical plant contains 591 kg
of batteries per year.
The typical plant was derived from the data supplied by one plant representing
14% of U.S. production of zinc-silver oxide cells. The waste factors were computed
from the quantities of wastes supplied by the plant. A rejection rate of 1% was esti-
mated to determine the waste stream of the typical plant.
-75 -
-------
I
Z/AJC
TM/ PL4T£0 STEEL
72V
i
400ED
RgMr* 18. Mafor OperoKont in Zinc-Silver Oxfd*
Dry Cell Manufacture
-76-
-------
Table 19. Zinc-Silver Oxide Dry Cell Typical Plant
A. Annual Production
= 59,100 kg per year
B. Waste Characterization
1 . Mercury
2. Zinc
3. Silver Oxide
0.00109 kg per 1000 kg batteries
0.064 kg per year
0.0187 kg per 1000 kg batteries
1.105 kg per year
0.0047 Jcg per 1000 kg batteries
0.28 kg per year
C. Waste Stream
= 591 kg batteries
D. Typical Location
= Entire United States
E. Typical Age
= 1-5 years
F. Number of Employees = 100-250
-77-
-------
5.3.7 Leod Reserve Cell
The leod-acid reserve cell is a limited production item designed solely for
military use. There are currently only two producers in the U.S., and the production
of this cell varies widely with military requirements. The average annual production
of these batteries over the last ten years has been approximately 113,500 kg per
year. (19)
The battery is produced in the following way: A steel shim stock (0.076 mm)
is plated with a thin coating of nickel on both sides, and the plated sheet is then
rinsed and plated on both sides with about 0.025 mm of lead and rinsed again. One
side of the lead plated sheet is then anodized to lead oxide. The sheet is stamped
and the cell formed over a mandrel. A glass ampule containing fluoboric acid is
inserted, and the cell sealed with a vinyl or other plastic covering. A simplified
process flow chart for the production of this battery is shown in Rgure 19.
The potentially hazardous wastes from the production of lead-acid reserve eel Is
come from quality control rejected batteries, scrap metals, and possibly from future
wastewarer sludges from wastewater treatment for nickel and lead in the plant effluent.
At the present time, one plant has a wastevwatee.treatment system in the planning stages,
but now the effluent goes to a municipal sewage system. The wastes from rejected
batteries and scrap consists of 182 kg of lead and 104 kg of nickel per 1000 kg of pro-
duct. A typical plant characterization is given in Table 20.
The wastes from the typical plant include lead and nickel metal from production
scrap and rejected batteries, and wastewater treatment sludges containing lead and
nickel compounds, probably as the hydroxides. All of these metals and compounds
must be considered potentially hazardous (to differing degrees when destined for land
disposal) due to the possibility of leaching from a landfill into the water table. The
degree of hazardousness and related properties of these materials are discussed in
Appendix A.
The typical plant was based upon data supplied by one plant producing over
90% of the U.S. production of lead-acid reserve cells. The waste factors for rejected
cells and production scrap were calculated from data supplied by this plant. The waste-
water treatment sludges were estimated by the contractor based upon the ratio of scrap
rates in the plant and the nature of the sludges obtained from wastewater treatment of
electroplating operations.
5.3.8 Low Temperature Carbon-Zinc Dry Cell
The production of the low temperature dry cell begins by shaping a container
from a zinc alloy sheet. A separator of paper board coated with a paste containing
mercuric chloride is then inserted into the container. The separator is followed by a
-78 -
-------
THM/ STEEL
SHEET
CLEANERS
I
AMO CLEAN
WATER*
UiCKZL PLATIUG-
&ATH
WATER-
LEAD PLATIUG
BATH
I
WATER
I
MGKEL
PLATE
LEAD PLATE
i
AMODIZER
LEAP
W4TER
i
M4TER
RIMSE
HffSTE VMTER
AFFLUENT
TO SEWER
STAMP CSU.3
&&M SHEET
i
FORM CELLS
GLASS
1
IMSERT ACi£>
WUYL PLAST/C
i
SEAL
Afi&TEST
SCRAP
\
REJECT
CELLS
PRODUCT
taz
to* u
Rgur* 19. Simplified Diogrom of Major Op«rottons in
Uad Acid Itaerv* Cell Monufocture
-79-
-------
Table 20. Lead-Fluoboric Acid Reserve Cell Typical Plant
A. Annual Production = 45,400 kg of batteries
B. Waste Characterization
1. Lead = 182 kg per 1000 batteries
= 8,263 kg per year in scrap and
batteries
2. Nickel = 104 kg per 1000 kg of batteries
= 4,722 kg per year in scrap and
batteries
C. Waste Stream
1. Rejected scrap = 14,982 kg per year
and batteries
2. Wastewater = 130 kg per year (dry basis)
treatment sludges = 371 kg per year (35% solids basis)
containing lead
and nickel (est.)
D. Typical Location = Eastern United States
E. Typical Age = Approximately 30 years
-------
depolarizer of manganese dioxide and carbon black and an electrolyte of methylamine
hydrochloride, calcium chloride and lithium chloride. A carbon rod current collector
is inserted into the container and is held by a paperboard support washer. The cell
undergoes a quality control inspection before it is sealed, the top and botton covers
of tin plated steel are formed and attached to the cell. An outer case of steel or
paper is decorated, formed, and attached to the cell, and an electrical testing step
takes place before the product is packaged for shipment.
This specialty battery is a limited production item which is produced in an
identical fashion to the standard carbon-zinc dry cell with the substitution of non-
freezing electrolytes in place of the zinc and ammonium chloride. The wastes are
in the form of rejected batteries from the test and package step of the process diagram
in Rgure 20. The wastes contained in the battery refects are 0.0073 kg mercury,
3.81 kg zinc, 6.15 kg manganese dioxide, 0.001 kg barium chremote, 0.00027 kg
cadmium and 0.00031 lead per 1000 kg production.
The waste mercury, zinc, barium chremote, cadmium and lead are considered
potentially hazardous to varying degrees when destined for land disposal. The hazard-
ousness of these wastes and related properties are contained in Appendix A.
A typical plant could not be constructed for this battery due to its limited pro-
duction and military applications. The wastes are included in the figures for the
carbon-zinc dry cell.
5.3.9 Zinc-Silver Chloride Cell
The zinc-silver chloride cell is included here only for the sake of completeness
as industry sources have indicated that it is no longer being produced.
The fabrication of zinc-silver chloride cells began by shaping a container
from a zinc alloy sheet. A separator of paperboard coated with a paste containing
mercuric chloride was then inserted into the container. The separator was followed
by a depolarizer of a silver chloride paste and an electrolyte of ammonium chloride
and zinc chloride. A carbon rod current collector was inserted into the container
and held by a paperboard support washer. The cell underwent a quality control in-
spection before it was sealed with an asphalt compound. Top and bottom covers of
tin plated steel were formed and an outer case of paper was decorated, formed, and
fitted to the container. An electrical testing step took place before the product was
packaged for shipment.
-81 -
-------
FHP&t B0A/9D
f—~\&fr£D WITH
(METHYLAMIUl \ELBCmoLYTE
HY&&tHL0/*IDE,
DRAW
STAMP
1
1
UOWTAIUEH
I
I
SUPPORT
I
I ~~-~r I
I y5C«>* C.W < I
flLASTfC SEAUH6 CtMPOUUD—*• ^»^
I
l^^g |
&HMCD
I
ATTACHE?
SHEET-
STCCL
I
CAST
ATTACHED
I
73EST4W? PACK
IOOO
PRODUCT
KEJECT
CELLS
0.00729 H9
3.8)2
Rgura 20. Simplified Diagram of Major Operations In Low
T«mp«ratur» Carbon-Zinc C«M Monofactur*
-------
The zinc-silver chloride cell was a specialty battery which was produced in a
fashion similar to that of the carbon-zinc dry cell. This latter cell contained a zinc
container anode, a paste type electrolyte consisting of zinc and ammonium chloride,
and a cathode of carbon rod. The depolarizer was composed of a silver chloride paste.
A process flow diagram is given in Figure 21.
5.3.10 Magnesium-Silver and Copper Chloride Cells
Manufacture of the magnesium-silver chloride cell begins with the electrolytic
coating of silver foil wirh a silver chloride solution forming the cathode. A magnesium
foil serves as the anode. Leads are welded on the electrodes and dry absorbent paper
is inserted between them. Two configurations of the cell are generally manufactured:
a flat cell designed to deliver maxium voltage with limited capacity, and a cylin-
drical cell for high capacity with low voltage output. Flat cells are formed by stacking
electrode assemblies and sealing the cell in a stainless steel case with a dessi cant. The
cylindrical ceils are formed by winding the electrode assembly spirally and sealing in
a stainless steel case with a dessicant. Both types of cell are then ready for packing
and shipping.
The manufacture of the magnesium copper chloride cell is similar except for the
substitution of copper foil and copper chloride in the cathode.
The magnesium silver chloride cell generally yields better performance than the
copper chloride cell, but its cost is also higher.
The simplified process flow diagrams for the fabrication of these cells tff9 shown
in Figures 22 and 23.
The wastes from the production of these batteries consist of rejected and scrap
batteries containing silver chloride and copper chloride. Industry sources have indi-
cated that little (if any) of this scrap goes to land disposal.
5.3.11 Thermal Cell Primary Battery
This battery is a very specialized and limited production type cell. It is pro-
duced exclusively for military applications by four companies in the U.S. These cells
are characterized by producing a high current discharge for a short period of time by
operating at an elevated temperature. The elevated temperature is generated by a
pyrotechnic device within the battery, which n»elts_gjaiL«iectrolyte and produces a
-83-
-------
TIAJ
nun
STBfL
0&0e-
COATED WTTft
J&CMG0
I
I
1
1
1
I
ZJNC
±
•HEJ£&r£l>
^*- ts&t-f \
ATTMCH&
I
^ttleftrr
^
Rgur* 2). Siopllffed Diagram of Major Operations in
Momjfoctur*
-84-
-------
" ' t -""1" T
•.—i—
C£LLS
I
V'
_£
:
^-MbU.';-. .
Rgure 22. Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Magnesium-
Silver Chloride Reserve Dry Cell Manufacture
-85-
-------
Rgure 23. Simplified Diagram of Major Operations in Magnesium-
Copper Chloride Reserve Dry Battery Manufacture
-86-
-------
current for the period of time the electrolyte remains molten. The electrolyte contains
lithium chloride, potassium chloride, and a small amount of calcium chromate. The
anode materials are either vanadium, calcium,or tungsten oxide. The cathode is
usually nickel and the battery insulators are often asbestos. There are two types of
pyrotechnic devices used inside the battery. The first type is a zirconium metal-based
system containing a barium chromate oxidizer and the second is an iron metal-based
system with a potassium perchlorate oxidizer and calcium chromate. The chromates
are estimated to be 5 to 7% of the total battery weight. The disposal of spent batteries
is carried out by the military, and generally accomplished by breaking them up in a
hammer mill and allowing them to bum in open air. (19)
5.3.12 Nuclear Battery
This battery is an extremely specialized item produced only for the Defense
Department, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or the Atomic Energy
Commission. The quantity of production of this battery is classified as are the fabri-
cation procedures, but the amount of production is very limited. The nuclear material,
plutonium, is a hazardous waste product from the battery. The disposal of the waste
product is carefully controlled by the Atomic Energy Commission.
5.3.13 Lithium Primary Cell
The lithium cell has been described as the primary battery of the future, for it
has several advantages over existing primary batteries. These advantages include
higher voltage, longer shelf life, low temperature performance, high capacityyand
greater power densities. These batteries are still in the development stage by a num-
ber of companies in the U.S., but one company is currently producing this battery
commercially in limited quantities.
In general, these batteries contain lithium metal as the anode (usually in the
form of a mesh screen) and graphite, fluorinated graphite, vanadium pentoxide, or
sulfur dioxide as the cathode. The electrolytes are primarily of the non-aqueous
type — due to the fact that lithium reacts vigorously with water to generate hydrogen,
gas,and heat. The electrolytes are usually organic or inorganic liquids containing
no water, but containing dissolved salts. The electrolytes which have been used
include — methyl formate, propylene carbonate/and thionyl chloride. The salts used
in the electrolyte include — lithium chloride, lithium per chlorate/and phosphorous
oxychlorate. (20).
-87-
-------
Although this battery is only ?n limited production at the present time, there
are a number of possible environmental and safety problems concerning disposal of
scrap cells. The lithium metal is capable of reacting quite vigorously with moisture
or oxidizing agents creating a possible fire or explosion hazard. Many of the elec-
trolytes and cathode depolarizers contain potentially hazardous materials. There is
also the danger of igniting the lithium metal to produce an extremely hot flame if
the scrap cells were incinerated. Due to the proprietary nature of these batteries,
the types and quantities of hazardous wastes can not be projected in any meaningful
way at the present time.
5.4 Summary of Waste Streams Containing Potentially Hazardous Constituents
In this section are summarized the waste streams containing potentially haz-
ardous materials resulting from the manufacture of storage and primary batteries
destined for land disposal. These wastes streams will be presented under the separate
categories of the industries.
5.4.1 SIC 3691, Storage Batteries Waste Streams Summary
y
5.4.1.1 bead-Acid Battery
The wastes from lead-acid battery production include the following:
(a) Wastes produced from the manufacture of grid materials. These will include
dusts, dross,and rejects of the raw materials and alloys used. This waste
amounts to 30 kg per 1000 kg of product comprised of lead and lead alloys.
(b) Wastes produced from the cathode and anode paste preparations. This waste
amounts to about 2 kg per 1000 kg of product as lead and lead oxide paste.
(c) Wastes produced from clean-up of the pasting area. This amounts to 5 kg per
1000 kg of product in the form of lead oxide and lead powders suspended in a
water effluent of about 750 kg of water.
(d) Wastes produced from reject plates in the curing cycle. These wastes generally
consist of 10 kg of lead monoxide and 20 kg of lead per 1000 kg of product.
(e) Wastes produced from reject assembled elements. These rejects consist of 10 kg
of lead monoxide and 20 kg of lead per 1000 kg of product.
(f) Wastewater solutions. These are water-borne raw wastes comprised of sulfuric
acid (typically 2 to 4%) in water containing suspended and dissolved lead.
The sources of lead containing wastewater include the pasting area, the dry
-------
and wet charge forming areas, and Hie assembled battery washing area. Also,
in cases where a battery breaker is located on site with the battery plant,
there will be an additional wastewater stream. Atypical plant producing 20%
wet charge and 80% dry charge batteries would have a lead raw waste factor of
0.331 kg of lead (suspended and dissolved) per 1000 kg of product.
(g) Sludges recovered from treatment of wastewater streams. These wastes consist
of lead hydroxide and lead sulfate at 0.541 kg per 1000 kg of product (80%
solids basis) for those plants using sodium hydroxide neutralization. The com-
position of the sl'jdge typically will include lead sulfate (0.293 kg per 1000
kg), lead hydroxide (0.140 kg per 1000 kg) with a water content ranging from
20 to 65%. For those plants using lime neutralization, a calcium sulfate sludge
is produced of 735 kg (dry basis) per 1000 kg of product. The composition of the
sludge typically will include calcium sulfate (2101 kg per 1000 kg at 35% solids
basis), lead hydroxide (0.140 kg per 1000 kg), lead sulfate (0.293 kg per 1000
kg) with a lead content of approximately 150 mg per liter.
information received from a number of large and small manufacturers of lead-
acid batteries has indicated that all the scrap wastes from the process; i.e., grids,
paste mix, refect plates, etc., are recovered and sent to a lead smelter for processing
as secondary lead and reuse. Hence, with regard to the raw wastes mentioned above,
a[[of the solids, dusts,and pastes from (a), (b), (d), (e), and some of suspended lead
in (c), (f), and (g) are recovered and recycled to a lead smelter in the course of normal
operation.
The amount of lead solid wastes produced from treatment of waterwaste streams
is difficult to assess at the present time due to the lack of EPA guidelines or pretreat-
ment standards for waterwaste from a lead acid plant. In the absence of guidelines
for this industry, a modeled treatment system was developed based upon current prac-
tices in the industry. The results of this modeled treatment yield quantities of lead in
the treated effluent and the amount of lead removed which can be assumed would be
the maximum amount to be destined for land disposal.
Thus, the waste stream destined for land disposal for the typical lead-acid plant
is a wastewater treatment sludge which can be produced either by caustic soda neu-
tralization or by lime neutralization. If caustic neutralization is used, the sludge
will come from the filter unit In the wastewater treatment operation. If the waste-
water treatment uses flocculating agents to settle suspended solids, these will be
present in the sludge and may cause the relcaim of the sludge by a lead smelter to
be impossible. The caustic treatment sludge generally contains 20 to 65% by weight
of water. The sludge from lime neutralization generally comes from the claifier
underflow and is a much larger volume than the caustic neutralization sludge. It is
estimated that 20% of the plants currently use or will use lime treatment in the next
several years.
-8,9-
-------
The lead-acid battery hazardous waste stream destined for land disposal is
given below:
(a) Wastewater Treatment Sludge Using Caustic Soda Neutralization:
Pb Raw Waste Factor = 0.331 kg per 1000 kg batteries
Pb Effluent Factor = 0.01 leg per 1000 kg batteries
Pb Sludge Factor = 0.324 kg per 1000 kg batteries
Estimated Composition of Sludge:
PbSO4 = 0.293 kg per 1000 kg batteries
Pb(OH)8 = 0.140 kg per 1000 kg batteries
Water = 20 to 65%
Total Sludge (80% solids basis) = 0.541 kg per 1000 kg batteries
= 4456 kg per year for the typical plant
OR
(b) Wastewater Treatment Sludge Using Lime Neutralization:
CaSCU Factor = 735 kg (dry basis) per 1000 kg batteries
= 2101 kg sludge basis (35% solids) per
1000 kg batteries
Sludge Composition: = 17,298 metric tons per year for the typical plant
CaSO4 = 2101 kg per 1000 batteries (35% solids
basts)
Pb(OH)s = 0.140 kg per 1000 kg batteries
PbSO4 = 0.293 kg per 1000 kg batteries
Pb =150 mgper liter (in total sludge)
The composition and quantities of sludges summarized above are based upon the lead-
acid typical plant.
Tobies 21, 22t and 23 show the quantities of hazardous wastes destined for land
disposal from the lead-acid storage battery industry for three time periods—1972, 1977,
and 1983. Each table shows the quantity of active hazardous material, on a water-free
basis, in the waste stream together with the total amount of the waste stream based upon
the waste factors derived in a previous section.
-90 -
-------
Tabie 22 . 369", , Amount of ..ead-Acic Battery Hazardous Wastes Destined f
Pb (Or/ Sasis) Caustic Pb (Dry Basis)
; in Ccustic , Treatment i in Lime
| Treatment Siudge Treatment
i Sludges (Wet Basis) Sludges
REGION/STATE kg kg kg
IV Alabama i
X Alaska '
IX Arizona
VI Arkansas
IX California
VIII Colorado
I Connecticut
III Delaware
IV Florida
IV Georgia
IX Hawaii
X Idaho
V Illinois
V Indiana
VII Iowa
VII Kansas
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana
I Maine
III Marvlar.d
I Massachusetts
V Michioan
V Minnesota
IV Mississippi
VII Missouri
VIII Montana
VII Nebraska
IX Nevada"
I New Hamoshire
II New Jersev
VI New Mexico
II New York
IV North Carolina
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma
X Oregon
III Pennsvlvania
I Rhode Island
IV South Carolina
VIII South Dakota
IV Tennessee
VI Texas
VIII Utah
I Verr.or.t
III Virginia
X WAshingtcn
III West Virginia
V Wisconsin
VIII Wvoming
TOTAL
Region I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
0 (j
0 0
0 0
0
8,462
0
620
5,500
690
0
0
0
2,300
3, COO
0
0
u
VI
u
0
24,177
0
1,771
0
0
o
o
178
0
13 1
15,714 60.1
1.971 15.3
0
0
0
8.000
8,571
0
0
0
0
u
0 • i 0
0 ! 0
1,550
660
0
0
0
0
0
J
3,250
4,429
1,886
0
0
0
0
or Land Disposal (1
LMTW
Treatment
Sludge |
(Wet Basis)
kkg
0
0
o
o
1,245
0
91.3
420
107
0 j 0
0
0 i
147
972)
0
0 1
1.030
215 i 1,500
0 0 i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 v.i
0 0 |
0 0
33.1 ] 199
14.2
0
0
0
0
0
0 u
9.286
0 0
i56 44O
0
0
800
0
\s
C
u
0
0
0
2,286
0
0
0
0
0
0 j 0
r-.
0
0
0
0
16,257
0
0
0
0 0
C 0
702
27006
C 0
31,780 j 90,800
620
1,771
3,406 y,/32
5,500 j 15,714
690 1 , 971
9 512 27.178
3.590 i 10.257
0
0
8,462
0
0
24,177
0 0
174
0
U
0
0
20.1
0
60.5
270
0
0
0
0
94.4
0
0
U
0
0
14.8
0
1,30V. 6
13.1
174
330.1
15.3
444.2
94.4
0
0
178
60.5
IU2
o
0
0
0
•~o~
0
1.218
0
u
0
0
141
0
423
l,Ubo
U i [
0
0
0
660
0
U
0
0
0
104
0
9,126.3
91.3
1,218
2,306
10/
3.076
660
0
U
1,245
423
-91 -
-------
Table 22. 3691 Amount of Ucsd-Acid Bcr
?b (Dry Basis)
. ii*. Caustic
Treatment
i S.ua^es
REGION/STATE l«
IV Alabama'
X Alaska
IX Arizona
VI Arkansas
IX California
VIH Coloraao
I Connecticut
III Delaware
IV Florida
IV Georgia
IX Hawaii
X Idaho
V Illinois
V Indiana
VII Iowa
VII Kansas
3,482
172
171
559
48,350
452
3,103
5,713
7,281
1 4,832
0
0
21,535 ]
31,362
1,765
11,247" 1
IV Kentucky 10,200
VI Louisiana
I Maine
III Maryland
I Massachusetts
V Michigan
V Minnesota
IV Mississippi
VTI Missouri
VIII Montana
VII Nebraska
TV Jfcvzdci
I1 New Hampshire
II New Jersey
VI New Mexico
II New York
IV North Carolina
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma
731
0
172
2,y/l
15,742
6,737
3.317
4,220
0 1
1.207
V
0
20,687
\n
1,248
4,647
0
3.834
2,930
X Oregon j 8,221
III Pennsylvania
1 Rhode Island
IV South Carolina
VIII Sout.i Dakota
IV Tennessee
VI Texas
VIII Utah
t Vermont
ill Virginia
X WAshinqton
III West Virginia
V Wisconsin
VIII Wyoming
l^PAL
Region I
II
III
TV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
42.733
559
9.654
0
6,206
29, 9U
0
5,569
5,516
ii/
0
7.041
0
345.069
12.502
2V,93£
54,134
3frO \ 7
86.251
1U,306
18,43$
452
48,521
b,viu
tery Hazardous
Caustic
Treatment
Sludge
(Wet Basis)
kg.
0
0
0
u
16,923
0
1,241
5,713
1,456
0
0
0
13,998
20^85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,148
1,347
0
0
0
0
c
0
16,550
o
187
0
0
1,912
0
5,755
25.640
0
0
0
0
8,974
0
5,869
U
U
0
1.408
i 0
130,506
7,110
16.737
31,303
1,456
42.198
8,V/4
0
0
16,923
3,/OO
Wastes Destined
Pb (Dry Basis)
in Lime (
Treatment
Sludges
kg
0
0
0
u
16,923
0
1,241
5,713
1,456
0
U
0
13,998
20,385
0
0
for Land Dispose! ;
Lime
Treatment
Sludge
(Wet Basis)
kkg
0 1
0
0
u
22,152
J
1,625
7,479
1,906
0
U
0
18,323
26,685
0
0
1977)
o i u ;
0
0
0
u
3,148
1^347
0
u
u
0
0
0
0
3,533
1,816
0
u
0
0 0
\j
0
16,55O
0
187
0
0
1,912
0
5,755
25,640
0
0
0
0
8,974
0
5,869
0
U
0
1.408
0
130,506
7,110
16.737
31,353
1,456
42.l9§
b'V/4
0
0
i6,y/3
5.755
u I
0
21,664
0
245
0
0
2,509
0
7,333 1
33,563
0
0
0
0
11,74U
0
u
u
u
0
1.844
\)
162,625
1,625
2i,yoy
41,042
1,90£
54,710
M,/4«
0
0
22, ^52
7,533
-92-
-------
Table 23. 3691 Amount of Lead-Acid Battery Hazaedous V
Pb(Dry Basis) Caustic f
j in Causric Treatment
Treatment ! Sludge
i Sludges (Wet Basis)
REGION/STATE .kg kg
IV Alabama
X Alaska
IX Arizona
VI Arkansas
IX California
4,444
220
219
713
61,708
VIII Colorado i 577
I Connecticut
III Delaware
IV Florida
IV Georgia
3T96Q
7.291
9,293
18,930
IX Hawaii i
X Idaho
V Illinois
[
27,485
V Indiana . 40.026
VII Iowa ? o«3
VII Kansas 14,354
tv KentucKy j 13,018
VI Louisiana
I Maine
III Maryland
I Massachusetts
V Michigan
V Minnesota
IV Mississippi
VII Missouri
VIII Montana
Vil Nebraska
XX fr«C2VC&lACl
21.599
1,583
7.291
1.858
17,865
26.016
933
219
3,792
20,091
8^598
4.233
5,386
1.540
I New Hampshire j
II New Jersev i 26,402
VI New Max i co 219
II New York { 1 593
IV North Carolina 57930
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma
X Oregon
III Pennsylvania
I Rhode Island
IV Sout.i Carolina
VIII South Dakota
IV Tennessee
VI Texas
VIII Utah
i Vermont
III Virginia
X WAshington
III Wast Virginia
V Wisconsin
VIII VJvoraing
TOTAL
Region I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
4,893
3.740
10.492
55.539
713
12,321
7,921
38r179
7,490
7,040
660
8f$86
441,401
15,955
27^995
70.089
76,090
110.079
43,784
23.533
577
A1 097
H',372
4,018
1,719
21,122
239
2,440
7.345
32.723
/astes Destine
HD (Dry Basis)
in Lime
Treatment
Sludges
kg
16.923
1,241
5r713
1.456
d for Land Disposal (1
Lime
Treatment
Sludge
(Wet Basis)
kkg
983)
1
i
28.272
2^074
9,545
2.433
I
13.998 23.385
20,385 34.058
3,148 4,509
1,347 2,318
i
16^,550
187
1.912
5.755
25.640
i
11,453
7.490
1,797
>6o,558
9,073
21,361
40.014
l,lOb
53,855
IT, 453
21.599
7,345
8f974
5,869
1,408
136,564
7,110
16,737
31,353
1,456
43-J$
8,974
16.923
5.755
27,649
313
3.202
9.614
42.835
14r994
2,^3
257.554
2,074
27, V62
52,380
2,433
69.825
14, W4
28,272
9lol4
-93-
-------
The projections of hazardous wastes for 1977 and 1983 Include the expected
Impact of EPA wastewater pre-treatment standards for large plants discharging to
municipal sewage systems. For example, in the 1977 projection (Table 22), the
first column represents the maximum dry lead metal which would be removed due to
pre-treatment. The figures in the second column represent the Contractor's estimate
of the amount of lead metal which will be destined for land disposal contained in the
lead metal sludges and the calcium sulfate sludges shown in the next two columns.
This data was based upon existing and future wastewater regulations in water quality
sensitive states. The units for the active hazardous compound lead, and the lead
sludges are kilograms (kg), while the units fijr the calcium sulfate sludge is metric
tons (kkg).
5.4.1.2 Nickel Cadmium Battery
The potentially hazardous wastes from the production of this type of battery
include the following:
(a) Wastewaters containing cadmium and nickel salts together with potassium
hydroxide. The source of this waste is the washing steps. This waste is esti-
mated to amount to 3.24 kg nickel nitrate and 7.96 kg cadmium nitrate per
1000 kg of product in the untreated wastewater;
(b) Solid wastes recovered from treatment of wastewaters. These are estimated to
contain cadmium hydroxide (5.339 kg) and nickel hydroxide (1.660 kg) per
1000 kg of product; and
(c) Rejected batteries from the test and package step. They contain 1.47 kg nickel
and 5.20 kg cadmium per 1000 kg of product.
Industry sources have indicated that the two waste streams shown above are not
in most cases destined for land disposal. In none of the plants surveyed were both~oF
these waste streams going to land disposal. Of the nine plants currently producing
nickel cadmium batteries, three plants have no wastewater treatment sludge due to
their production processes, two plants are using on-site Impoundment areas and the
remaining plants are selling the sludges to scrap reclaimers. Only two plants were
found which use land disposal of scrap batteries, the others sell the scrap to reprocessors.
Tables 24,, 25, and 26 show the quantities of hazardous wastes destined for land
disposal from the nickel cadmium storage battery industry for three time periods—1973,
1977, and 1983. Each table shows the quantity of active hazardous material on a
water-free basis in the waste stream together with the total amount of the waste stream
based upon the waste factors derived in a previous section, and knowledge of the
industry disposal practices.
-94-
-------
Table 24. 3691 Amount of Nickel Cocmlum Borte.y Hazardous Wastes, Destined for Land Disposal (1973)
Scrap Cells
Sludge
\ Nickel Cadmium
; Metai Metai
! (dry basis) (dry basis)
REGION/STATE ' kg. 1 kg
IV Alabama 0 i 0
X Alaska { 0
IX Arizona Q
VI Arkansas ! 0
IX California 0
VIII Colorado 0
I ' Connecticut 0
III Delaware 0
IV Florida Q
IV Georgia 0
IX Hawaii ! 0
X Idaho g
V Illinois 0
V Indiana i 0
VII Iowa 35
VII Kansas 0
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana
I Maine ;
III Maryland
0
0
0
0
I Massachusetts I 0
V Michigan 0
V Minnesota 0
IV Mississippi j 0
VII Missouri : o
VIII Montana i Q
VII Nebraska 0
-IX >T«"'?.da
I New Hamoshire
0
" 0
II New Jersey 0
Vl New Mexico 0
II New York 0
IV North Carolina 0
VIII Nortn Dakota 0
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma
X Oregon
1, lb/
0
0
III Pennsylvania j 0
I Rhode Island j 0
IV South Carolina
VIII South Dakota
iV Tennessee
VI Texas
VIII Utah
0
0
0
0
0
I Vermont U
III Virginia 0
X WAshington
III West Virginia
V Wi scons in
VIII VJvoming
TOTAL
Region I
.Li
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
0
0
0
\J
1,222
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
125
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.905
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2. OX
0
0 ; 0,
Total
Scrap waste
stream
kg
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
220
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
w
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,397
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.617
0
0
000
6
1,187
0
35
0
b
0
0
1,905
' 0
125
0
I °
0
0
4,397
U
220
0
0
0
Cadmium
Hydroxide
Sludge (dry
basis) kg
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nickel
Hydroxide
Sludge (dry
basis) kg
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ! 0
8,279
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
0
0
0
0
8.279
0
0
0
8,279
0
U
0
0
0
0
2,574
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totd
Sludge
Woste
Stream kg
0
0
r 0
0
r 0
0
0
0
31.009
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*/
0
o |-o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
0
0
0
0
2,574
0
U
0
2.574
U
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
0
0
0
6
o :
0
0
0
0
0
U
U
0
0
0
0
31,009
0
U
0
31,009
U
U
0
U
U
U
-95-
-------
TaoJe 25.. Amount ->f Nickel Cadmium Battery Hazardous Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1977)
REGION/STATE
IV Alabama
X Alaska
IX Arizona
VI Arkansas
IX California
VIII Colorado
I Connecticut
III Delaware
IV Florida
IV Georgia
IX Hawaii
X Idaho
V Illinois
V Indiana
VII Iowa
VII Kansas
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana
I Maine
111 Maryland
I Massachusetts
V Michigan
V Minnesota
IV Mississippi
Vil Missouri
VIII Montana
VII Nebraska
A4l MGVallCl
I New Hamoshire
II New Jersey
VI New Mexico
II New York
IV North Carolina
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma
X Oregon
III Pennsylvania
I Rhode Island
iV South Carolina
Vtll South Dakota
rtf Tennessee
VI Texas
VIII Utah
I Vermont
III Virginia
X WAshincton
III West Virginia
V Wisconsin
VIII VJyoming
TOTAL
Region I
11
iii
IV
V
VI
VII
vin
IX
x
Nickel
M«tol
(dry oasis)
KO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
Ij424
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
i,*»4
0
0
u
0
1.424
0
0
0
0
0
Scrap Cells
Cadmium
Merai
(dry basis)
kg
0
0
n
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,286
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
u
0
0
u
2.286
0
0
0
0
' 2,286
0
0
9
6
0
Total
Scrap waste
stream
kg
0
0
n
0
0
n
r>
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(J
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,276
0
0
0
o
p
0
o
9
0
0
0
111 U
0
0
U
5.276
0
0
0
0
5,276
0
0
0
0
0
Cadmium
Hydroxide
Sludge (dry
bosh) kg
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
9.935
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
Q
0
0
0 1
0
0
t)
u
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,756
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
u
11,891
0
0
0
a,«3
l,«5o
0
0
0
6
0
Sludge
Nickel
Hydroxide
Sludge (dry
basis) kg
0
0
n
0
0
n
0
0
3.089
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
60b
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
1 u
0
0
u
3,697
0
0
0
3,069
60S
u
0
0
0
0
Total
Sludge
Wast*
Stream kg
0
0
ft.
0
0
,•)
0
0
37,211
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
0
0
0
r j
0
0
u
0
0
0
r 0
0
0
7,326
0
i 0
0
o :
0
0
0
0
0
u
u
0
0
6
0
44,537
0
o ™ ••
U
37,211
7,326
U
U
0
0
(J •
-96-
-------
Tcbie 26. 3691 Amount of Nickei Cacmium 3artery Hazardous Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (T923)
Scrap Cells
Sludge
JNicfcel
! Metal
(dry basis)
REGION/STATE kg
IV Alabama-
X Alaska
0
0
IX Arizona 0
VI Arkansas
"X California
VIII Colorado
I Connecticut
0
0
0
0
III Delaware j 0
IV Floric.a
IV Georgia
0
0
Cadmium
Meral
(dry basis)
kg
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IX Hawaii : 0 0
X Idaho 0
V Illinois i 0
V Indiana 0
VII Iowa 0
VII Kansas } 0
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana
I Maine
III Maryland
I Massachusetts
V Michigan
V Minnesota
TV Mississippi
VII Missouri
VIII Montana
VII Nebraska
0 j
0
0
d
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
TX N*»var*a ^
i New Kamoshire 0
II New Jersey 0
VI New Mexico
II New York
0
0
IV North Carolina i 0
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma
X Oregon
0
Total
Scrap waste
stream
kg
0
0
0
0
0
0
d
0
0
0
0
0 ! 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
III Pennsylvania i 0
I Rhode Island 0
IV South Carolina j 0
Vlll South Dakota
IV Tennessee
VI Texas
VIII Utah
I Vermont
III Virginia
X WAshington
III West Virginia
V Wisconsin
VIII Wvoming
TOTAL
Region I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
n
0
0
d
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1 0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
Cadmium
Hydroxide
Sludge (dry
basis) kg
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11, ViK
0
0
Nickel
Hydroxide
Sludge (dry
basis) kg
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
3,707
0
0
Total
Sludge
Waste
Stream kg
0
0
'J
0
0
0
U
0
44,653
0
0
600
o | 0 u
0
0
0
u
0
0
u u
0
0
o ; o
0
0
0
0
0 u
0 i 0
0 ! U
u i 0
0 j 0 ' 'J
o o ; o
0 ! 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 j 0
0 0
0
0
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11.922
0
0
0
11,922
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 i
f\
6
0
0
0
0
0 j
0 i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.707
0
0
0
3,707
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
p
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44.653
0
0
0
44,653
0
0
0
0
0
0
-97-
-------
5.4.} .3 Other Storoge Botteries
5.4.1.3.1 Codmium-Silver Oxide Bottery
The wastes involved in the production of this type of battery include the
following:
(a) Wastewaters containing cadmium and silver salts together with potassium
hydroxide, the source of this waste is the washing of the plates and the waste
amounts to 3.01 kg of silver nitrate and 7.96 kg of cadmium nitrate per 1000
kg of batteries produced (dry basis);
(b) Sludge wastes recovered from treatment of the wastewaters, the sludges typi-
cally contain 5.34 kg of cadmium hydroxide and 2.24 kg of silver oxide (dry
basis) per 1000 kg of batteries produced; and
(c) Rejected batteries from quality control testing, these contain approximately
2.70 kg silver per 1000 kg batteries and 5.20 kg cadmium per 1000 kg
batteries.
The actual amounts of hazardous waste destined for land disposal from the pro-
duction of this cell could not be determined from industry sources, but the reclama-
tion of valuable materials such as silver and cadmium would be an economic necessity
for the manufacturers of this battery type. On the basis of economic considerations
and, information from industry sources, there are no potentially hazardous wastes
destined for land disposal from this process.
5.4.1.3.2 Zinc-Silver Oxide Secondary Battery
This battery is a specialty item produced primarily for military uses in limited
production quantities.
The wastes from the production of this cell could not be determined from industry
sources, but there appear to be no hazardous water-borne wastes from this process,
only potassium hydroxide. The potentially hazardous waste products from refected cells
would be zinc, mercury,and silver. Since the scrap cells contain silver, they are sold
to scrap reclaimers for their silver content. On the basis of economic considerations
and information from industry sources, there are no potentially hazardous wastes destined
for land disposal from this process.
Tables 27, 28, and 29 show the quantities of hazardous wastes from the produc-
tion of cadmium-silver and zinc-silver cells categorized in the "other" storage bat-
teries industry for three time periods—1973, 1977, and 1983. Each table shows the
-98*
-------
Tacle 27. 3691 Amoumr of Other Storage Battery Hazardous Wastes* (1973)
Zinc Caamium
Metal J Metal
REGION/STATE ! kg. | kg
IV Alabama | i
X Alaska j
IX Arizona I
VI Arkansas
IX California 0.21 0
Sliver
Metal
kg '
Mercury
Metal
kg
|
1.2
0.0"l3
VIII Colorado i 1.7 i 0 7.1 U. IU
I Connecticut i I
III Delaware j
IV Florida 10 0 ! 0
IV Georaia ; ' *
IX Hawaii '•
X Idaho ' ;
V Illinois i
V Indiana ! i
VII Iowa !
VII Kansas ! !
IV Kentucky i t
VI Louisiana • *
I Maine • >
III Maryland > ' i
I Massachusetts ' ;
0
V Michigan ; ; ]
V Minnesota \ ;
IV Mississipoi • [
VII Missouri j 0.38 10.6
VIII Montana |
VII Nebraska !
30.8
W XT^ .,._ J — it j
I New Hamoshire
II New Jersev | !
VI New Mexico ' ;
0.02
II New York ! i \ |
IV North Carolina; 0.93 1 26
VIII North Dakota ; i
V Ohio :
VI Oklahoma 'L
X Oregon 0.22 i 0
III Pennsylvania
I Hhoae Island 8.3 1.2
IV South Carolina
VIII South Dakota j
IV Tennessee
75.5
1.2
0
0.05
0.012
0
VI Texas
VIII Utah
I Vermont
III Virginia ! i
X ivAshinqton i
III West Virginia !
V Wisconsin
VIII V7vo:r.ing 1
TOTAL 11. /4 37.8
i
Region I i 8.3 1.2
II i 0 0
III 0 0
IV • 0.93 26
V 00
VI 00
VII 0.38 10.6
115.8
0
0
0
73.5
0
0
"JO. 8
VIII ! 1.7 0 j 7.1
Ix i P-21 i Q 1-2
x i 6.22 1 o i.2
0.195
0
0
0
0.05
0
0
O.OZ
0.10
0-OJ3
0.012
Water Treatment
Sludges containing
silver, cadmium 67
mercury kg
o 1
U
Total Waste
Stream
kg
1.7
12. 1
i
466.1 ^ 1,;»Z j
j !
i !
1
1
1
j
j
161.2
395
0
0
1,022.3
0
0
0
861.1
0
0
161.2
0
0
U
!
461.5
i
t
1,130
1.8
vi.7 ;
2,951 .8
12.7
*~ U
0
2,462
U
0
461.5
IZ. T
1.7
1.8
•Not destined for land disposal (reclaimed). 99
-------
Table 2b. 3691 Amount of Other Storage Battery Hazardous Wastes* (1977)
1
REG ION /STATE
IV Alabama'
X Alaska
IX Arizona
VI Arkansas
IX California
VIII Colorado
I Connecticut
III Delaware
IV Florida
IV Georgia
IX Hawaii
X Idaho
V Illinois
V Indiana
VII Iowa
VII Kansas
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana
I Maine !
Ill Maryland
I Massachusetts i
V Michigan
V Minnesota
IV Mississippi
VII Missouri
VIII Montana
VII Nebraska
TZ Kevzdi
I Nev Hamo shire
II New Jersey
VI New Mexico
II New York
IV North Carolina
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma
X Oregon
ill Pennsvlvania
t Rhode Island
IV South Carolina
VIII South Dakota
iV Tennessee
VI Texas
Vtll Utah
I Vermont
III Virginia
X WAsninaton
llll West Virginia
V Wisconsin
V^T.11 Wyoming
TOTAL
Region I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Zinc j
Merji \
kg- ;
0.2"4
2.0
0
0.44
1.08"
0.26
9.6
ii.o2
9.6
0
0
1.08
0
0
0.44
2.0
0.24
0.26
Cadmium
Metal
kg
0
0
0
12.3
30.2
0
1.4
43.9
1.4
0
0
30.2
0
o
ii.3
o
0
0
Silver
Metd.
kg
1.4
rr
0
35.7
87.6
1.4
0
134.3
0
0
0
87.6
0
0
33.7
8.2
1.4
1.4
Mercury
Metal
kg
.
0.015
OTT2
0
0.02
0.06
0.02
0
0.235
0
U
0
0.06
0
0
O.OZ
0.12
0.015
O.OZ
Water Treatment
Sludge* confqinjng
silver and cadmium
0
540.7
i
I
i
187 1
438
0
0
1.185.7
0
U
0
998.7
0
0
187
0
0
U
Total Waste!
Stream
i
-------
Table 29. 3691 Amount of Other Storage Battery Hazardous Wastes* (1983)
REGION/STATE
IV Alabama
X Alaska
IX Arizona ,
VI Arkansas •
IvI California
VIII Colorado
I Connecticut
III Delawara !
IV Florida
IV Georgia >
IX Hawaii •<
X Idaho
V Illinois t
V Indiana
VII lov/a
VII Kansas '
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana '
I Maine
III Maryland }
I Massachusetts |
V Michigan
V Minnesota
TV Mississippi
VII Missouri
VIII Montana
VII Nebraska
IX Nevada
I New Hampshire
II New Jersey
VI New Mexico \
II New York
IV North Carolina
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma
X Oregon
III Pennsvlvania
I Rhode Island
XV South Carolina
VftI South Dakota
iV Tennessee
VI Texas
Vfll Utah
I Vermont
III Virginia
X WAshinqton
III West Virginia
V Wisconsin
VIII V?voning
TOTAL
Region I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Zinc
Metal
kg'
0.15
2,1
1
0
t
t
I
v,.-,w.
1. 13
0.27
10
14^23
10
0
0
1.13
0
0
0.46
2.1
0-25
0.27
Cadmium
Metal
kg
i
0
0
0
12. ti
Jl .i
0
1.$
45.8
1.5
0
0
31.5
0
0
12.8
0
0
0
Silver
Metal.
kg
1.4_,
36
0
37.3
91.4
1.45
0
140.15
0
0
0
91.4
0
0
37.3
8.6
1.4
1.4$
Mercury
Metal
kg
0.016
0.12
0
0.04
0.06
0.015
0
0.251
0
0
0
0.06
0
0
0.04
0.12
0.016
0.015
Water Treatment
Sludges containing |
silver and cadmium
Ea
0
o
564
1
i
i
i
i
195.1
478
0
0
1,237.1
0
0
0
1,042
o
0
195.1
0
0
0
Fotal Waste
Stream
kg
2.1
\4.6
i
1,61* i
556
1,167
'i.'i
ii.4 ;
3,371.3
15.4
0
0
1 ^,//y
0
0
SdB
14. o
2.1
2.2
r
1
*Not destined for land disposal (reclaimed).
101
-------
quantity of active hazardous material, on a water free basis, in the waste stream
together with the total amount of the waste stream based upon the waste factors
derived in a previous section. The contractor has estimated on the basis of the best
information available that these wastes are not destined for land disposal.
5.4.2 SIC 3692, Primary Batteries Waste Streams Summary
5.4.2.1 Carbon-Zinc Battery
The wastes from the production of carbon-zinc batteries consist of mercury,
zinc, zinc chloride, manganese dioxide, cadmlum/and lead. These wastes are con-
tained in rejected batteries. The amount of wastes from rejected batteries include
0.0073 kg mercury, 3.812 kg zinc, 0.248 kg zinc chloride, 6.147 kg manganese
dioxide, 0.00027 cadmium,and 0.00031 kg lead per 1000 kg of batteries produced.
Tables 30, 31, and 32 show the quantities of hazardous wastes destined for
land disposal from the carbon-zinc primary battery industry for three time periods—
1973, 1977, and 1983. Each table shows the quantity of active hazardous material,
on a water free basis, in the waste stream together with the total amount of the waste
stream based upon the waste factors derived in a previous section.
5.4.2.2 Alkaline-Manganese Battery
The hazardous wastes From the production of alkaline-manganese batteries con-
sist of zinc and mercury. The wastes associated with alkaline cell production Include
mercury at the rate of 0.076 kg per 1000 kg product; zinc at 1.622 kg per 1000 kg
product; and manganese dioxide at 2.744 kg per 1000 kg product. The total waste
stream consists of rejected batteries.
Tables 33, 34, and 35 show the quantities of hazardous wastes destined for land
disposal from the alkaline-manganese primary battery industry for three time periods—
1973, 1977, and 1983. Each table shows the quantity of active hazardous material,
on a water free basts, in the waste stream together with the total amount of Hie waste
stream based upon the waste factors derived in a previous section.
5.4.2.3 Mercury Ruben Battery
The wastes from the Ruben cell process are in the form of rejected batteries.
Greater than 95% of the rejected batteries are reclaimed, but some are sent to land-
fills. The wastes from rejected batteries are 1.61 kg mercuric oxide, 0.39 kg mercury
and 5.60 kg zinc per 1000 kg product. Wastes from the reclaim furnace consist of
unreacted residue which is typically deposited in a landfill. The residue is estimated
to contain 0.0001 kg mercury, 5.60 kg zinc and 2.40 kg of iron per 1000 kg of product.
-102-
-------
Table 30. 3692 Amount of Csrbcr.-ZInc Battery Hazardous Wastes Destined for Lona Disposal (1973)
Zinc Mercury
| Metal Metal
REGION/STATE 1 kg- kg
IV Aiabasia ! i
X Alaska
IX Arizona !
VI Arkansas |
IX California ! j
VIII Colorado ; !
I Connecticut 86.3 > 0.2
III Delaware ! I
2V Florida
IV Georgia , j
IX Hawaii ' '
X Ida no !
V Illinois ! 10,814 20.9
V Indiana !
VII Iowa 11,423| 21.8
VII Kansas (
IV Kentucky . ! 1
VI Louisiana i
I Maine
III Maryland j 1
I Massachusetts <
V Michigan i !
V Minnesota
IV Mississippi ; !
VII Missouri i
VIII Montana [
VII Nebraska 1
iX Nevada i !
I New HamDshire
II New Jersey 10,814 20.9
VI New Mexico
II New York \
IV1 North Carolina [114.440 79.3
VIII North Dakota j
V Ohio h 31. 279 251.5
VI Oklahoma
X Oregon j
III Pennsylvania ! o,6i>3 16.3
I Rhode Island ;
IV South Carolina 867. 1 1.8
VIII South Dakota |
IV Tennessee
VI Texa s
VIII Utah
I Vermont | 2,719 5.0
III Virginia i i
X Washington
III West Virginia j
V Wisconsin 74,547) 142.6
VIII V?yoming !
TOTAL £65,642[ 560.3
Region I 2,8061 5.2
II 10,6141 20.9
III ! 8,653! 16.3
IV |115,3C7! 81.1
V 216^640! 415.0
VI 0 o
VII 11.423i 21.8
VIII 0 | 0
IX 0|0
X 0 ! 0
Lead ,
Metal.
k9
0.01
0.9
0.9
0.9
• 9.1
10.4
0.5
!
0.1
1 0.2
i
i
5.9
28.9^
0.2
0.9
0.5
9.2
17.2
0
0.9
0
0
0
Cadmium
Metal
kg
o.oi !
(
0.9
0.9 !
i
r
V •
0.9
9.1
10.4
0.5
0.1
0.2
5.9
28.9
0.2
0.9
0.5
9.2
17.2
u
0.9
0
I 0
1 o
Zinc ,
Chloride
kg
i
t
4.5
i
i
703. / !
744.6 !
I
i
1
1
703.7
7,446
8,540
563.0
54.5
177.1
4,849
23.786
181.6
703.7
563.0
7,500
14,093
u
744.6
0
0
0
TokJ
Watte
Stream kg
227. U
i
28, 375
i
29,964
!
28,3/3
300,208
344, J86
22,700
2,270
7, 137
195,560
959,202
7,364
28.375
£i, 7UU
3D2,478
568,322
0
29, 964
0
U
o
i
-103-
-------
Table 31 . 3692 Amount of Carbon-Zinc Battery Hazardous Wajtes Destined for Land Disposal (W77)
REGION/STATE
IV Alabama
X Alaska
XX Arizona
VI Arkansas
TX, California
VTII Colorado
I Connecticut
III Delaware
IV Florida
IV Georgia
IX Hawaii
X Idaho
V Illinois
V Indiana
VII Iowa
VII Kansas
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana
I Maine
III Maryland
I Massachusetts
V Michigan
V Minnesota
XV Mississippi
VII Missouri
VIII Montana
VII Nebraska
JL& wevaaa
I New Hamoshire
II New Jersey
VI New Mexico
II New York
IV North Carolina
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma
X Oregon
III Pennsylvania
I Rhode Island
iV South Carolina
VIII South Dakota
IV Tennessee
VI Texas
Vttil Utah
I Vermont
Hill Virginia
X ftAshinqton
til West Virginia
V Wisconsin
VIII v?yominq
TOTAL
Region I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Zinc ,
Metal '
kg-
89. £
1
1 1 ,^33
11 , 887
1 l,/>5
119,086
136,609
9,004
VU2.J
2,BZ9
77,574
380,487
?-2L9
U,253
9,004
119,988
225.436
0
11,887
0
0
u
Mercury
Metal
kg
u.z
25.4
25.5
1
25.4
85.6
305.7
19.8
2,2
6.1
173.3
670.2
6.3
^25.4
19.8
87.8
.504.4
0
26.5
0
0
I o
Lead
Metal
kg
4
O.UI
0.9
0.9
0.9
9.5
10.8
0.5
0.1
0.2
6.1
29.9
0.2
0.9
0.5
9.6
17.8
0
0.9
0
0
o
Cadmium I
Metal
>g
;
o.ur
0.9
0.9
i
i
0.9
9.5
10.8
0.5
0.1
0.2
6.1
29.9
0.2
0.9
0.5
9.6
17.8
0
0.9
6
0
0
Zinc i
Chloride
kg
5.5
855.3
905.1
855.3
9,051
10,380
684. 3
66.2
215.3
5,894
~iK,1M
220.8
855.3
684.3
9,117
17, 129
0
905.1
0
0
0
Total
Waste Stream
kg
265.4
33.170
35,028
33. 170
350,943
402,587
26,536
2,653
8,34^
228,610
1,121,305
8,608
33,170
2ol53i
J5J,5V6
664,367
U
35,028
0
0
0
1
-
-104-
-------
Tobie 32. 5692 Amount of Carbon-Zinc Battery hazardous Wastes Destined for Land Dispc.d
REGION/STATE
IV Alabama
X Alaska
IX Arizona
VI Arkansas i
IX California
VIII Colorado
I Connecticut
III Delaware
IV Florica
IV Georgia i
IX Hawaii
X Idaho
V Illinois
V Indiana
VII Iowa
VII Kansas
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana
I Maine
III Marvlar.d
I Massachusetts
V Michigan
V Minnesota
IV Mississippi
VII Missouri
VIII Montana
VII Nebraska
xx Nevada
I New Hampshire
II New Jersey
VI New Mexico
II New York
IV North Carolina
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma
X Orecon
III Pennsylvania
I • Rhode Island
tv South Carolina
VIII South Dakota
IV Tennessee
Vl Texas
VIII Utah
I Vermont
III Virginia
X Washinaton
III West Virainia
V Wisconsin
VIII Wyoming
TOTAL
Region I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Zinc
Metal
kg
86.3
10.810
11,418
10,810
114.393
131,225
8,649
866.7
2,718
74,516
365,492
2f804
10,8iO
8.649
115,260
214,551
0
11.418
0
0
0
Mercury
Metal
kg
0.2
20.9
21.8
20.9
79.2
251.4
16.3
1.8
5.0
142.5
560
5.2
20.9
16.3
81
414.8
0
21.8
0
0
0
Lead
Metal
kg
d.oi
0.9
0.9
0.9
9.1
10.4
0.5
0.1
0.2
5.9
28.9
0.2
0.9
GV5
?r?
17C5
0
0.9
0
0
0
Cadmium
Metal
kg
0.01
0.9
0.9
0.9
9.1
10.4
0.5
0.1
0.2
5.9
28.9
0.2
0.9
0.5
?-2
17.5
0
0.9
0
0
o.
Zinc
Chloride
kg
4.0
703.4
744.3
703.4
7.443
8,536
562.8
54.5
177.0
4,847
23,776
181.5
703.4
562.8
7.497
14.086
0
744.3
0
0
0
Total
Waste Stream
kg
'
226.9
28,363
29,952
28,363
300,085
344^245
22,691
2.269
7,134
195,480
958, 809
7,361
28,364
22,691
302.354
568,088
0
29,952
0
0
0
-105-
-------
Tobic 3 .. o692 Amount of AI tea line-Manganese Battery Hazardous Wastes
Dftstlned for Land Oispmd (IW3)
REGION/ STATE
IV Alabama-
X Alaska
IX Arizona
VI Arkansas
IX California
VlII Colorado
I Connecticut
III Delaware
TV Florida
IV Georgia
IX Hawaii
X Idaho
V Illinois
V Indiana
VII Iowa
VII Kansas
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana
I Maine
III Maryland
I Massachusetts
V Michigan
V Minnesota
IV Mississippi
VII Missouri
VIII Montana
VII Nebraska
TY N»v*ria
I New Hamoshire
it New Jersey
VI New Mexico
H New York
ItV North Carolina
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma
X Oregon
iil Pennsylvania
I Rhode Island
iV South Carolina
VlII South Dakota
iv Tennessee
VI Texas
VIII Utah
I Vermont
III Virginia
X WAshinqton
West Virginia
V Wisconsin
VIII Wyoming
TOTAL
Region I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VI i
vnt
IX
_ X
Zinc Metal
.'*$
£.996
378.6
2,869
213.4
12.3«
22,850
213.4
0
378.6
9.865
12,393
0
0
0
0
o
Mercury Metal
^
Total
Waste Stream
kg
327.8
17.7
194.4
10. 0
566.7
1,071
10.0
0
17.7
442J2
380.7
0
0
0
0
0
1
43,130
2,334
17,688
1,317
74,4o4
! 40,8/4
1,317
0
2,334
40,815
76,404
u
0
0
I)
0
-106-
-------
Table 34. 3692 Amount of Alkaline-Manganese Battery Hazardous
Destined for Land Disposal (1977)
REGIOM/STAT?.
IV Alabama
X Alaska
IX Arizona
VI Arkansas
IX California
VIII Colorado
I Connecticut
III Delaware
IV Florida
IV Georgia
IX Hawaii
X Idaho '
V Illinois
V Indiana
VII Iowa
VII Kansas
IV Kentuckv
VI Louisiana
I Maine
III Maryland
I .Massachusetts
V Michiaan
V Minnesota
IV Mississippi
VII Missouri
VIII Montana
VII Nebraska
fV *T »„ ^ —
r~ New Ha^ioshire
II New Jersey
VI New Mexico
II New York
IV North Carolina
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma
X Oregon
III Pennsylvania
I Rhode Island
IV South Carolina
VIII South Dakota
IV Tennessee
VI Texas
VIII Utah
I Vermont
III Virginia
X WAshinqton
III West V-T.rgir.ia __,
V Wisconsin
VIII VJvonung
TOTAL
Region I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Zinc Metal i
• kg
|
1
.
1
8,178
442.6
3,354
249.5
14,487
26,711
249.5
0
442.6
11.532
14.487
0
0
0
0
0
Mercury Metal
kg
i
i
i
383.2
20.7
157.1
11.7
i 678.8
1,252
11 .7
0
20.7
540.3
678.8
0
d
'0
0
0
Total
Waste Stream
kg
1
i
1
1
1
i
• (
t
I
t
I
i
50,41?
2,728
20,677
1,540
89,316
164,680
1,540
0
2,728
71,096
89,316
0
0
0
0
0
-107-
-------
Tobls 2 . i592 Amount of Alkaline-Manganete BatteryHazardous Wastes
Defined for Land Disposal (1983)
REGION/STATE
IV Alabama
X Alaska
IX Arizona
VI Arkansas
IX California
VIII Colorado
I Connecticut
III Delaware
IV Florida
IV Georgia
IX Hawaii
X idaho
V Illinois
V Indiana
VII Iowa
VII Kansas
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana
I Maine
III Maryland
I Massachusetts
V Michigan
V Minnesota
IV Mississippi
VII Missouri
VIII Montana
VII Nebraska
IX Nevada
ii«ew oaruusliixe
I New Jersey
VI New Mexico
IX New York
IV North Carolina
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma
X Oregon
til Pennsylvania
I Rhode Island
IV South Carolina
VIII South Dakota
IV Tennessee
VI Texas
VIII Utah
I Vermont
ill Virginia
X WAshington
III West Virginia
V Wisconsin
Vtll Wyoming
TOTAL
Region I
I±
III
IV
V
VI
vll
viil
IX
X
I
Zinc Metal
kr
Mercury Metal
kg
loror
Waste Stream
kg
a
|
i
i
i
i
1
8,507
460.4
3^489
259.5
15,070
27.786
259.5
0
460.4
11,996
15,070
r>
0
0
0
o
378.6
21.5
163.4
12.2
>06. 1
1,302
12.2
0
21.5
5o5.0
706.1
n
0
6
0
6
i
i
52,446
2,838
21,. 509
1,601
21,163
99.557.0
1,601
0
2,838
73, «5
21.163
o
0
6
p
0
•108-
-------
Table 36, 37, and 38 show the quantities of hazardous wastes destined for
land disposal from the mercury battery industry for three time periods—1973, 1977,
and 1983. Each table shows the quantity of active hazardous material, on a water
free basis, in the waste stream together with the total amount of the waste stream
based upon the waste factors derived in a previous section. The future projections
reflect environmental impact on future disposal of mercury cells and development
of replacement batteries.
5.4.2.4 Magnesium-Carbon
The wastes from the production of this battery consist of scrap batteries, which
for the typical plant is approximately 40,770 kg per year, and the sludge from treat-
ment of chromic acid wastewater. The scrap batteries do not contain any potentially
hazardous material when disposed of on land. The wastewater treatment sludge con-
taining a mixture of chromium hydroxide and chromium carbonate is produced (on a
dry basis) at the rate of 11 .07 kg per 1000 kg of product. The sludge waste stream
destined for land disposal was estimated to contain 40% by weight solids.
Tables 39, 40, and 41 show the quantities of hazardous wastes destined for land
disposal from the magnesium-carbon primary battery industry for three time periods--
1973, 1977, and 1983. Each table shows the quantity of active hazardous material,
on a water free basis, in the waste stream together with the total amount of the wast*
stream based upon the waste factors derived in a previous section.
The projected increase of waste going to landfill between 1973 and 1977 is based
on the discontinuance of the manufacture of bricks from solid waste from a plant in
North Carolina. The result is a projected increase in waste going to landfill from the
manufacture of this battery.
5.4.2.5 Zinc-Silver Oxide Battery
The wastes from this process are in the form of rejected batteries from the test
and package step of the process. The wastes from the rejected batteries are 0.00109
kg of mercury, 0.0187 kg of zinc, and 0.0047 kg of silver oxide per 1000 kg of product.
The waste cells from this production contain valuable materials and are sold to out-
side scrap reclaimers. Industry sources indicate that there are no hazardous wastes
destined for land disposal from the production of this battery.
Tables 42, 43, and 44 show the quantities of hazardous wastes from the zinc-
silver oxide primary battery industry for three time periods—1973, 1977, and 1983.
Each table shows the quantity of active hazardous material, on a water free basis, in
the waste stream together with the total amount of the waste stream based upon the
waste factors derived in a previous section.
- 109-
-------
Table 36. 3692 Amo-nt of Mercury Cell Hazardous Wastes Defined for Land Disposal (1973)
REGION/STATE
IV Alabama
X Alaska
IX Arizona
VI Arkansas
IX California
VIII Colorado
I Connecticut
III Delaware
IV Florida
IV Georcria
IX Hawaii
X Idaho
V Illinois
V Indiana
VII Iowa
VII Kansas
XV Kentucky
VI Louisiana
I Maine
III Maryland
I Massachusetts
V Michigan
V Minnesota
IV Mississippi
VII Missouri
VIII Montana
VTT Nphrapfce
IX Nevada
I New Hampshire
II New Jersey
VI New Mexico
11 New York
IV North Carolina
VIII North bakota
V Ohio
VT Oklahoma
k Oregon
III Pennsylvania
I • Rhodo Island
i\T South Carolina
VI i I South Dakota
iV Tennessee
VI Texas
Vill Utah
I Vermont
III Virginia
X Washington
III West Virginia
V Wisconsin
VIII Wyoming
TOTAL
Region I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Zinc Metal
leg
1,823
'
2-Q?4
2,134
101.7
330.5
2.863
id, 328
330.5
3,074
n
2.238
4,686
0
U
0
0
0
Mercury Metal
kg
12.4
21.0
]4.l
0.7
2.3
19.5
70.5
2.3
21. p
n
15.3
31.9
0
u
f
\
Q
Mercuric
Oxide kg
51.1
86.3
59.9 .
2.9
y.a
80.2
289.7
9.3
86.3
P
62.8
131.3
0
0
0
0
U
Total Wast*
Stream kg
..
2,668
4,498
3,126
148. y
483.7
4,190
15.115
483.7
4,498
0
3,275
6,858
0
U
0
U
0
-110-
-------
Tablu. 3/. J692 Amount or Metccry Ceil fiazor^ous Washes Uest.neci for land Uisposci 09//J
REGION/STA E
IV Alabama
X Alaska
IX Arizona
VI Arkansas
IX Calirornia
VIII Colorado
I Connecticut
III Delaware
tv Florida
IV Georaia
IX Hawaii
X Idaho
V Illinois
V Indiana ,
VII Iowa
VII Kansas
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana
I Maine
III Marviand
I Massachusetts
V Michiaan
V Minnesota
IV Mississippi
VII Missouri
VIII Montana
VII Nebraska
^.4k ltd V shire
ll New Jersey
VI New Mexico
±1 New Yorx.
IV North Carolina
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma
X Oregon
III Pennsylvania
I Rhocie Island
IV South Carolina
VlII South Dakota
IV Tennessee
VI Texas
VIII Utah
I Vermont
III Virci.iia
X Washington
III West Virginia
V Wisconsin
VI 1 1 Wyoming
TOTAL
Region I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Zinc Metal
kg
911.5
1,537
1,068
50.9
165.3
1,432
5,165
165.3
1,537
0
lf 119
2.343
0
0
0
0
0
Mercury Metal
kg
3.2
5.4
3.7
0.2
0.6
5.0
18. T
0.6
5.4
0
3.9
8.2
0
0
0
0
0
Mercuric
Oxide kg
13.1
22.1
15.3
0.8
2.4
20.6
74.3
2.4
22.1
0
16.1
33.7
0
0
0
0
0
Total Waste
Stream kg
.. . -
1.318
2,223 i
1,545
62.9
239.1
2,071
7,459
239.1
2,223
0
1.608
3.389
0
0
0
0
0
- Ill -
-------
Table 38. 369.. Amount of Mercury Cell Hazardous Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1983)
REGION/STATE
IV Alabama
X Alaska
XX Arizona
VZ Arkansas
IX California
VIII Colorado
I Connecticut
III Delaware
IV Florida
IV Georgia
IX Hawaii
X Idaho
V Illinois
V Indiana j
VII Iowa
VII Kansas i
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana
I Maine
III Maryland
I Massachusetts
V Michigan
V Minnesota
XV Mississippi
Vj.1 Missouri
VIII Montana j
VII Nebraska '
tX Nevada
i New Hampshire
II New Jersey
VI New Mexico
11 New York
IV North Carolina
VIII North Dakota
v" Ohio
VI Oklahoma
X Oregon
III Pennsylvania
I Rhode Island
IV South Carolina
Till iouth Dakota
IV Tennessee
VI Texas
VIII Utah
I Vermont
III Virginia
X WAshinqton
ill West Virginia
V Wisconsin
VIII Wvoming
TOTAL
Region I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Z.nc Metal
-i
-------
Tobie 39. 3692 Amount of Magnesium-Carbon Battery Hazardous Wastes
Destined for Land Disposal (1973)
, Chromium Hydroxlde-
; Chromium Carbonate
REGION/STATE Sludge (Dry) kg
3V Alabama 1
X Alaska i
IX Arizona
VI Arkansas
IX California
VIII Colorado
r Connecticut •
III Delawara j
3V Florida ' 1,040
IV Georgia !
IX Hawaii }
X Idaho
V Illinois
V Indiana
VII Iowa
VII Kansas
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana i
I Maine
III Maryland
I Massachusetts
V Michigan i
V Minnesota !
TV Mississippi
Total Sludg«
Watte Stream
kg
Z,6UU
VII Missouri t i
VIII Montana i i
VII Nebraska
A,*t itC'v UW4CA {
I New Hampshire
II New Jersev
VI New Mexico
II New York
3V North Carolina
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma __,
X Oregon
III Pennsylvania
I Rhode Island
3V South Carolina
VIII South Dakota
IV Tennessee
Vi Texas
VllI Utah
1 Vermont
111 Virginia
X Washington
HI West Virginia
V Wisconsin
VIII Wyoming
TOTAL
Region I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
9,u4
-------
Table 4C. 3692 Amount of Magnasiurn-Carbon Battery Hazardous Wastes
DasHned for Land Disposal 0977)
REGION/STATE
IV Alabama
X Alaska
IX Arizona
VI Arkansas
IX California
VIII Colorado
I Connecticut
III Delaware
IV Florida
IV Georgia
IX Hawaii
X Idaho
V Illinois
V Indiana
VII Iowa
VII kansas
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana
I ' Maine
III Maryland
I Massachusetts
V ' Michigan
V Minnesota
IV Mississippi
VII Missouri
VIII Montana
VII Nebraska
TV Nc"«dz
I New Hampshire
II New Jersey
VI New Mexico
II New York
IV North Carolina
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma
X Oregon
III Pennsylvania
I Rhode Island
TV South Carolina
VIII South Dakota
TV Tennessee
VI Texas
VIII Utah
I Vermont
III Virginia
X WAshington
III West Virginia
V Wisconsin
VIII Wvoming
TOTAL
Region I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
•Chromium Hydroxide- Cheomium-
Carbonate Sludge (Dry) kg
1.216
35.985
10,575
47. tH
0
0
0
37.201
n
10.575
0
n
0
0
Total Sludge
Waste Stream kg
3,039
89,964
23, 43/
119.440
0
0
0
93.003
o
24,437
0
o
0
0
•
-114-
-------
Tobie 41. 3692 Amount of Magnesium-Carbon Battery Hazardous Wastes
Destined for Land Disposal {1983)
REG i ON/STATE
IV Alabarua
X Alaska
IX Arizona
VI Arkansas
IX California
VIII Colorado
I Connecticut
III Delaware
IV" Florida
IV Georgia
IX Hawaii
X Idaho
V Illinois
V Indiana
VII Iowa
VII Kansas
IV Ker-uucky
VI Louisiana
I Maine
III Maryland
I Massachusetts
V Michiaan _j
V Minnesota
Chromium Hydroxide-
Chremctsm Carbonate
Slucg« (Dry) kg
),2l6
'
Torol Sloage Waste
Stream kg
3,039
IV Mississippi
VII Missouri
Vni Montana
VII Nebraska 1
IX Nevada
I New Kamo shire ,
II New Jersey
VI New Mexico !
II New York !
IV North Carolina
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
Vr Oklahoma
X Oregon
HI Pennsylvania
I Rhode Island
IV South Carolina
VIII South Dakota
IV Tennessee
Vr Texa 3
VIII Utah
I Vermont
III Virginia
X WAshincton
III West Virginia
V Wisconsin
VIII V7vomng
TOTAL
Region I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
35,985
10,575
4f,^7(t
0
0
0
37,201
0
10,575
n
fl
0
X 0
:
1
1
89,964
26,437
119,440
0
0
0
93,003
0
26.437
0
rv
0
u 1
-its--
-------
T ble 42. ,3692 Amount of Zinc-Silver Oxide Battery Hozardovs Wastes* (T973)
REGION/STATE
IV Alabama
X Alaska
IX Arizona
VI Arkansas
IX Ckliforaia
VIIT C&orado
I Connecticut
III Delaware
IV Florida
XV Georgia
IX Hawaii
X Idaho
V Illinois
V Indiana
VII Iowa
VII Kansas
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana
I Maine
III Maryland
I Massachusetts
V Michigan
V Minnesota
IV Mississippi
VII Missouri
VIII Montana
VII Nebraska
IX Nevada
7 ifa* "to«™rH«hi r*»
II New Jersey
VI New Mexico
II New York
IV North. Carolina
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma
X Oregon
III Pennsylvania
I fchode Island
IV South Carolina
VIII South Dakota
IV Tennessee
VI Texas
VIII Utah
I Vermont
til Virginia
X Washington
III West Virginia
V Wisconsin
VIII VJyoming
TOTAL
Region I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Zinc Metal
kg
.
U.4
0.4
U. 1
0.1
0.5
0.6
4. r
0.9
I.I
T.7
9.8
2.0
0.6
0.1
4.1
1A8
fi
0.5
9-4
0.3
o
Silver Oxide
kg
-
0,06
o.n
0.03
0.03
0.13
0.14
1.02
0.23
0.29
0.4?
2.5
0.52
O.V
0.0!
!:<»
0.44
0
Ot13
o.n
ft 06
0
Mercury Metal
kg
136.2
32/.0
>4.3
54.5
272.4
308.7
2,179
499.4
•
608.4
908.0
5,248
1,108
309.0
54.5
2.179
962.5
U
272.4
227.0
"36.2
0
Total Waste
Stream, kg
0.01
iV °-02
0.01
0.01
0.03
-
«.03
.24
0.05
0.07
0.10
0.6
0.12
0.03
0.01
0.24
0.11
(J
0.03
0.02
U.UI
0
-
116
* Industry Sou/on Indicated none of these waste* or* destined for land disposal.
-------
Table 43. 3692 Amount-of Zinc-Silver Oxide Battery Hazardous Wastes* (1977)
REGION/STATE
IV Alabama
X Alaska
IX Arizona
VI Arkansas
IX California
VIII Colorado
I Connecticut
III Delaware
IV Florida
TV Georgia
IX rfawaii
X Idaho
V Illinois
V Indiana
VII Iowa
VII Kansas
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana
I Maine
III Maryland
I Massachusetts
V Michigan
V Minnesota
IV Mississippi
VII Missouri
VIII Montana
VII Nebraska
IX Nevada
I New Hamoshire
II New Jersey
VI New Mexico
II New York
IV North Carolina
VIII North Dakota
V Ohio
VI Oklahoma
X Oregon
III Pennsylvania
I Rhode Island
IV South Carolina
VIII South Dakota
IV Tennassee
VI Texas
VIII Utah
1 Vermont ^
III Virginia
X WAshington
III West Virginia
V Wisconsin
VIII V?yoming
TOTAL
Region I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Zinc Metal
>9
0.4
0.5
O.I
0.1
0.6
0.7
4.8
1.1
1.3
2.0
11.6
2.4
0,7
0,1
4.8
2.1
0
0.6
i).5
(5.4
0
Silver Oxide
kfl
0.07
Mercury Metal
kg
i
0.01
0.12 I 0.02
0.03
0.01
Total Waste
Stream, kg
159.i
265.4
63.7
i
0.03 i 0.01 i 63.7
0.15
0.17
1.20
0.27
0.33
0.50
?.9
0.60
O.T7
0.03
1.20
0.53
0
i* £
o. 5
n K?
Q
j
1
0.04 318.4
) 1
0.04
0.28
360. V
2,547
0.06 ! 583.8
0.08
0.)2
0.7
0.14
0.04
0.01
0.23
0.13
6
0.04
0.02
0.01
0
7T1.2
l/UOl
6,134.3
1,295
360.9
63.7
2.547
1,125
0
318,4
265.4
159.2
0 -3.
* Industry sources Indicated none of these waste* pr« destined for lend^dfsposol . *
117
-------
Tuoi 44. 3692 Amount of Zinc-Silv«* Oxide Battery Hazacdout WCM*«S*
'' Zinc Metd
REGION/STATE kg
IV Alabama
K Alaska
IX Arizona
/I Arkansas
IX California
VITI Colorado
X Connecticut
XIX Delaware
XV Florida
XV1 Georgia
IX Hawaii
C Idaho
7 Illinois
f Zn4iana
7X1 Iowa
711 Kansas
W Kentucky
rif Louisiana
[ - Maine
til Maryland
C Massachusetts
IT Michigan
7 Minnesota
TV Mississippi
ITXI Missouri
ITXXI Montana
/II Nebraska
LA nevacia
; • New Hampshire
I New Jersey
1 New Mexico
i New York
sF North Carolina
ilxi North Dakota
f Ohio
rx OJeaahooa
t Oregon
til Pennsylvania
r Rhode Island
Cv south Carolina
Tfll South Dakota
CV Tennessee
/X Texas
/til Utah
r Vermont
Ell Virginia
1C Washington
EII West Virginia
t Wisconsin
rtll Wyoming
KKAL
fcwrion i
IX
itn
iV
V
VI
VII
vixt
XX
i
0,4
0.5
•-•ff. 1
•" •
0.1
0.6
0.7
1 A
l.l
1.3
2.0
11.6
2.4
0.7
n.l
4.8
2.1
0
8.6
.5
0.4
U
Silver Oxide
JL.07
)fi2
.
0.03
0^03
9.15
0 .17
Y.20
0.77
0.33
0.50
2.9
«.60
Ar
o.os
1.20
0.53
0.15
O 12
0.07
0
Mercury Metal
kg
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.04
Total Waste
Stream, kg
,
159.2
" 265.4
63.7
^
63.7
318.4
1
0.04
n 9«
u.uo
0.08
0.12,
0.7
0.14
. , J/.C4
. •. i:.u
o.M
0.13
0
0.04
0.02
0:01
u
- .
360.9
2rS<7
^ 583.8' '""
711.2
1,061
6,134.3
1,293
360.9
Ag 7 H
2fc547
1.125
I
918.4
2bd.4
liy.z
u
' ••
118
Mfoatad nap* oftbtM wcntot era awHrwd far land
-------
5.4.2.6 Other Primary Batteries
5.4.2.6.1 Carbon-Zinc Air Cell
Wastes from the typical plant stem entirely from rejected complete cells. The
wastes consist of zinc in the amount of 0.294 kg per 1000 kg of product or 453 kg
per year, and mercury at 0.00117 kg per 1000 kg of product or 1.80 kg per year. The
waste stream of the typical plant contains 15,400 kg of cell scrap per year.
5.4.2.6.2 Lead-Acid Reserve Cell
The potentially hazardous wastes from the production of lead-acid reserve cells
come from quality control rejected batteries, scrap metals, and potentially from future
wastewater treatment sludges from wastewater treatment for nickel and lead in tke plant
effluent. At the present time, a wastewater treatment system is in the planning stages
at one plant, but now the effluent goes to a municipal sewage system. The wastes
from rejected batteries and scrap consists of 182 kg of lead and 104 kg of nickel per
1000 kg of product. The quantity of wastewoter treatment sludges is estimated to be
2.86 kg per 1000 kg of product on a dry basis. The total sludge waste stream was
estimated to contain 35% solids.
5,4.2.6.3 Mercury Weston Cell
The potentially hazardous wastes from the production of this battery consist of
rejected batteries. These wastes consist of mercury at 1.854 kg per 1000 k^of product
or 1.680 kg per year, mercuric sulfate at 0.618 kg per 1000 kg of product, cadmium
sulfate at 0.795 kg per 1000 kg of product, and cadmium at 0.442 kg per 1000 leg of
product. The waste stream consists of about 9 kg batteries per year.
Tables 45, 46, and 47 show the quantities of hazardous wastes destined for land
disposal from the "other" primary batteries industries forthree time periods—1973*/ 1977,
1983. Each table shows the quantity of active hazardous material, on a water free
basis, in the waste stream together with the total amount of the waste stream based up-
on the waste factors derived in a previous section.
5.4.3 Summary of Hazardous Waste Streams
The description of wastes as hazardous for the present study followed the guidVlr
ance given by EPA Hazardous Waste Management Division that all wastes which pose
a potential health or environmental hazard upon final disposal shall be considered
hazardous. The majority of hazardous wastes considered in the present stud_y were
~fpeeificaiiy designated by the EPA for study (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
" zinc). The remaining\vastesweredeemedtobeessentiallyinert upon fined dispel,
-119-
-------
Table 45. 3692 Amount of Oner Primary Battery Hazardous Wartes Defined for Land Diipotal (1973)
EGlON/STATE
V Alabama
Alaska
X Arizona
I Arkansas
X California
'III Co;.Gra<:o
Connecticut
'IX Delaware
V ylorida
•V Georoia
X Hawaii
; Ydaho
f Illinois
f Indiana
Itt ?owa
PYI Kansas
(V Kentucky
fj " Louisiana
t Maine
Maryland
I Massachusetts
f Michigan
rv Mississippi
PI I Missouri
Montana
Ti Nebraska
fx Nevada
ri ttow Mexico
I New York
V North Carolina
'III North Dakota
II Pennsylvania
Ahode Island
V South Carolina
TIT South Dakota
V" Tennessee
I Texas
Til CTtah
if Virginia
HAshinaton
TI West Virginia
Wisconsin
Til Wyoming
2TAI,
eqion I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Vin
IX
X
Leod
Metol
(Dry
bat it) kg
231.3
'.Z71
7,302
7,271
231.3
NiCKBl
Metal
(Dry)
" 132. 1
4,155
4,287
4,155
132.Y
Cadmium
Sulfate
(Dry)
kg
0.9*
o.v
0.9
Mere.
Sulfate
(Dry)
kg
0.5*
0*3
0.5
Cadmium
Metal
(Dry)
kg
0.5«
0.3
0.5
Merc.
Metal
(Dry)
kg
1.9
l.V
I.W
'.4
1.8
79
0
0
A'8
0
TT^
Zinc
Metal
(Dry)
kg
t
40/.Z
4A/.X
45J.B
1,000
0
467.2
0
1 0
45J.H
467.2
W
Sludge
Cont.Ni&
Pb(Dry) kg
f.
3.6
U4.3
117.9
114.3
3.6
Sludge
Cont. Ni&
Pb(Wet)
-------
Table 46. 3692 Amount of Other Primary lottery Hazardous Wastes Destined for Land Disposal (1977)
REGION/STATE
Alaska
X Arizona
X Arkansas
X California
III Colorado
Connecticut
IX Delaware
XV eeorcia
XX Hawaii
I Idaho
If Illinois
W Indiana
VII Iowa
TCI Kansas
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana
X Maine
XXX Maryland
I Massachusetts
V Michigan
T Minnesota
IV Mississippi
\^T Misouiiri
V, II Montana •
711 Nebraska
—8
&— 8
T^
wjrs
r*^
c* — a
*w Jersey
KIo
I Rhode Island — 1
V bouth Carolina
fa Cath hdcoU 1
XV . T«m...«.
mriJtaTi
f Vermont
TIT Virginia
WM l-Tvomincr
WfKL *^
r\ta4an_Jr
-jV
-^
•vm
"fx
-.
Lead
Merol
(Dry
basis) kg
i,n>
~TO5S~
13.o33
10.906
i727,
Nickel
Metal
(Dry)
kg
1.558
• 4,233
7,791
6.233
1,930
Cadmium
Sulfare
(Dry)
kg
— *—
—5
0
Mere.
Sulfote
(Dry)
kg
nr"
-7-
0
Cadmium
Meted
(Dry)
kg
~55 —
1 — 0
0
Merc.
Metal
(Dry)
kg
1
2.2
2.2
rrr
-p—
6.3
0
~P~
— tf*8 —
"15
•f1-
*=
L - Ml
iZtnc
Metal
(Dry)
kg
546.2
546.2
530.5
T7S23 —
0
P..2
"TT- —
5301
i^.?
~o
SMkje
Caitf.N!&
rVDry)kg
42.9
•ju/r1 —
171.5
42.? ,
Sludge
Cont. Ni&
Pb(Wet) kg
122. i
I *13'4
489.9
122.S
Scrap
Ni&Pb
k«
4,^44
• .
-ZT7ZO
19,776
_Lm
Total
Waste
Stream
ka
18,575
18.575
H,(UV
fiL
55JV5
0
-nr^
" 0 1
J^
_O!
•InskHrry Source Indicated reclaim of scrap cells
- 121 -
-------
Tobl. 47. 3692 Amoun. CT Crher Primary Dott.ry H«ardcu« Wastes Detfined for Land Disposal (1*83)
RfOlONATATE
IV Alabama
5T XIaska
IX Arizona
vT Arkansas
TK California
7TII Colorado '
T Connecticut
XXI Delaware
IV Florida
IV Georgia
IX Hawaii
X iaaho
V illinoli
V Indiana
VIZ Iowa
VII Kansas
IV Kentucky
VI Louisiana
I Main*
III Maryland
I Massachusetts
V Michigan
V Minnesota
IV Mississippi
Vt! Missouri
VZZZ NpntAn& * •
VTT Nebraska
« HevatJa
T New hanoshira
II N«w Jersey
71 H«w Mexico
W Worth Carolina
VlXX Worth Dakota —
71 «
-------
except for silver and nickel which were designated as hazardous on the basis of their
chemical and toxicological properties and solubilities.
The EPA has not yet established standards for allowable concentrations of
hazardous materials in soils. As part of a hazardous waste study conducted by EPA
TRW, Inc. (33 ) developed provisional limitations for soils; in most Instances pro-
visional soil and water limitations were identical. Based on this data, allowable
concentrations of hazardous substances in soil are as follows:
mercury and its compounds 5ug/kg
cadmium and its compounds 10ug/kg
lead and its compounds 50ug/kg
nickel and its compounds 5'jgngAg
zinc and its compounds 5 mg/kg
chromium (hexavalenr) and 5ug/kg
its compounds
Soil and sludge samples found in this study have exceeded these values as seen
in Section 6.3.
Table 48 presents a condensed summary of hazardous waste streams based on
the waste characterization of the storage and primary batteries industries, which
were selected for study with regard to treatment and disposal technology and the
associated costs.
-123-
-------
Table 48. Battery Production Hazardous Wastes
Category and Process
SIC 3691, Storage Batteries
(a) Lead-Acid
Waste Stream and Hazardous Constituents
(b) Nickel-Cadmium
(c) Cadmium-Silver Oxide
(d) Zinc-Silver Oxide
Category and Process
SIC 3692, Primary Batteries
(a) Carbon-Zinc
(b) Air Cell
(c) Alkaline-Manganese
(d) Mercury
0)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
00)
Wastewater effluent treatment sludges -
containing suspended lead, lead sulfate,
and lead hydroxide or calcium sulfate
sludge containing lead.
Wastewater effluent treatment sludges -
containing cadmium hydroxide and
nickel hydroxide.
Rejected and scrap cells — containing
cadmium and nickel.
Wastewater effluent treatment sludges
— containing cadmium hydroxide and
silver oxide (reclaimed).
Rejected and scrap cells — containing
cadmium and silver oxicT* (reclaimed).
Rejected and scrap cells — containing
zinc oxide-hydroxide, silver oxide/and
mercury (reclaimed).
Rejected and scrap batteries — contain-
ing mercury and zinc.
Rejected and scrap batteries — contain-
ing mercury and zinc.
Rejected and scrap batteries — contain-
ing mercury and zinc.
Scrap batteries and furnace residue - con-
taining mercury and zinc.
-124 -
-------
Table 48. Battery Production Hazardous Wastes - continued
Category and Process
SIC 3692, Primary Batteries
(e) Weston Mercury Cell
(f) Magnesium-Carbon
(g) Zinc-Silver Oxide
(h) Lead Acid Reserve
(1) Magnesium Reserve Ceils
Waste Stream and Hazardous Constituents
(11) Rejected and scrap batteries — con-
taining mercury, mercurous sulfate,
cadmium-mercury, and cadmium
sulfate
(12) Wastewater effluent treatment sludges -
containing trivalent chromium car-
bonate hydroxide.
(13) Rejected and scrap batteries — con-
taining zinc, silver, and mercury
(reclaimed).
(14) Rejected and scrap batteries — con-
taining lead and nickel.
(15) Wastewater treatment sludges-contain-
ing nickel and lead.
(16) Rejected and scrap batteries — con-
taining silver chloride (reclaimed) or
copper chloride.
-125 -
-------
6.0 TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY
6.1 Introduction
Land-destined hazardous wastes from the battery industry originate either
directly from the manufacturing processes or from air or water pollution control sys-
tems on these processes. The wastes from the two SIC codes of the battery industries
are, in general, distinct from each other. Land-destined wastes from the storage
batteries industry (SIC 3691) are mainly high volume sludges resulting from water
treatment along with some refect cells. Wastes from the primary batteries industry
(SIC 3692) almost exclusively consist of reject or scrap cells. The volume is much
smaller than in the former case, but the hazardous waste portion is relatively
higher.
The form of technology used in the treatment and disposal depends on several
factors:
(a) The volume of hazardous waste involved. Small volume wastes can be treated
and disposed of by a number of methods of available technology without major
economic impact. Large volume wastes do not usually have this latitude.
(b) The chemical composition of the waste. Both the hazardous chemicals involved
and the concentrations in which they are found determine the necessary treat-
ment and disposal technology required.
(c) The local regulations. In the absence of regulations, treatment and disposal of
hazardous wastes is usually accomplished by the lowest cost methods — land
dumping or use of low cost landfilling.
(d) The geographical location. Both rhe-technobgi$sand
-------
The hazardous wastes from the battery industries may generally be classified into
two categories. The first is high volume sludges with low concentrations of hazard-
ous materials, and the second is low volume sludges and scrap containing relatively
high concentrations of hazardous materials. The hazardousness of the waste materials
and related discussions are presented in Appendix A.
The general treatment and disposal technologies for handling battery production
hazardous wastes can be classified into the following categories:
(a) Reducing the amount of hazardous material that has to be disposed of, for
example, by recycling;
(b) Concentrating a large volume low-concentration waste stream into a smaller
more concentrated waste stream;
(c) Utilization of the waste by chemical fixation; and
(d) Disposal of the waste by burial, storage, or landfill.
The specific treatment and disposal technology used by the storage and primary
batteries Industries are given in the following sections. Tables 49 and 50 summarise
the types and quantities of hazardous wastes from a typical plant production stand*
point.
6.2 Treatment and Disposal in Storage Batteries Manufacture (SIC 3691)
The only segments of this subcategory having any significant land-destined haz-
ardous wastes are the lead-acid storage battery and the nickel-cadmium storage battery.
As shown in Table 49, the potentially hazardous wastes from the cadmium-silver oxide
and zinc-silver oxide batteries are relcaimed for their economic value.
6.2.1 Lead-Acid Battery
The character of the hazardous wastewater treatment sludges from a lead-acid
battery plant is determined largely by the type of water treatment used. The amount
of the treatment sludges produced is difficult to characterize or assets: at-jfce present
time due to the absence of EPA water effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards for
wastewater from a lead acid battery plant. In order to assess the quantity of poten-
tially hazardous treatment sludges, in the absence of guidelines for this industry, an
engineering model treatment was developed based upon current practices in the indus-
try. The results of this model give quantities of lead in the treated effluent and the
amount of lead removed as sludge which can be assumed to be the maximum amount to
be destined for land disposal.
- 127-
-------
TabU 49. Summary of Typical Plant Treatment end Disposal of Land Destined Hazardous
Wastes From Storage Batteries Manufncture (SIC 3691)
Battery
Type
(a) Lead Acid
(b) Nickel-
Cadmium
(c) Cadmium-
Silver
Oxide
(d) Zinc-
Silver
Oxide
1973
Total
Industry
Production
(kkg/yr)
1,081,187
4,005
Not
Available
Not
Available
Hazardous Waste Stream
(1) Lead containing sludge resulting from lime waste-
water treatment
(2) Lead containing sludge resulting from caustic waste-
water treatment
(1) Sludge from caustic wastewater treatment containing
cadmium hydroxide and nickel hydroxide
(2) Refected and scrap cells containing cadmium and
nickel
(1) Wastewater treatment sludge containing silver oxide
and cadmium hydroxide
(2) Refected and scrap celli containing cadmium and
silver oxide
(1) Refected and scrap cells containing zinc oxide-
hydroxide, silver oxide, pnd mercury
Typical
Plant
Production
(kkg/yr)
8200
447
36.2
Not aval 1-
able
Amount of
Hazardous
Constituents
in Typical
Plant Waste
Stream
(kkg/yr)
2.6
2.6
3.1
3.0
0.3
0.3
Not available
Quantity
of Plant
Total
Waste
Stream
(Wet Basts)
(Icke/yr)
17,290
4.46
8.9
5.4
0.5
(reclaimed)
0.4
(reclaimed)
Not ovaJIpble
(reclaimed)
-------
Table 50. Summary of Typical Plant Treatiient and Disposal of Land Destined Hazardous
Wastes From Primary Batteries Manufacture (SIC 3692)
Battery
Type
(a) Carbon
Zinc
(b) Carbon
Zinc
Air Cell
(c) Alkaline-
Manganese
(d) Mercury
(e) Weston
Mercury Cell
(f ) Magnesium
Carbon
(g) Zinc-Silver
Oxide
(h) Lead Acid
Reserve
(i ) Magnesium
Reserve
1973
Total
Industry
Production
(kkg/yr)
95,900
Not
Available
14,000
1,845
0.9
3,700
525
Not
Available
Not
Available
Hazardous Waste Streams
Refected and Scrap Cells
.
Rejected and Scrap Cells
Rejected and Scrap Cells
Scrap Cells and furnace Fasidue
Rejected and Scrap Cells
Wastewoter Effluent Treatment Sludge
Rejected and Scrap Cells
(1) Scrap and Rejected Cells
(2) Wastewater Treatment Slidge
None
Typical
Plant
Production
Ockg/yr)
2,270
1,500
2,000
450
0.9
1,350
59.1
45.4
Not
Available
Amount of
Hazardous
Constituents
in Typical
Plant Waste
Stream
(klcg/yr)
9.2
0.45
3.5
2.6
0.003
15
0.001
13
0.13
None
Quantity
of Plant
Total
Waste
Stream
(Wet Basis)
(kka/yr)
22.7
15.4
20
3.6
0.009
37.5
0.59
(reclaimed)
14.9
0.37
Not
Available
-------
Currently, wastewater effluent from the battery plant typically goes to a
municipal waste treatment plant. Treatment of lead waste in a municipal system
may cause high concentrations of lead in sludge which will ultimately be transported
and deposited in a landfill or in the effluent from the treatment plant. It is, there-
fore, assumed that pretreatment standards wi If be set up by regulatory agencies re-
quiring many battery plants to remove lead in the effluent to the same degree as that
required for discharge to surface waters.
Current practices of wastewater treatment in the lead-acid battery industry
include the use of several methods, neutralization, precipitation, sedimentation,and
filtration, for removing lead from waste streams. The untreated lead wastes genera-
ted by the battery industry typically fall within the following concentrations:
dissolved 0.5 ppm to 25 ppm;
suspended 5 ppm to 48 ppm.
The wastewater generated varies from 42 to 290 liters,per battery produced. (Dry
charge production generally results in more wastewater and greater amounts of waste
lead than wet charge production).
A survey of eight battery plants indicated that simple sedimentation was rela
tively ineffective in removing insoluble lead particulates from waste streams. ^-
reported for plants using pH adjustment followed by settling was as follows:
Treatment Settling Effluent Lead (mg/l)
Chemical ph[ Time (hr) Dissolved Suspended
Lime 6.8 30 0.30 0.18
Caustic 5.5 1 0.60 1.0
Ammonia 7.8 0 1.9 22.0
Note: Use of ammonia as a treatment chemical for pH adjustment may not
be recommended without adequate precautions due to formation of
soluble lead complexes.
There is a relationship between the pH necessary for precipitation, the treat-
ment chemical and the settling time, which are variables in this data, however,
simple sedimentation is shown to be ineffective in reduction of suspended lead.
The removal of .the finely suspended lead particles (1ms than two microns) from the
wastewater, becomes difficult from a settling time standpoint, even if very little of
the lead is dissolved. Flocculating agents have been used to increase the suspended
solids removal rate. This would have the added effect, however, of increasing the
impurity of the lead removed. The final result would be to decrease the possibility
of reuse of the recovered product, creating a land disposal problem.
.- 130 -
-------
An environmentally more desirable method of removing small concentrations of
suspended solids is by use of filtration. Pi lot plant work showed initial success with
filtration of lead wastes. A 900 liter per hour flow was used with an initial suspended
lead particle concentration of 5 mg per liter. A dual media filter revealed the follow-
ing results,'^'
C'nemica!
Ferric Suifate
(@45 mg per liter iron)
Lime
(@ 260 mg per liter)
plus Ferric Suifate
(@20 mg per liter |ron)
Lime
(@600rng per liter)
pH
6.0
10.0
11.5
Lead Concentration (mg/l) after:
Sedimentation Filtration
0.25
0.25
0.20
0.030
0.029
0.019
Although admittedly on a pilot plant scale, the filtration reduced the lead
hydroxide concentration by an order of magnitude. The lead recovered from this
process could possibly be returned to the smelter.
The lead waste from battery production falls into two categories; dissolved and
suspended. Both lime and caustic have proven to be effective in reducing the
dissolved lead concentration to less than 0.5 mg per liter. The optimum pH for minimi-
zing the dissolved lead has been established and the data indicates that it is approxi-
mately 9.3. Another possible approach is the use of carbonate for the.chemical
precipitating agent. Lead carbonate is extremely insoluble in water, allowing lead . .
to be precipitated and filtered out to the same approximate level of 0.5 tng per liter. '
Figure 24 shows the lead waste resulting from the battery manufacturing pro-
cess. In this case, sodium hydroxide or lime is used as the treatment chemical. The
wastes from the treatment system destined for land disposal are wastewater treatment
sludges, the quantities of which are based upon the modeled treatment system of
neutralization, chemical precipitation,and settling or filtration.
These waste sludges consist of lead hydroxide and lead sulfate at 0.541 kg per
1000 kg of product (80% solids basis) for those plants using sodium hydroxide neu-
tralization. The composition of the sludge typically will include lead sulfate
(0.293 kg per 1000 kg), lead hydroxide (0.140 kg per 1000 kg) with a water content ranging
from 20 to 65%. For those plants using lime neutralization, a calcium sulfate sludge
is produced of 735 kg (dry basis) per 1000 kg of product. The composition of the
- 131 -
-------
AVI *OLUSr>OM aetOfet &U.ffHLBIO
Rgure 24. Major Production Operations in Lead-Add
Storage Battery Manufacture
- 132-
-------
sludge typically will include calcium sulfate (2101 kg per 1000 kg at 35% solids ba»is),
lead hydroxide (0.140 kg per 1000 kg), lead sulfate (0.293 kg per 1000 kg) with a lead
content of approximately 150 mg per liter.
The cost of the waste treatment systems described above for a lead-^acid battery
plant varies according to volume of effluent processed. Typical cost figures for
capital costs in 1973dollars for a dry charge plant can vary from $112,500 to $260,000
as volume of effluent varies from 378,500 liters (1000 gallons) to
3,785,000 lirers (1 million gallons) a day. For a wet charge plant with effluent ranging
from 37,850 liters to 378,500 liters (10,000 to 100,000 gallons) a day, capital costs
can range from $60,000 to $112,500.
Annual operating costs In 1973 dollars of the treatment system for a dry charge
plant vary from $5,000 to $38,000 corresponding to 37,850 liters (10,000 gal Ions) to 3,785,000
liters (1 mi 11 for, gallons) of effluent a day. Operating costs for a wet charge plant range
from $5,000 to $6,000 according to effluent ranging from 37,850 liters (10,000 gallons)
to 378,500 liters (100,000 gallons) a day.
The basis for these costs is summarized in Table 51.
Table 51. Lead-Acid Battery Waterborne Waste Treatment
Cost Estimates (1973 $) — Capital Costs
Capacity
(MGD)
0.1
1.0
10.0
Filtration
Unit
30,000
100,000
900,000
Capacity
Batt/Day MGD
Dry charge 1,430 0.1
Dry charge 14,300 1.0
Wet charge 5,000 0.1
Lime Storage
% Feed
30,000-50,000
50,000-75,000
75,000-100,000
Clarifier
32,500
85,000
325,000
Total
112,500
260,000
1,350,000
Capacity
Cost (1973$)
112,500
260,000
112,500
Major Operating Costs
Filtration Operating
Unit Capacity CostAear
(MGD) (1973 $)
1.0
10.0
38,000
199,000
- 133 -
-------
The character of the waste sludge from a lead acid battery plant is determined
largely by the type of water treatment used. Relatively large volume sludges are
produced from lime treatment, containing approximately 0.01% lead. Caustic treat-
ment produces a more concentrated sludge of low volume containing approximately
58% lead. In this industry many plants do not remove lead from their wastewater at the
present time due to either meeting effluent regulations existing in their locality or due
to lack of regulation. It is anticipated that in the future more plants will be required
to treat their wastewater.
Some plants reclaim the lead from the small volume caustic process. Coagula-
ting agents, if used, decrease the possibility of reclaim. If the sludge from caustic
treatment is not reclaimed, it should be deposited in a secured landfill, due to the
high lead content. Because of the much smaller concentration of lead in the calcium
sulfate sludge obtained from lime treatment an approved landfill should prove envir-
onmentally safe. Leaching studies of both types of sludge are necessary. Monitoring
of the leachate and runoff should give adequate notice for further safeguards, if
needed.
Based upon a total of 202 lead acid battery plants in the U.S., three-fourths of
these plants (75%) are currently neutralizing their wastewater effluents and discharging
either directly towaterwaysor to municipal treatment plants. Of the 150 plants using
neutralization, it is estimated that 60 plants treat the wastewater to precipitate lead
containing sludges which are destined for land disposal. Fourteen of these later plants
are using lime treatment to produce a calcium sulfate-lead sludge, while the remain-
der (46) are using caustic to produce a lead hydroxide-sulfate sludge. The numbers of
plants using either lime treatment or caustic treatment is expected to increase drama-
tically in 1977 and 1983 when the EPA effluent guidelines take effect.
6.2.2 Nickel-Cadmium Battery
There are two land-destined hazardous waste streams from nickel-cadmium
battery production; i.e., scrap cells, and sludge from wastewarer treatment.
These two waste streams are often treated to reclaim the hazardous components.
The composition of the sludge is 35% nickel hydroxide and 65% cadmium hydroxide
on a dry basis. The sludge is assumed to be 35% solids. The scrap waste stream
consists of 12% nickel, 43% cadmium and 45% non-hazardous materials.
The wastewater is treated with caustic soda as a precipitating agent and
pumped to a settling basin or pond for final disposal of the sludge. A study
concerning the migration of hazardous materials through soil hcs given preliminary
indications, that the migration of cadmium hydroxide and nickel hydroxide is minimal
in neutral and alkaline soil, due to their extremely low solubilities. Under acidic
conditions, however, the metal hydroxides become much more soluble. If the sludge
is not treated or reclaimed,secured landfill may be necessary due to the high
concentration of hazardous materials.
- 134-
-------
6.3 Treotfr.ent and Disposal in Primary Batteries Manufacture (SIC 3692)
The potentially hazardous wastes destined for land disposal from the manufac-
ture of primary batteries primarily consist of reject or scrap cells. However, in
the production of magnesium-carbon and lead-reserve cells, wastewater treatment
sludges are produced. At the present time, scrap cell wastes are disposed of in
landfills. The water treatment sludges are either sold or land disposed. However,
as shown in Table 50, there are no hazardous wastes from the manufacture of mag-
nesium-reserve ceils and the hazardous wastes from the zinc-silver oxide cell are
sold for reclaim value.
The potentially hazardous wastes from this segment of the industry are generally
characterized as having a concentrated hazardous waste in a relatively small volume
of total waste stream. Where reclaimation of these wastes is not practicable, disposal
in a controlled landfill is considered to be an environmentally adequate technology.
The industry at present disposes of these wastes to general landfills. A short-
study of heavy metal migration from one of these landfills was recently completed.
The area investigated was a surface disposal site on the side of a hill, with the
lower edge of the landfill approximately 6 meters-<202feet) above a spring-fed stream-
let. The disposed material was piled upon the side of the hill, while maintaining
a flat top surface. Rll material consisted of crushed batteries and battery compo-
nents, miscellaneous packaging wastes,and small amounts of spent carbon. The haz-
ardous constituents in the waste were mercury, cadmium, lead,and zinc present
roughly in the ratios of 1:1:1:1000. No cover material was used, and between
rainstorms the surface was dry and powdery. The streamlet received all rainwater
runoff from the disposal site, while the flat surface permitted saturation of the waste
during periods of rainfall.
Visual observation showed that nearby vegetative patterns evidenced the
presence of toxic materials. Vegetative cover was sparce and scattered within a
15 meters (50 foot) radius. Much of the area was completely bare while slightly
raised areas supported some vegetation. Even vegetation in the nearby stream bed
appeared to be affected.
The study involved analyzing water and soil samples collected along transects
radiating from a central point in the disposal site, and covered about 20% of the
disposal area. Soil samples were collected from cores drilled along these transacts,
15 (50), 30 (100), and 45 (130) meters (feet) from the central point. Soil from each
core was analyzed at 0.3 meters (1 foot)below surface and at 1.5 meters (5 f«et)
increments until 10.7 meters (35 fe*t> or bedrock was reached. Soil samples were
also obtained in this manner from the center of the disposal area and from sampling
sites above the disposal area. Core samples were not collected in or near the stream
- 135-
-------
bed. The bore hoies w;re sometimes capped and used to collect water seeping through
the soil immediately otter rainstorms. Water samples were collected from the streamlet
and the larger stream into which it emptied. Stream sediment was sampled at a point
just above the landfill area, 45 meters (150 feet) downstream and from the landfill,
and at other points furhter downstream. However, no surface soil samples were collec-
ted; no stream sediment samples were taken in the immediate vicinity of the landfill,
and no direct rainwater runoff samples were collected.
The results of the study indicated vertical migration of the hazardous metals
within the landfill. The concentrations of metals witKiin the site ranged from 200 to
700 ppm Hg, 1,000 to 60,000 ppm Zn, 46 ppm Cd and 12 to 60 ppm Pb. The con-
centrations of metals in other soil samples, not taken directly in the landfill, varied
with depth or distance from the landfill. These concentrations were lower and ranged
from 0.1 to 0.9 ppm Hg and 30 to 80 ppm Zn. However, one sample collected at the
primary rainfall runoff point 0.3 meter (1 foot) below the surface, contained 3.6 ppm
Hg and 1300 ppm Zn.
Streamlet sediment analysis showed an average of 1.4 ppm Hg, 1400 ppm Zn,
3 ppm Cd, and 80-320 ppm Pb; these concentrations varied little with distance from
the landfill. The receiving stream sediment showed some evidence of upstream con-
tamination (0.5 ppm Hg, 64 ppm Zn) which may be explained by the levels found in
an upstream reservoir sediment sample (1000 ppm Zn).
The concentration of hazardous metals in water sampled showed levels much
lower than that for soil and stream sediment samples. In the test holes, concentrations
ranged from 0.2 to 10 ppb Hg and 2 to 30 ppm Zn, however, a higher concentration
of mercury (38 ppb) was found in the sample from the rainwater runoff pathway. The
streamlet water samples ranged from below 0.2 to 0.4 ppb Hg and from below 0.1 ppm
to 0.4 ppm Zn in the area downstream from the landfill. Near the landfill, heavy
metal concentrations ranged from below 0.2 ppb to 1 ppb Hg and from 2 to 20 ppm Zn.
These results show evidence that migration has occurred of mercury, zinc, cad-
mium, and lead from the disposal site, vertically towards the bedrock and horizontally
to the receiving stream. The results also show evidence that migration of these con-
stituents from stream sediment in the landfill area may have occurred to the larger
receiving streams. It is felt that further study of the landfill is warranted to determine
the full environmental effects, but the preliminary conclusions are that this type of
disposal is environmentally inadequate.
The following sections describe waste practices currently with the industry.
6.3.1 Carbon-Zinc Battery
This ceil is produced in 15 plants and constitutes the largest quantity of any
primary cell manufactured in the U.S. Its hazardous wastes to land are scrap and
reject cells. The amount of waste is estimated to be about 1% of production for a
- 136-
-------
typical plant. It is estimated that the waste stream contains 19% zinc, 2.5%ZnCI,
1% Hg, and smaller amounts of lead and cadmium.
The wastes currently are sent to a simple landfill,either private or municipal.
The successful implementation of a disassembly and recovery process would reduce
significantly the hazardous materials presently going to landfill from this category.
6.3.2 Alkaiir.e Manganese Battery
This cell is produced in seven plants and constitutes the second largest quantity of
any primary cell manufactured in the United States. Hazardous wastes to land con-
sist entirely of scrap and reject cells. The waste is estimated to be about 1% of
production for a typical plant. The waste contains about 1% mercury and 16% zinc.
The wastes currently are sent to a simple landfill.
6.3.3 AirCell
This is a specialty battery produced in only three plants. Its hazardous wastes
to land consist entirely of scrap and reject cells containing 0.1% mercury and 30%
zinc. A 1% waste to production ratio was assumed for a typical plant. The wastes
currently are sent to a simple landfill.
6.3.4 Magnesium Carbon
This battery is produced in three plants primarily for military use. It is unique
in that no hazardous materials are contained in its reject cells. However, trivalent
chromium sludge is produced from water treatment. The sludge from one plant is
currently sold to a brick manufacturer.
6.3.5 Mercury Ruben Cell
This battery is produced in seven plants. Hazardous waste from the production
from this cell consists of scrap and rejected cells. In the great majority of cases this
waste is reclaimed by smelting. Reclaiming is done either by th* plant or by
a private contractor. The final waste going to simple landfill is slag from the reclaim
furnace. This is estimated to contain 1% Hg 56% Zn, and the remainder iron.
6.3.6 Lead Acid Reserve
This battery is produced in only two plants for military usage. The lead-fluoboric
acid reserve cell wastes are scrap cells and scrap metals. Hazardous materials in. the
scrap are estimated to be 55% Pb and 31% Ni. Future water quality standards will
probably result in a sludge from water treatment. The sludge is estimated to be 26%
- 137 -
-------
Pb(OH)g and 74% Ni(OH}3 (dry basis). At present, one plant is in the planning
stages of a water treatment process, but no plant as yet is utilizing one. The largest
volume of waste is scrap metals from battery production (30% of product) which are
sent to simple landfill.
6.3.7 Mercury Weston Cell
This is a limited production cell produced in only one plant. Its wastes are
assembled reject batteries. Hazardous materials in the waste are estimated to be
18.5% Hg, 6.2% HgSO4, 7.9% CaSO4 , and 4.4% Cd. Present disposal practice
is indefinite on-site storage. The assembled ceils are completely encased which
reduces their hazardousness while In storage.
6.4 Treatment and Disposal Technology Levels as Applied to Hazardous Wastes
From The Manufacture of Specific Batteries
The levels of treatment and disposal technology are characterized as follows:
Level I — Technology Currently Employed by Typical Facilities; i.e., broad
average present treatment and disposal practice.
Level II — Best Technology Currently Employed. Identified technology at this
level must represent the best process from an environmental and health
health standpoint, currently in use in at least one (1) location. In-
stallations must be commercial scale; pilot and bench scale installations
are not suitable.
Level 111 —Technology Necessary To Provide Adequate Health and Environmental
Protection. Level III technology may be more or less sophisticated or
may be identical with Level I or II technology. At this level, identified
technology may include pilot or bench scale processes providing the
exact stage of development is identified.
These levels of treatment and disposal technology are described in the follow-
ing series of tables, together with a number of factors which assist in evaluating these
technologies. A short description of these evaluation factors follow:
-138-
-------
(a) Physical and Chemical Properties of the Waste.
This gives a brief description of the form of this waste and identifies the main
constituents.
(b) Amounr of Waste (kg per kkg of product).
This factor gives an average quantity or range of the magnitude of the total
waste stream treated based upon a waste factor relating the quantity of waste
(kilograms) to the quantity of production (metric tons).
(c) Factors Affecting Hazardousness of the Waste.
This gives a brief description of the possible interaction of the surrounding
environment with the waste.
(d) Treatment and Disposal Technology.
A description of the type of technology or disposal practice used to handle the
hazardous waste.
(e) Number of Plants Now Using This Technology and Percentage.
This is an estimate of the usage of the technology by the number and percentage
of plants in the industry.
(f) Adequancy of Technology.
This factor describes the adequacy of the technology with respect to environ-
mental consideration and local regulations.
(g) Problem Areas or Comments.
This gives a brief description of problem areas encountered with the technology
or comments.
(h) Non-land Environmental Impact.
This describes the possible impact of the technology to non-land environmental
factors such as water or air quality.
(i) Compatibility with Existing Facilities.
This factor describes whether the technology can be used by existing plants or
waste disposal contractors.
(i) Monitoring and Surveillance.
This describes the type and frequency of monitoring necessary for the
technology.
(k) Energy Requirements.
This factor describes the qualitative amount of energy requirements for the
technology.
-139-
-------
6.4.1 SIC 3691, Storage Batteries Treatment and Disposal Technology Levels
The following Tables 51 through 53 provide information on the three identified
and contractor recommended levels of treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes
from the storage batteries industry.
6.4.2 SIC 3692f Primary Batteries Treatment and Disposal Technology Levels
Tables 54 through 58 provide information on the three identified and contrac-
tor recommended levels of treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes from the primary
batteries industry.
6.5 General Treatment Technologies
Treatment technologies applicable to the battery industry are discussed in the
following sections along with other technologies spelled out to be investigated under
this study.
6.5.1 Chemical Detoxification
Toxic or hazardous wastes are often treated chemically to reduce or destroy
their hazardous nature. These treatments most often are included in water quality
maintenance, but can be utilized for land-destined wastes as well, particularly by
off-site contractors. One example of chemical detoxification of a hazardous waste
from the battery industry was the reduction of hexavalent chromium trioxide to
trivalent chromium hydroxy-carbonate.
6.5.2 Neutralization
Acid wastes from lead acid battery production are reacted with caustic to form
neutral salts. The resulting salts are less hazardous than either of the reactants. Also,
the resultant salt may be insoluble and precipitate from the solution. Calcium salts
derived from low cost limestone or lime are particular examples of limited solubility.
The reactions shown under Section 6.5.4 are also neutralization reactions.
6.5.3 pH Control
The control of pH may be equivalent to neutralization if the control point is at
or close to pH 7. Sometimes chemical addition to waste streams is designed, however,
to maintain a pH level on either the acidic or basic side for purposes of controlling
desired reactions or solubility. The pH of effluent of the wastewater treatment from
lead-acid storage battery production is maintained at around pH 9, to minimize PbSCU
solubility.
-140-
-------
Table 51. Treatment and Dfepotal Technology for Sludge From Lead Acid Battery Production
Factor
Physical and Chemical
Properties at Watte
Amount of Watte (kg
put kkg of product)
Factors Affecting
Hazardoutness of Waste
Treatment and Disposal
Technology
Number of Plant. Now
Utfng Technology (%)
Adequacy of Technology
Pujfclem Areas and
Cejnrnents
level I, Prevalent Tedhnoltga
(I) Sludge containing PbSO, and Pb(OH),
(60% »l!di) or
(2) Sludge containing CaSO4 {35% tolldt)
and ISOppm lead.
(1)0.5
(2) 2,100
Acidic conditions of land storage may caute
leaching of lead.
Land storage of sludge.
60 (30%) Land storage for sludge.
90 (45%) Neutralization and discharge,
no sludge generated.
SO (25%) No wastewater treatment, no
sludge.
Inadequate sludge disposal, possible migra-
tion of wastes.
Possible leaching of lead in landfill to water
table or stream.
Level II, set* Avollobl. Teornote^y
Same as Level I
(1)0.5
(2) 2,100
Same as Level I
(1) Land storage of sludge with
leachote collection and treatment.
(2) Return lead hydroxide sludge to smelter
for reclaim.
(I) 1 (0.5%)
(2)2(1%)
(1) Inadequate due to lack of leochote and
runoff monitoring.
(2) Adequate, however, lead cannot be re-
claimed if impurities are preterit.
(1) No leachate monitoring.
(2) Future water quality standards may require
u*e of flocculants, making recovery
impossible.
level III, Adequate Health and Environmental Protection
Same as Level I
(1)0.5
(2)2,100
Same as Level I
(1) Deposit calcium sulfote sludge in approved landfill.
(2) Chemical fixation of I lodge, and simple landfill, ,
(pilot stage).
(3) Disposal of lead hydroxide sludge In secured landfill.
0)(0)
(2) (0)
0) Adequate
(2) Adequacy not yet fully determined.
(3) Adequate
(1) Should monitoring indicate significant leaching,
further steps may be necessary.
(2) Fixed sludge may be suitable for construction
purposes.
(3) Existence and location.
Nan-land Environmental Possible leaching to wutertable.
tayact
CMpatobllity with
Existing Facilities
Monitoring and
Surveillance
Energy Requirements
Good, presently In use.
Little or none In use.
Small, land Jtoroge operation.
(1) Possible runoff.
(2) None.
(1) Good. Land is the only limiting factor.
(2) Good
{1) Little or none in use.
(2) None required.
(1) Small, land storage operation.
(2) Small, transportation.
(1) None opporunt.
(2) None apparent.
(3) None apparent.
(1) Good; land and location are limiting factors.
(2) Good; If facilities exist.
(3) Good; land and location are limiting factors.
(1) Monitoring wells and runoff surveillance.
(2) Leochate surveillance.
(3) Monitoring wells.
(1) Some « Level II-!.
(2) Some ol Level lr-1.
(3) Same at Level II.
-------
Table 52. Treatment and Disposal Technology for Sera* Cells From Production of Nickel-Cadm turn Batteries
Factor
N>
rroperHet of Wait*
AaountafWaeHfa
rocton ArivcMng
Hazardoueneei of Waste
Treatment ond Dlveeol
Technology
pejejber ot Monh NDW
Adaquocy of
Technology
Preblwa Anas and
CM
Q
level I, *revolent Technology
12% Ml, 43% Cod, 45%non-bazanloui
imterioli In form of scrap oelli.
12
High leveli of nickel ond cadmium which
could leach under acidic conditions.
Simple landRII.
Inadequate, powltte migration of hozardout
Po«tbte migration Into woteftable.
Non-land Environmental PosetbU migration of hazardous •ntertali to
wotertoble.
Good
None reported.
Small, landfill operations.
Ext«ln« FaetllttM
Monitoring and
Surveillance
Energy dequlrem
lam* ot Uv«t I,
Sam* o» L«v»l I .
Sole to «cmp recloln flow.
a (80%)
Adequate, however, mbject to demand and
prie* of tcrap .
The elimination of landfllllng this
an abvloui benefit.
Undetermined.
Good
Not applicable
Small.
t«vel III, Adequate Health ond Environmental Prof«ct!on
Somt at L*v*t I.
12
Sam* at Level I.
(I) Same at level It.
(2) Secured landfill.
(1)8(80%)
(2)0
(1) Adequate, same as Level II.
(2> Adequate, secured landfill not only eliminate*
poerible migration at materiah, but provides e
permanent record of thel r burial.
(1) Some a> Level II.
(2) Existence and location.
(1) Undetermined.
(2) None.
(I) Good.
(2) Good; rramportarton and availability of secured
landfill are limiting factors.
(1) Not applicable.
(2) Monitoring wells.
(1) Same a> Level II.
(2) Small, transportation.
-------
Table 53. Treatment and Disposal Technology for Water Treatment Sludge From Production of Nickel-Cadmium
factor
Physical and Chemical
erties of Waste
Level t. Prevalent Technology
Level II, Bejt Available Technology
Amount of Waste (leg
per Itlcfl of product)
Focton Affecting
Hazardousness of Watte
Treatment and Disposal
Technology
Number of Plant* Now
IMng Technology (%)
Adequacy of
Technology
PMfblem Areas and
CMrants
Sludge 35% folidf composed of 35% Ni(OH), Some as Level I.
and 65% Cd(OHV (dry basis).
20
High levels of hazardous metal hydroxides.
Solubility of these under acidic conditions
could cause leaching.
Land storage.
1 (10%)
Inadequate.
Possible migration of hazardous metals.
Non-land Environmental Possible migration of hazardous materials
Impact to watertable.
Comparability with
Existing Facilities
Monitoring and
Surveillance
Energy Requirements
Good
None reported.
Small, pumps.
20
Same as Level I.
Sale to scrap reclaim firms.
9(90%)
Adequate, however, subject to demand and
price for scrap.
Reclaimarion is desirable.
Undetermined.
Good
Not applicable.
Small.
Level III, Adequate Health ond_Environmental Protection
Same as Level I.
20
Some as Level I.
(I) Some as Level II.
(2) Secured landfill.
(3) Chemical fixation of sludge and simple landfill.
(I) 9 (90%)
(2) 0 (0%)
(3) 0 (0%)
0) Adequate.
(2) Adequate.
(3) Adequate not yet fully determined.
(1) Same as Level II.
(2) Availability.
(3) Several undetermined factors.
0) Same as Level II.
(2) None
(3) Undetermined.
(l)Good.
(2) Good, transpoiration and availability of sites
ore limiting factors.
(3) Good.
(1) Not applicable.
(2) Monitoring wells.
(3) Leochote surveillance.
(I) Same as Level II.
(2) Small, transportation.
(3) Small, pumps and mixers.
-------
Toble 54. Treatment and Dl^onl Winolo* for Carbon-Zinc, Air and Alkaline Rejected Cells
Level I, Prevalent Technology
level II, Beit AvolloMe Technology
level III, Adequote Health end Environmental Protection
Htyilcol and Chemical
Properties ol Watte
Amount of Wo*e (kg
per Iricg of product)
Factors Affecting
Hazordoutneat of Wotte
treatment and Dl^xxal
Technology
Number of Ptonh Now
Wring Technology (%)
Adequacy of
Technology
Fveblem Are-m and
CoWMnH
Non-tor ' Environmental
Impact
Carbon-Zinc - 730 ppm Hg, 27 ppm Cd,
31 ppm KK 19.0% Zn, 2.4*% ZnCI, .
Alkaline - 7S> ppm rlgp 16.2% Zn.
Air - I \7 ppm Hgj 24.9% Zn.
1.0
Hlgft level* of mercury zinc, cadmium, and
lead. Trie** metoU could leach under
acidic condition*.
Simple landfill with few or no lafeguardt.
24(96%)
Inadequate, due to poolble migration of
hazardout materials.
Poulblllty of mtgmtlon of hazordout material*.
Poolble woterroble contamination .
Same at Level 1.
Same at Level 1.
Same at Level 1 .
Leochote •jrvatltanc*.
1(4%)
Adequate, bur not at good at Level III
technology.
SIMM at Level 1.
PoeribU woterfoble confoml notion .
Some a. Level 1.
Some at Level 1 .
SOM at Level 1.
(1) Secured landfill.
(2) Recovery of xtnc, mercury, cadmium, and lead
(pilot rtoge).
0) 0 (0%)
(2)0(0%)
(I) Adequate.
(2)A*q»are.
(1) Exirtence and availability of lite..
C2)LMoVen«lne
-------
Table 55. Treatment and Disposal Technology for tfie Mercury Cell
fuel of
tevcl I, Prevalent Technology
Level II, Best Available Technology
Level III, Adequate Health and Environmental Protection
Physical and Chemical
Properties of Waste
Amount of Waste (kg
per kkg of product)
factors Affecting
Hoxardousness of Waste
Treatment and Disposal
Technology
Number of Plants Now
Using Technology (%)
Aoequocy or
Technology
Problem Areas and
Comments
Non-land Environmental
Impact
Comparability With
Existing Facilities
Mont taring and
Surveillance
Slag from reclaim furnnce - 1% Hg, 56% Zn,
43% non-hazardous.
e
Mercury and zinc content .
Mercury reprocessing on-siteor$ale ro repro-
ceuor. Simple landfill of slag.
7(100%)
Inadequate, because although migration of
materials is not known, future leaching is
possible .
Reclaiming ji sometimes done by outside
reprocessor.
Possible teaching.
Already being done.
None in use.
Same os Level 1 .
Some os Level 1 .
Same as Level I .
Same os Level 1.
Some as Level 1 .
Some ai Level 1 .
Same os Level 1 .
Some os Level 1.
Same os Level 1 .
Some as Level 1 .
Same as Level 1 .
Some as Level 1 .
Some as Level 1 .
Mercury reprocessing with secured landfill of slag.
0(0%)
Adequate.
Same as Level 1 .
None apparent.
Existence and availability of sites.
Monitoring wells.
Energy Requirements
Minimal, transportation and fuel for furnace. Same as Level I.
Some as Level I.
-------
Table 56. Treatment and Diqx>sal Technology for the Mercury Weston Cell
roc* ot
Level I, Prevalerlt Technology
Level II, Be* Available Technology
Level III, Adequate Health ond Environmental Protection
Phy»lcal ond Chemical
Properties oF W«t«
Amount of Woite (kg
per kkg of product)
factors Affecting
Hozordoutneei of Watte
Treatment onrf Dlqpotol
Technology
Number of Plonti Now
Uilng Technology (%)
Adequacy of
Technology
Problem Areoi ond
Cotwnenrt
Non-land Environmental
Impact
Compotoblllfy With
Exllting Foellltiei
Monitoring and
Surveillance
Energy Requirement!
Scrap botterlet containing - 18.5% Hg, 4.4%
CdSO4,3.3%HgSO<, 3.6% Cd ond 66.8%
non-hazaroout moterlolt.
10
Toxic marerlott In container!.
Indefinite rtoroge.
t (100%)
Aaeajuote preiently, however, mint be dtt-
poMd of eventually.
Stored waitet mat eventually be dilated
of.
None
Good
None
None
Same as Level 1 .
Same a§ Level 1 .
Some at Level).
Inaeftnlte etoroge.
1 (100%)
Same <• level 1.
Some o> Level 1 .
None
Good
None
None
Some as Level 1 .
Same at Level 1 .
Same 01 Level 1.
D!?c«ol In Mcured landfill.
0(0%)
Adequate.
The limited production of thli cell lends tome latitude
toward IN dl^xnal .
Nbne
Exigence and aval lability of litei.
Monitoring welli provided.
Minimal.
-------
Table 57. Treatment and Disposal Technology for Magnesium Carbon Cell Sludge
Foctor
Physical and Chemical
Properties of Waste
Amount of Waste (kg
per kkg of product)
Factors Affecting
Hozordousnen of Waste
Treatment and Disposal
Technology
Number of Plants Now
Using Technology (%)
Level I, Prevalent Technology
Sludge (50% solids) chromium hydroxy-
corfaonate.
27.6
Precipitated chromium could be solubilized
In acidic environment.
Simple landfill.
2(67%)
Level II, Best Available Technology
Same as Level I.
27.6
Same as Level I.
Sale of sludge for production of non-clay
refractories*
1 (33%)
Adequacy of
Technology
Problem Areas and
Comments
Non-land Environmental
Impact
Comparability With
Existing Facilities
Monitoring and
Surveillance
Energy Requirements
Inadequate, possible leaching.
Possible leaching.
Possible leaching.
Good
None In use.
Minimal
Adequate, he
Subject to de
None
Fair
Not needed.
Small
Level III, Adegyote Health and Environmental Protection
Same as Level I.
27.6
Same as Level I.
0) Chemical fixation and simple landfill.
(2) Secured landfill.
(1)0(0%)
(2) 0 (0%)
(1) Adequacy not fully determined.
(2) Adequate.
(1) Availability.
(2) Existence and availability.
(1) Undetermined.
(2) None.
(l)Good
(2) Good, transportation and availability ore factors.
(1) Leachate surveillance.
(2) Monitoring wells provided.
Same as Level I.
-------
Table 58. Treatment and Disposal Technology for Lead-Fluoboric Acid Reserve Cell (Scrap and Sludges)
Factor
Physical and Chemical
Properties of Wait*
Amour* of Waste (kg
per Hcg of product)
factors Affecting
Hazarabusnes* of Warte
Treatment ond Dl»po*ol
Technology
Number of Plants Now
U«lng Technology (%)
Adequacy of
Technology
Problem Areas and
Comment*
Non-land environmental
Impact
Comparability With
Existing Facilities
Monitoring and
Surveillance
Level I, Prevalent Technology
Scry and scrap cells - 55% Pb, 31% Ni,
14% non-Tiozordoui materials.
Sludge (35% solids)- 26% Pb(OH), ond
74% NI(OH), (dry bosls): Future wostewoter
Scrap-330; sludge-8.2. Same as Level I.
High levels of Ni and Pb. Same 01 Level I.
level II, test Avetloble Technology
Some as Level I.
Simple landfill of scrap.
2 (100%)
Powlble teaching.
Good, in practice.
None In UM.
Same as Level I
2(100%)
Inadequate, paetlble migration of hazardous Same as Level I.
materials.
Much of the scrap generated might be elimi- Same as Level I.
noted by recycle.
Some as Level I.
Same as Level
Same as Level I.
Level III, Adequate Health and Environmental Protection
Some as Level I.
Same as Level I.
Some os Level I.
Secured landfill of scrap and sludge.
Adequate.
Existence and availability of sires.
None.
Good, transportation and availability of landfill are
limiting factors.
Monitoring wells.
Energy Requirements
Minimal, fuel for equipment.
Same as Level I.
Small, transportation to landfill lite.
-------
6.5.4 Precipitation
This reaction is the basis of eliminating many undesirable water-borne wastes
from a waste stream. The use of the technique in the battery industry is predominantly
limited to the production of storage batteries. Lime or caustic which are used to
neutralize the acidic wastewater, also cause the lead, nickel, or other active ingre-
dients to precipitate out of solution. The result is a sludge of high water content.
The suspended solids may be further removed by the use of settling basins, clarifiers,
or thickeners.
The following are examples of precipitation reactions used for wastewater treat-
ment in the storage batteries industry.
(1) Ca(OH)s + PbSO4 = CaSO*i + Pb(OH)8i
(2) 2NaOH + PbSO* = No* SO* + Pb(OH)si
(3) 2NaOH + NiSO4 = No* SO* + Ni(OH)ai
(4) 2NaOH + CdSO* = NaaSO* +
The addition of the above caustic chemicals also results in the neutralization of pH
control of the acid streams, as shown below.
(1) Ca(OH)a + Ha SO* = CaSO* .2H8Ol
(2) 2NaOH + Ha SO* = NoaSO* + 2H20
6.5.5 Recovery and Reuse
Many toxic or hazardous storage battery wastes contain valuable materials.
Whenever this is the case, recovery and reuse is one of the most desirable methods
of pollution avoidance. Lead, nickel, and other heavy metals, once they are removed
from water or air streams, are sometimes recovered economically rather than land dis-
posed. Only when these metals are very minor constituents of the waste is it not
economical to follow the recovery or reuse approach (as in calcium sulfate sludge).
Therefore, most heavy metal land-disposed wastes from the storage batteries industry
are so diluted that f-heir hazardous/less is greatly reduced. Primary rejected batteries
are a likely prospect for recovery from battery industry wastes. The major factor
standing in the way of recovery of most of the heavy metals going to landfill in this
category is the disassembly of ffie cells to separate the recoverable and non-recover-
able components. Until now it has not been economically feasible to disassemble
the cells. The rising costs of raw materials, however, may soon change this situation.
- 149-
-------
A pilot program in one major battery company indicates that it is economically
favorable to recover a majority of the hazardous wastes through disassembly.
There are also private contractors that specialize in hazardous waste reclama-
tion. In the battery industry this situation is encountered in reject mercury cells,
silver cells/and cadmium cells.
6.5.6 Burning and Incineration
Since battery industry wastes are generally non-combustible and their wastes
are mainly found as sludges and liquids, or reject cells, burning or incineration is
not used for treatment or disposal of wastes.
6.5.7 High Temperature Processing
Although not flammable, battery wastes in some cases can be smelted in a fashion
similar to recovery of metals from ores. Mercury can be driven from wastes by heat::
ing in furnaces arid retorts, condensed in chilled heat exchangers,and recovered/ '
Smelting operations are also widely used for lead wastes recovered from the
production of lead acid storage batteries.
6.5.8 Open Dumping
Open clumping of hazardous battery wastes into gravel pits, dumps,and other
uncontrolled disposal areas is still a prevalent disposal practice. Most of the com-
panies producing batteries contacted, however, have demonstrated increasing aware-
ness and responsibility for treatment, control/and disposal of hazardous wastes.
According to information from both private contractors and interviewed battery pro-
ducers, most companies want no "surprises" from disposal and are checking closely
on both their own and contract disposal sites and procedures.
Massive calcium sulfate sludges are the major wastes from the storage batteries
industry. These large volume wastes, containing relatively small amounts of hazard-
ous components, are currently land stored or I and filled. The large volume and the
obvious economic impact of more costly treatment and disposal technology makes it
IIUUJIIMI; to consider the alternative technologies carefully.
6.5.9 Municipal Sewers
Hazardous wastes from a number of battery plants currently go into municipal
sewer systems. These materials wind up in sewage sludge, some of which is destined
for land disposal, or in the effluent from the treatment plant. The amount of hazardous
waste being discharged to sewers varies with the amount removed by water treatment
- 150-
-------
methods, it is anticipated that a lesser amount of hazardous wastes will be discharged
to sewers in the future.
6.5.10 Burial Operations
Major quantities of battery industry hazardous wastes go into burial operations.
These wastes include dry solids and sludges. Burial locations include both public and
private landfills.
6.5.11 Public and Private Landfills
Landfill operations are the preferred method of disposing of hazardous non-
flammable solids and sludges. The prime requisite for such disposal is that the haz-
ardous contents of the landfill be isolated from the surrounding environment. Water
quality of surface and ground water must not be compromised. Air quality must also
be maintained. A more detailed discussion of landfills is given in a later section.
6.5.12 Disposal Ponds or Lagoons
Disposal ponds or lagoons provide a simple and economic approach to on-site
hazardous waste disposal, where applicable. However, there are some serious draw-
backs .
(a) The pond must provide protection from both surface and groundwater contamina-
tion, in almost all areas this means a lined pond. Liners include clay, plastic,
concrere,and epoxy, all of which are relatively expensive.
(b) Except in very dry climates, ponds without discharge will overflow from rain-
fall accumulation.
(c) Ponds are prone to be "flushed out" with massive rainfall. It is difficult and .
expensive to provide flood protection.
in the battery industry, ponding was only rarely encountered for sludge from
water treatment.
6.5.13 Deep Well Injection
Deep welling is a specialized form of land disposal of hazardous wastes. It is
normally restricted to liquids only since suspended solids or sludges tend to clog the
porous rock shale on sand structure into which the injection occurs. Since battery
wastes are almost exclusively solids or sludges, de«p welling is not a viable alternative.
- 151 -
-------
6.5:14 Ocean Barging
Currently a number of hazardous wastes generated by industry are disposed of
by ocean barging. Some of these wastes will in the future be destined for land
disposal. This method is not presently used by the batteries industries, and because of
possible environmental damage is not a good choice for future disposal.
6.6 Land Disposal Practices
6.6.1 LandfiM Types
Landfills may be classified as:
(a) General purpose Igndfills;
(b) Approved landfills - for hazardous wastes;
(c) Secured landfill operations for extremely hazardous wastes.
6.6.1.1 General Purpose Landfills
It is estimated that 85% of the land-destined hazardous waste from the battery
industry currently finds its way into general purpose landfill sites. General purpose
landfills are characterized by their acceptance of a wide variety of wastes, includ-
ing organic materials, and by the usual absence of special containment, monitoring,
and leachate treatment provisions for hazardous wastes.
The potential for environment damage by landfilled hazardous wastes differs
depending on both the composition and quantity of that waste. Many general purpose
landfills will accept small quantities of hazardous wastes, particularly if they are in
drums or plastic containers, but refuse large amounts.
When the hazardousness level is relatively low, due either to the inherent
characteristic of the compound or its low concentration in the overall waste mass,
even large quantities of hazardous wastes may be accepted.
6.6.1.2 Approved Landfills
Each general purpose landfill has its own ambience — geologically, hydrologi-
cally, and environmentally. Ideally, a general purpose landfill would be located in
an isolated, dry part of the country with a thick layer of impermeable soil between
the waste and the water table. Such areas are plentiful in the western part of the
U.S., but not in the east. However, many existing and future landfill sites through-
out the U.S. can approach ideal conditions.
- 152-
-------
The degree of approach is differentiated in this report as approved landfills
and secured landfills. Secured landfills are defined and discussed in a following
section.
Approved landfills are defined to meet the following criteria:
(a) The composition and volume of each hazardous waste is known and approved
for site disposal by pertinent regulatory agencies.
(b) The site should be ambiently suitable for hazardous wastes.
(c) Provision is made for monitoring wells, rain water diversion, and leachate
control and treatment, if required.
The advantages of approved landfill sites include:
(a) Many hazardous wastes may be disposed of in a controlled and environmentally
safe fashion.
(b) Selection of landfill sites and disposal technology for ambience suitability still
leaves a great number of available landfill sites.
(c) Disposal costs, for both transporting the waste to the site and the landfilling
itself, are kept to levels close to those for general purpose sites and still much
lower than for secured landfill.
From a practical standpoint many local regulatory agencies and landfill site
owners are informally practicing much of this discrimination by selective acceptance
of waste materials. Sites with known high potential for surface and ground water
contamination are thereby avoided. Battery wastes are rarely disposed of in approved
landfills at the present time.
6.6.1 .3 Approved Landfill for Large Volume Hazardous Wastes
Large volume hazardous wastes normally have their own landfill site so that
interaction with other wastes is not a factor. Also, since transportation costs are
high, disposal is usually either on-site or within a few miles of the plant.
6.6.1.4 Secured Landfills
The battery industry has a number of small volume wastes of hazardous poten-
tial. For these wastes landfilling involves additional safeguards beyond those de-
scribed for approved landfills. Criteria for these secured landfills include:
- 153-
-------
(a) The composition and volume of each extremely hazardous waste is known and
approved for site disposal by pertinent regulatory agencies.
(b) The site should be geologically and hydrologically approved for extremely
hazardous wastes. Included in the criteria would be a soil or soil/liner
permeation rate of less than 10'7 cm per sec, a water tabte well below the
lowest level of the landfill,and adequate provision for diversion and control
of surface water.
(c) Monitoring wells are provided.
(d) Leachate control and treatment (if required).
(e) Records of burial coordinates to avoid any chemical interactions.
(f) Registration of site for a permanent record once filled.
No instance of a battery company utilizing a secured landfill for its wastes
was found.
A number of landfills which meet the physical requirements (if not all the regu-
latory criteria) are located around the country. California has a number of Class I
impermeable landfills which accept extremely hazardous materials. Texas has similar
sites. A number of low level-radioactive waste landfill sites accept industrial hazard-
ous wastes. In addition to the radioactive waste sites various other private secured
landfills also take extremely hazardous wastes. At the present time secured landfills
are scattered and not fully utilized. Part of the lock of utilization stems from the fact
that the majority of the sites are in isolated western areas away from industrial centers.
Another reason for the lack of utilization Is the high cost as compared to other avail-
able disposal methods.
Relatively isolated impermeable soil conditions exist in many areas of the
country. If impermeable soil is not available then clay, special concrete, asphalt,
plastic and other liners and covers are available to accomplish similar containment
and isolation of wastes.
6.6.2 Safeguard Practices
6.6.2.1 Direct Plastic/Concrete Encapsulation
Direct hazardous wastes encapsulation in concrete is now practiced by at least
one contract disposer. The practice is used for small quantities of containerized mis-
cellaneous hazardous wastes.
- 154-
-------
6.6.2.2 Steel Drums
Steel drums.- alone or with plastic liners, not only provide some long-term
containment but also are the most convenient storage and transportation mode for
relatively small quantities of wastes. The ultimate problem involved is the eventual
decay of the stee! drums. Therefore, unless disposed of in an appropriate landfill
site, future release to the environment is likely.
6.6.2.3 Ciay or Asphalt Encapsulation in Bulk
In wet climate;., sections of or entire landfill areas are encapsulated by adding
clay or asphalt "caps" or "covers" to impervious isolation cells or landfill liners.
The impervious cover is necessary to protect the hazardous waste from rainfall
flooding. Neutralizing or pH control ingredients such as lime may also be used to
encase or surround the hazardous waste to avoid solubility, decomposition or other
change in the character of the waste to increase its environmental damage.(25/26)
In dry climates, there is no need to encapsulate the entire landfill since rain-
fail and water buildup is not a problem. Isolation cells may still be constructed,
however, for specific hazardous waste containment.
6.6.2.4 Leachate Collection and Treatment
In wet cMmates, particularly, both private and public landfills are paying In-
creasing attention vo leachate collection, monitoring and treatment. Landfill areas
in the State of Pennsylvania are representative of those in a wet climate and leach-
ing treatment has been initiated in some public landfill areas. Leachate monitoring
and treatment is also practiced in an on-site storage battery plant landfill. The vast
majority of the landfill operations handling hazardous wastes, however, do not have
any leachate control and treatment provisions.
6.6.2.5 Chemical Rxation
Hazardous sludges are being increasingly treated either on-site or in collection
areas by mixing them with inorganic chemicals and catalysts to set up the entire mass
into solid structures with low leachability and good land storage or landfill character-
istics. There are a number of such processes which produce solids ranging from
crumbly soil-like materials to concrete to ceramic slags. (27,28) jhere has been no
reported instance of chemical fixation being used on battery industry wastes. It is,
however, a possibility for sludge treatment in the battery industry.
- 155 -
-------
6.6.2.6 Practical Landfill Disposal Factors
Once a landfill area has been isolated from surface and ground water contact
and leachates are being handled satisfactorily, almost any non-flammable, non-
explosive and non-air polluting hazardous waste can theoretically be disposed of
safely. There ore a number of practical restrictions, however, to this approach:
(a) In wet climates the impervious landfills are flooded with heavy rainfall.
Dumping of liquids or sludges into the landfill only accentuates the problem.
(b) Some hazardous wastes create hazards for landfill personnel or give air pollu-
tion problems.
(c) Chemical interactions with both other materials and the liner can cause unde-
sirable side effects.
Rainfall;
In the southwestern U.S. The annual rainfall is significantly less than the
evaporation. In the San Francisco area a net evaporation rainfall differential of
1.2 meters exists. Therefore, in these dry climates, liquid and sludge hazardous
wastes can be mixed into either refuse or fill dirt without having the landfill area
flooded.
Chemical Interactions;
Indiscriminate dumping of hazardous chemicals into landfills leads to serious
interactions. Acid attacks metallic su I fides and changes the solubility of heavy
metal precipitates. In battery wastes, acid and alkaline reject cells must be separa-
ted. The heat produced upon neutralization could be enough to ignite some other
flammable waste.
In addition to the chemical interactions between landfill components, liners
can also be attacked. Many plastic materials used in liners are attacked by organic
solvents, oxidizing agents and other waste components. Clay liners are attached by
a variety of chemicals and become more porous. An old construction practice is to
mix clay with lime to give a sand-like soil. There have been instances in California
where clay liners have failed to stop seepage of hazardous wastes such as chromates
into ground water*29) It is believed that chemical impairment of the clay liner was
responsible.
-156-
-------
6.6.2.7 Coordinate Records
Landfill ing of hazardous wastes as discussed earlier in this section can lead to
undesirable chemical interactions. A few public and private landfill operations keep
records of all hazardous waste burials by location and composition. By means of this
record undesirable interactions may be avoided and potentially reactive chemicals
isolated from each other. One necessary corollary to coordinate record keeping is
prior knowledge of hazardous wastes coming to the landfill area so that a satisfactory
disposal section may be selected. Prior written requests for the specific hazardous
waste disposal are already required for some public and private landfill areas.
6.6.2.8 Safeguards Presently Used in Disposal
Much of rhe waste generated by the battery industry is land-dumped or land-
filled with little or no safeguards used. In one case an asphalt pad is used along with
a leachate collection and treatment system. One plant is encapsulating their wastes
in steel drums before burial. Several plant wastes are covered and compacted daily
in fenced and attended sites.
In almost all cases, the safeguards in use reflect state efforts to regulate land-
fill techniques.
6.6.2.9 On-Site vs. Off-Site Disposal
On the basis of information from approximately 30 companies, involving 72plant
sites, approximately 80% (57 plants) hire contractors or use public facilities for off-site
disposal of at least a portion of their hazardous wastes. The remaining 20% treat
and dispose of their own wastes. In general, contractors are used for small volume
wastes, particularly in congested areas where treatment and disposal land is at a
premium. Off-site disposal probably accounts for 65% of the total volume disposed.
6.7 Private Contractors and Service Organizations
Off-site treotment and disposal of land-destined hazardous wastes from the
battery industry are sometimes handled by private contractors and waste service
organizations. The contractors may provide both hauling and disposal services. A
list of private treatment/disposal contractors and waste service organizations is shown
in Appendix B. This list is not intended to be complete but does give a good cross-
section of involved facilities including most of the largest and most active.
- 157-
-------
7.0 COST ANALYSIS
Cost information contained in this report was assembled directly from industry,
from waste treatment and disposal contractors, engineering firms, equipment sup-
pliers, government sources, and published literature. Whenever possible, costs are
based on actual installations, engineering estimates for projected facilities as sup-
plied by contributing companies, or from waste treatment and disposal contractors
quoted prices. In the absence of such information, costs estimates have been
developed insofar as possible from plant-supplied costs for similar waste treatments
and disposal for other plants or industries. Most of the treatment and disposal technology
levels and costs developed have been submitted for comment to the specific compan-
ies and plants producing the involved products. Adjustments have then been made
incorporating these inputs.
The estimates presented were prepared on an engineering basis, using accepted
engineering format. No attempt was made to prepare estimates which would reflect
impact on individual companies financial statements. Inclusion of tax considera-
tions, product pricing, and other such factors would entail practices unique to each
company, and should be recognized as beyond the fttope of this report.
7.1 Summary
A cost analysis has been developed for all land-destined hazardous wastes discusstd
in Section 6.0 for the appropriate treatment and disposal technologies. Tables 59
and 60 summarize the costs for treatment and disposal of the wastes for typical
plants producing each type of battery as a function of technology level. "Typical"
plants based on weighted average sizes for the industry are used for cost develop-
ment rather than any specific plant. Costs are also generalized rather than repre-
senting those for any specific plant.
Whenever treatment and disposal costs for the waste streams from any typical
plant are less than $500 annually, they are reported as such. Disposal for very small
amounts of materials generated over a year's production are difficult to estimate
meaningfully. Where reclamation may be utilized to eliminate a hazardous waste
to landfill, the disposal cost is taken as zero for the reclaiming operation.
Plant age and size are not major factors influencing costs. The controlling
factors are the amount and composition of the wastes inherent to the process and the
close availability of suitable treatment or disposal sites. Location is a factor in the
availability of suitable disposal sites, but its influence is somewhat mitigated by the
fact that the vast majority of the battery plants are in the eastern half of the U.S.
Transportation costs of wastes to the nearest secured landfill are based on 400 kilo-
meters (250 miles) one way as an estimate. The landfill costs are baced on approved
or secured sites.
-158-
-------
Table 59. Summary of Typical Plant Cosh for Treatment and Disposal of Land Destined Hazardous Wastes
From Storage Batteries Manufacture (SIC 3691)
Battery
Type
(a) Lead Acid
(b) Nickel-
Codmium
(c) Cadmium-
Silver
Oxide
(d) Zinc-
Silver
Oxide
1973
Total
Industry
Production
(kkft/yr)
1,081,187
4,005
Not
Available
Not
Available
Hazardoui Waste Stream
(1) Lead containing sludge resulting
from lime wcntewater treatment
(2) Lead containing sludges resulting
From caustic wastvwoter
treatment
(1) Sludge from caustic wastewoter
treatment containing cadmium
and nickel hydroxides
(2) Refected and scrap evils contain-
ing cadmium and nickel
(1 ) Wattewater lieutiiieiil sludge con-
taining silver oxide and cadmium
hydroxide
(2) Rejected and scrap cells contain-
ing cadmium and silver oxide
(1) defected and scrap cells contain-
ing zinc oxide-hydroxide, silver
oxide and mercury
Typical
Plant
Production
(kko/yr)
8200
447
36.2
Not
Available
Amount of
Hazardous
Constituents In
Typical Plant
Waste Stream
pry Basis)
(ttg/yr)
2.6
2.6
3.1
3.0
0.3
0.3
Not
Available
Quantity
of Plant
Total
Waste
Stream
(Wet Basis)
(Idca/yr)
17,290
4.46
8.9
5.4
0.5
(reclaimed)
0.4
(reclaimed)
Not
Available
(reclaimed)
Annual
Typical Plant Cost for
Treatment and Disposal Technology
(Dollars)
Level 1
26,840
1,400
1,950
100
0
0
0
Level II
43,110
< 500
0
0
0
0
0
Level III
36,600
1,000
2,450
500
0
0
C
cn
•O
-------
Table 60. Summary of Typical Plant Cosh for Treatment and Disposal of Land Destined Hazardous Wastes
From Primary Batteries Manufacture (SIC 3692)
Pottofy
Type
(o) Carbon-Zinc
(b) Carbon-Zinc
AlrC.II
(c) Alkdlne-
Mangonete
(d) Mercury
(e)We*on
Mercury Cell
(f) Magnesium
Carbon
(g) Zlnc-Sllvw
Oxide
(h) Lead Acid
Reserve
[I ) Magnesium
Reserve
1973
Total
Industry
Production
fldcg/yr)
95,900
Not
Available
14,000
1,845
0.9
3,700
525
Not
Available
Not
A variable
Hdzayoouf Worf* StraoeM
Rejected and Soop Celli
Kefeotwi and Scrap Cells
Refected and Scrap Cells
Scrap Celli and Furnace Residue
Refected and Scrap Cells
Waitewater Effluent Treatment
Sludge
Rejected and Scrap Cells
(1 ) Scrap and refected cells
tf\ Wntt«untjv tiwt*mt*m tiiuinm
None
Typical
Plant
Production
0*«/yr)
2,270
1,500
2,000
450
0.9
1,350
99.1
45.4
Not
Available
Amount of
Houmous
Constituents In
Typical Plant
Wosto Strtoffl
(Dryloils)
(Wco/yr)
9.2
0.45
3.5
2.6
0.003
15
0.001
13
0.13
None
Quantity
of Plant
Total
Watte
Strtoiti
CWet Basts)
0*a/yr)
22.7
15.4
20
3.6
0.009
37.5
0.59
(reclaimed)
14.9
0.37
Not
Available
Annual
Typical Plant Cost for
Treatment and Disposal
, (Dollar.)
Lev.ll
2,500
2,200
1,695
<500
0
1,400
0
2,000
0
Level II
3,020
2,660
2,048
<500
0
1,400
0
2,000
0
Level III
3,635
3,000
2,310
1,000
<500
4,000
0
3,500
0
-------
7.2 Contractor Treatment and Disposal Costs
The costs for contractor handling of hazardous wastes from this industry may
be broken down into two basic components — the cost of getting the waste to the
treatment and disposal facilities and the treatment and disposal costs themselves.
Depending on circumstances, either cost may dominate.
7.2.1 Transportation Costs
Transportation or hauling costs depend on many factors, individualistic with
each contractor and waste situation. The most important of these factors include:
(a) Distance
(b) Type of transportation used
(c) Amount of wastes
(d) Region of the coentry
A constant density factor has been used for all cost calculations since almost all
wastes are relatively dense materials.
Almost all hazardous wastes taken from battery plants are transported by
trucks. This transportation may be broken down into local hauling and long dis-
tance hauling. Local hauling is defined as 80 kilometers (50 miles)(one way) or less.
7.2.1.1 Local Hauling
When distances are short more then one load may be made per day. Loading
and unloading times become a major factor. Fast loading by power shovels and
loaders and fast unloading by simple dumping, for example, makes it possible to
haul several loads per day. On the other hand, short hauls are often made with
small trucks and partial loads, (local hauling; i.e., 80 kilometers (1 to 50 miles).,
is costed at $3.30 per metric ton ($3 per ton). Location factors given in the following
section for long distance hauling can be used for geographic adjustments.
7.2.3 .2 Long Distance Hauling
Motor transportation rates obtained from Interstate Commerce Commission
information (30) are given in Figure 25 as a function of geographic location and
distance hauled. Table 61 summarizes the mathematical equations and adjustment
factors needed tc calculate motor transportation costs directly. Rail shipping costs
as a function of distance and geographic location are also shown in Rgure 25.
- 161 -
-------
I
^
&sa-
K-*S>
^
I*
?"
^/o
«
'O 50* 1600 1500
I I I » i
O S6O 1*00
Rgure 25. Regional Traraportation Cosh
-162-
-------
Table 61. 1973 U.S. Motor Rate Transportation Rates Estimated
From 1971 I .C .C. Information &>
Terms of Equation
y =0.91 kkg($/ton)
x = kilometers (miles)
Equation
y = 6.0 + (0.0545x) (Region Factor) (Density Factor) (Load Factor)
Density Factor = 0.9
Load Factor:
(1) 18,100 kg (40,000 Ibs) = 1.00
(2) 9,100 kg - 13,600 kg (20M - 30 M Ibs) = 1.42
(3) 4,500 kg - 9,100 kg (10M - 20 M Ibs) = 1.51
(4) 450 kg - 4,500 kg (1M - 10M) = 1.74
Regional Factor:
(1) New England-New York City-Washington Route - 1.41
(2) Pacific-1.34
(3) Central (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan)-1.19
(4) Mid-Atlantic (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, Delaware)-! .07
(5) Rocky Mountain-1.02
(6) New England-1.00
(7) Mid-West (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas)-0.98
(8) Southern (Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama,
Tennessee-0.94
(9) Southwest (Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana)-0.70
-163-
-------
The present scattered locations of hazardous waste treatment and disposal
facilities make it necessary to haul perhaps 50% of the battery industry wastes
distances of 100 to 500 miles. Costs for hauling distances such as these range from
$11 to $44 per metric ton ($10 to $40 per ton) of waste, a major portion of the over-
all disposal costs. The percentage of wastes requiring long distance hauling may be
expected to increase as regulations become more stringent.
7.2.2 Treatment and Disposal Costs
With the exceptions of a few reclamation and recovery operations, solid
battery hazardous wastes are usually land stored, landfilled, or buried without
treatment. Liquid and sludge wastes on the other hand can be filtered, concen-
trated, settled, separatecland solidified before final disposal. A relatively small
number of contractors are capable of carrying out these operations in any general
fashion on the variety of liquids and sludges encountered. A number of these con-
tractors treat and dispose of special segments of these liquid and sludge hazardous
materials.
7.2.2.1 Costs for Direct Land Disposal
The lowest cost land disposal of hazardous battery wastes is simple dumping.
Dumping costs may be estimated to range from zero to $1.10 per metric ton ($1 perron).
Some municipal or county clumps or landfills take local wastes without charge, some
of which is hazardous.
7.2.2.2 Landfill Costs
Bulk Solids
Landfill costs for refuse were collected from California (several locations).
New Jersey (several locations), Michigan, Illinois (several locations), New York,
South Carolina and Pennsylvania. These costs range from $0 to6.60 per kkg ($0 to 6 per ton).
Hazardous wastes are undoubtedly coming in to landfills under this category. When
properly identified and disposed of according to local regulations, the average costs
for easy to handle bulk materials range from $1 J0to$6.60permetric ton $1 to $6 per
ton) with an average vdue of approximately $2.20 per metric ton ($2 per ton).
Liquids
Disposal of liquids and sludges in landfills is permitted in some states and not
in others. Where these are permitted, the disposal costs are usually higher than for
botk solids as shown in Table 62.
• 164-
-------
Table 62. Bulk Liquid and Sludge Disposal Costs in Landfill Areas
Cost*
State
California, Los Angeles
California, Ventura
Illinois (several sites)
New Jersey
Oklahoma
* Based on 1.2 kg/liter (10 Ibs/gallon).
$/l?ter fc/gaTlon)
0.4 (1.5)
0.8 (3)
0.8 (3)
0.7-0.9 (2.5-3.5)
0.5 (2.0)
$/metr?c ton ($/ton)
3.30 0)
6.60 (6)
6;60 •{*)
5.50-7.70 (5-7)
4.40 (4)
Table 63. Drum Disposal Costs — Landfill Area
Cost
State
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Oklahoma
Waste
General
Heavy metals
Arsenic
General
$/208 liter
(55 gallon) drum
3
3-5
5
5
$/metric ton
($/ton)
16.50 (15)
16.50- (15-25)
27.50
27.50 (25)
27.50 (25)
-165 -
-------
Drums
Drums of liquids, sludges, and solids, including hazardous materials, are
accepted in many landfills. Table 63 shows some of the charges.
Segregated Burial or Secured Landfill Costs
For very hazardous materials there are a number of secured landfill or burial
sites, some of which were initially established for handling radioactive wastes,
which provide environmental protection above general landfill operations. These
sites cost considerably more than the landfills as shown by Table 64 and are used
only where other disposal methods are not adequate.
7.2.3 Contractor Cost Basis Summary
The costs for contractor disposal of general bulk wastes have been discussed
previously. The disposal costs for battery industry wastes do not differ substantially
from other bulk wastes. Therefore, the following basis was used to determine the
costs for private contractor disposal of battery industry wastes:
Disposal Method Cost
Land storage $0-1.1 per kkg ($0-1 per ton)
Simple landfill $4.4 per kkg ($4 per ton)
Approved landfill $6.6 per kkg ($6 per ton)
Drum disposal $16.5 per kkg ($15 per ton)
Secured landfilI $30-44 per kkg ($27-40 per ton)
Reclamation of waste is considered part of the process, therefore, these waste
disposal costs are taken as zero.
7.3 Cost References and Rationale
7.3.1 Interest Costs and Equity Financing Charges
Capital investments involve the expenditure of money which must be financed
either on borrowed money or from internal equity. Estimates for this study have been
based on 10% cost of capital, representing a composite number for interest paid or
return on investment required. This value has been established as reasonable by dis-
cussions with industry and are compatible with a recent EPA publication.31
-166-
-------
Table 64. Segregated Burial or Secured Landfill Costs
Location Approx. Cost
Bulk Materials $/0.02rrf (S/ft3) $Akg ($/ton*)
Illinois
Texas
New York
Idaho
1.30-1.50
1.30-1.50
1.50
1.00
38.50-44.00
(35-40)
38.50-44.00
(35-40)
44 (40)
30 (27)
* Based on 1.2 kkg/m3 (1 ton/yd3)
Drums (Solid or Liquid) - Large
Number of Drums $/Drum $A^9 ($/ton)
Illinois 10-20 55-110 (50-100)
Nevada 10-20 55-110 (50-100)
Texas 10-20 .55-100 (50-100)
New York 10 55 (50)
* Based on 182 kg/drum (400 Ibs/drum)
NOTE: Single drums may cost as much as $50.
- 167-
-------
7.3.2 Time Index for Costs
All cost estimates are based on mid-1973 prices and when necessary have been
adjusted to this basis using the chemical engineering plant cost index. The infla-
tionary nature of the past year makes it particularly important that this 1973 constant
dollar basis be cited for any cost estimation purposes. Appendix C presents published
indices which mcy be used to convert mid-1973 costs to December 1973. In general,
costs presented herein are low by approximately 4% in terms of December 1973
dollars.
7.3.3 Useful Service Life
The useful service life of treatment and disposal equipment varies depending on
the nature of the equipment and process involved, its usage pattern, maintenance
care and numerous other factors. Individual companies have their own service life
values based on actual experience and use these values for internal amortization. A
second source of such information which, however, is based on other factors less
relevant than company experience, is the Internal Revenue Service guidelines.99
Based on discussions with industry and condensed IRS guideline information,
the following useful service life values have been used:
Facility Estimated Useful Service Life, Yr.
(1) General Process Equipment 10
(2) Incineration, Distilling and 5
Retorting Equipment
(3) Ponds, Lined and Unlined 20
(4) Trucks, Bulldozers, Loaders, 5
and other such materials
handling and transporting
equipment
7.3.4 Depreciation
As the useful life of the treatment and disposal equipment and facilities pro-
gresses, their economic value decreases, or depreciates. At the end of their useful
life, it is usually assumed that the salvage or recovery value becomes zero. IRS
tax allowances, or depreciation charges, provide capital cost recovery based on
either service life or accelerated write-off schedules, in effect, the straight line
depreciation approach used herein is similar to a conservative depreciation approach
which some companies might actually use for income tax purposes. Using a different
depreciation rate would have the impact of changing the cash flow companies would
actually experience based on reported expenses.
-168-
-------
7.3.5 Capital Costs
Capital costs are defined for the purposes of this report as all front-end loaded,
out-of-pocket expenditures for the provision of treatment and disposal facilities. These
costs include any money for research and development necessary to establish the pro-
cess, land costs when applicable, equipment, construction and installation, buildings,
services, engineering, special start-up costs,and contractor profits and contingencies.
When capital costs are known for a specific plant using a given treatment and dis-
posal technology, cost adjustment to the typical plant size was made using experimental
factors. Exponent vclues of 0.6 for process equipment, 0.8 for situations involving
scale-up by use of multiple units or partial process equipment and partial non-
volume oriented operations, and 1.0 for treatment and disposal operations that are inde-
pendent of volume were applied.
7.3.6 Annualized Capital Costs
Almost all capital costs for treatment and disposal facilities are front-end
loaded; i.e., most if not all of the money is spent during the first year or two of the
useful life. This present worth sum can be converted to equipment uniform annual
disbursements by utilizing the Capital Recovery Factor Method:
Uniform Annual Disbursement = P i(1+?)nth power
(l-K)nth power - 1
Where P = present value (capital expenditure) i = interest rate, %/100
n = useful life in years
The capital recovery factor equation above may be rewritten as:
Uniform Annual Disbursement = P(CR - i% - n)
Where (CR - i% - n) is the Capital Recovery Factor for i% interest taken
over "n" years useful life.
The capital recovery factor method is used for all annual ized capital costs on
this report, which, in effect, would be similar to constant annual payments on
principal and interest were the capital facilities paid for through a constant payment
mortgage.
-169-
-------
7.3.7 Treatment of Land Costs
Land-destined hazardous wastes require removal of land From other economic
use. The amount of land tied up will depend on the treatment and disposal method
employed and the amount of wastes involved. Although land is non-depreciable
according to IRS regulations, there are numerous instances where the market value
of the land for land-destined wastes has been significantly reduced permanently, or
actually becomes unsuitable for future use due to the nature of the stored waste.
Therefore, costs estimates have assumed land values and capital recovery on the
following basis:
(a) If land requirements for on-site treatment and disposal are not significant,
then no cost allowance has been made.
(b) Where on-site land requirements are significant and the storage or disposal
of wastes does not affect the ultimate market value of the land, cost estimates
include only interest on invested money.
(c) For significant on-site land requirements where the ultimate market value
or availability of the land has been seriously reduced, cost estimates include
both capital depreciation and interest on invested money.
(d) Off-site treatment and .disposal land requirements and costs one net considered
directly. It is assumed that land costs are included in the overall contractor's
fees along with its other expenses and profit.
In view of the extreme variability in land costs, no attempt has been made to
set different land values for each plant, indusrry,or location. Instead, a constant
value of $12,350 per hectare ($5000 per acre) has been used throughout. Where land costs
are a major portion of on-site storage end-disposal costs discussions and figures have been
used to demonstrate the sensitivity of costs to land value.
7.3.8 Operating Expenses
Annual costs of operating the treatment and disposal facilities include labor,
supervision, materials, maintenance, taxes, insurance,and power and energy. Op-
erating costs combined with annualized capital costs give the total costs for treat-
ment and disposal operations. No interest cost was included for operating (working)
capital. Since working capital might be assumed to be one sixth to one third of
annual operating costs (excluding depreciation), about I to 2% oftotal operating costs
might be involved. This is considered to be well within the accuracy of the
estimates.
- 170-
-------
(a) Labor and Supervision Costs
Based on discussions with industry plant management personnel, the follow-
ing costs were used for labor and supervisory needs.
Category $/hour (mid-1973)
Process operators, 7.50
Plant laborers
Truck driver, 8.50
Equipment operators
Supervision 10.00
The above figures include wages, fringe benefits, and plant overhead.
(b) Taxes and Insurance
Taxes and insurance are taken as 2% of invested capital, excluding research
and development.
(c) Other Operating Costs
Operating costs for maintenance, materials,and power and energy are variable
for each individual case.
7.4 Definition of Technology Levels
Costs are developed for three levels of technology consistent with those defined
in Phase III. These definitions redefined, with pertinent comments, are:
Level I
Technology currently employed by typical facilities; i.e., broad average
present treatment and disposal practice. For most large volumed wastes two or
three options are required to cover the different technologies utilized.
Level II
Best technology currently employed. Identified technology at this level must
represent the soundest process from an environmental and health standpoint, currently
in use in at least one location. Installations must be commerical scale; pilot
- 171 -
-------
plant and bench scale installations are not suitable. For battery land-destined haz-
ardous wastes this level may in a number of instances be similar to Level I.
Level III
Technology necessary to provide adequate health and environmental protection.
Level III may be more or less sophisticated ormay^e identical with Level I or II
technology. At this level/ identified technology may include pilot or bench scale
processes providing the exact stage of development is identified. One pertinent dif-
ference between Level III technology and Levels I and II technology is that it is not
necessary that at least one location be using this technology. Technology trans-
fers, from other industries may be included.
7.5 Individual Battery Hazardous Waste Disposal and Treatment Costs
7.5.1 SIC 3691, Storage Batteries Waste Disposal
Costs for treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes from the storage battery
industry are summarized in the following text and Tables 65 through 68.
7.5.1.1 Lead Acid Battery
The character of the waste sludge from a lead acid battery plant is determined
largely by the type of water treatment used. Relatively large volume sludges are
produced from lime treatment, containing approximately 0.01% lead. Caustic treat-
ment produces a concentrated sludge of much smaller volume containing approximately
58% lead. In this industry, many plants do not remove lead from their wastewater at
rfie present time due to either meeting effluent regulations existing in their locality
or due to lack of regulation. It is anticipated that in the future more plants will be
required to treat their wastewater.
Several plants reclaim the lead from the small volume caustic treatment. Coa-
gulating agents, if used, decrease the possibility of reclaim. If the sludge from
caustic treatment is not reclaimed, it should be deposited in a secured landfill, due
to the high lead content. Because of the much smaller concentration of lead in the
calcium sulfate sludge obtained from lime water treatment an approved landfill should
prove environmentally safe. Monitoring of the leachate and runoff should give ade-
quate notice for further safeguards, if needed.
Chemical fixation of the calcium sulfate sludge is an interesting alternative in
the pilot stage of development for battery sludges. Several commercial processes are
available whereby sludge is converted to a "non-leachable" solid material. One
process forms a concrete like material suitable for construction purposes. The leach-
ing characteristics of the product warrant long term study to definitely prove this
process.
- 172-
-------
Typical plant costs for treatment and disposal of calcium sulfate sludge pre-
sented in Table 65 are determined for on-site disposal. Those for caustic sludge dis-
posal in secured landfills presented in Table 66 are based on outside contractor costs.
A detailed example of the cost estimate for disposal of calcium sulfate sludge on-site
is presented in Appendix D as illustrative of the following cost tables.
7.5.1.2 Nickel-Cadmium Storage Cell
There are two land destined hazardous waste streams from nickel-cadmium
battery production. These are scrap cells, and sludge from wastewater treatment.
These two waste streams are often treated to reclaim the hazardous components.
When this is done, it is considered a part of the process and zero hazardous waste
disposal cost is assumed.
The wastewater is treated with caustic soda as a precipitating agent and pumped
to a settling tank or pond for disposal of the sludge. A study concerning the migration
of hazardous materials through soil has given preliminary indications that the migration
of cadmium hydroxide and nickel hydroxide is minimal in neutral and alkaline soil,
due to their extremely low solubilities. Under acidic conditions, however, the metal
hydroxides become much more soluble. Chemical fixation of the sludge may be used
before ponding to insure against migration of materials. Chemical fixation has shown
success on sludges from other industries in preventing leaching. Its suitability to this
sludge must be determined. Projected costs are taken at approximately $500 due to
the small volume of sludge involved.
If the sludge is not treated or reclaimed, secured landfill is recommended, due
to the high concentrations of hazardous materials. The composition of the sludge is
35% nickel hydroxide and 65% .cadmium hydroxide on a dry basis. The sludge is
assumed to be 35% solids. The scrap waste stream consists of 12% nickel, 43% cad-
mium and 45% non-hazardous materials.
The costs for treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes from a typical nickel
cadmium battery plant are presented in Tables 67 and 68. The relatively small volume
of wastes involved make it difficult to estimate the detailed cost meaningfully. The
secured landfilling of sludge and scrap is determined by outside contractor costs, due
to the relatively small volume of waste from the typical plant.
- 173-
-------
Table 65. Lead Acid Battery Typical Plant Costs
For Treatment and Disposal
Typical PJant:
Identification of
Waste Streamy
Lime Wastewater
Treatment Sludge
Production
Rote
8,200 kkg/yr
Composition
Calcium Sulfate
Water 150 pom
Lead
Location
Process
Eastern U.S. Dry and Wet Charge
Form
Sludge
(35% Solids)
Dollars (1973)
Amount to
Treatment/Disposal
2,100 kg/kkg product or
17,290kkg/year
T/D Level
Technology
1 AMB A f* A
Land
Other
Total Investment
Annual Costs:
Cost of Capital
Operating Costs
Energy & Power
Contractor
Total Annual Costs
Cost/kkg of product
Cost/kkg of waste
Level 1
1
1,770
19,750
21,520
5,210
18,460
1,000
26,840
3.27
1.55
Level II
1
1,770
100,000
101,770
21,480
18,860
1,000
43,110
5.26
2.49
Level
1
1,770
19,750
21,520
5,210
18,460
1,000
66,778
91,448
11.15
5.29
III
2
1,770
29,750
31,520
7,200
28,460
1,000
36,660
4.47
2.12
Treatment/Disposal Technology
Level I — Simple land storage (0n-site)
Level II — Land storage with leachate collection and treatment (On-site)
Level 111(1) — Chemical fixation and landfill (Cost assumed to be $3.86Akg
for fixation.)
Level 111(2) - Approved landfill.
-174-
-------
Table 66. Lead Acid Battery Typical Plant Costs
For Treatment and Disposal
Typical Plant:
Identification of
Waste Stream:
Caustic Soda Waste-
water Treatment
Sludge
T/D Level
Production
Rate
8,200kkg/yr
Composition
Lead Hydroxide
Lead Sulfate, and
Water
Location
Process
Eastern U.S. Dry and Wet Charge
Form
Sludge
(80% Solids)
Dollars (1973)
Amount to
Treatment/Disposal
0.5 kg/kkg product or
4.46 kkg/yr
Level
Level II
Level III
Technology
T
Investment Costs:
Land
Other 1,000
Total Investment 1,000
Annual Costs:
Cost of Capita! 200
Operating Costs 1 ,000
Energy & Power 200
Contractor
Total Annual Costs 1,400
CostAkg of product 0.17
CostAkg of waste 314
Treatment/Disposal Technology
<500
<500
<0.10
<500
<500
<0.10
0
0
0
1,000
1,000
0.12
224
0
0
0
Level 1(1) - Simple landfill (On-site)
Level 1(2) — Simple landfill (Off-site contractor)
Level 11(1) - Simple landfill (Off-site)
Level 11(2) - Reclaim of lead
Level 111(1) — Secured landfill (Based on outside contractor costs)
Level 111(2) - Reclaim of lead
- 175-
-------
Table 67. Nickel Cadmium Battery Typical Plant Costs
For Treatment and Disposal
Typical Plant:
Identification of
Waste Stream;
Scrap Cells
Production
Rate
447 kkg/yr
Composition
Nickel, Cadmium,
and 45% non-
hazardous materials
Location
Eastern U.S.
Form
Solid scrap
and cells
Process
Sintered Plate
Impregnation
Amount to
Treatment/pi sposa I
12 kg/kkg product or
5.4 kkg/yr
T/D Level
Level I
Dollars (1973)
Level I!
Level III
eohnology
1
1
1
Investment Costs:
Land
Other
Total Investment
Annual Costs:
Cost of Capital
Operating Costs
Energy & Power
Contractor
Total Annual Costs
Cost/kkg of product
CostAkg of waste
100
100
0.22
18.52
0
0
0
Treatment/Disposal Technology
Level I - Simple landfill (On-rite)
Level II — Sale to outside scrap reclaimer
Level 111(1) - Secured landfill (Contractor)
Level 111(2) — Sale to outside scrap reclaimer
500
500
1.12
92.60
0
0
0
-176-
-------
Table 68. Nickel Cadmium Battery Typical Plant Costs
For Treatment and Disposal
Typical Plant:
Identification of
Waste Stream;
Water Treatment
Sludge
Production
Rate
447 kkg/yr
Composition
Nickel Hydroxide,
Cadmium Hydroxide,
Water
Location
Eastern U.S.
Form
Sludge
(35% Sol ids)
Process
Sintered Plate
Impregnation
Amount to
Treatment/Disposal
20 kgAkg or
8.9 kkg/yr
T/D Level
Dollars (1973)
LeveTT
Level 11
Level III
Technology
T
T
Investment Costs:
Land
Other
Total Investment
Annual Costs
Cost of Capital
Operating Costs
Energy & Power
Contractor
Total Annual Costs
Cost/kkg of product
Cost/kkg of waste
1,000
1,000
200
1,500
250
1,950
4.36
220
Treatment/Disposal Technology
0
0
0
1,000
1,000 0
200
1,500
250
500 1,000
2,450 1,000
5.48 2.24
275 112
0
0
0
Level I — Simple land storage (On-site)
Level II — Sale to outside scrap reclaimer
Level 111(1) — Chemical fixation and simple landfill (Contractor)
Level 111(2) - Secured landfill (Contractor)
Level 111(3) — Sale to outside scrap reclaimer
- 177-
-------
7.5.1.3 Codmium-Silver Oxide and Zinc-Silver Oxide Batteries
The hazardous waste streams from the production of these cells are similar to
those of the nickel cadmium cell being generated from scrap cells containing cad-
mium, zinc/ and silver, and water treatment sludges.
In the typical cadmium-silver oxide plant and zinc-silver oxide plant all
hazardous wastes are reclaimed, and thus there is no hazardous waste to land. The
reclaiming is considered a process operation and treatment and disposal costs are
taken as zero.
7.5.2 Treatment and Disposal of SIC 3692 Primary Batteries Hazardous Wastes
The potentially hazardous wastes destined for land disposal from the manufac-
ture of primary batteries, primarily consists of reject or scrap cells. However, in the
production of magnesium-carbon and lead-reserve cells, wastewater treatment sludges
are produced. At the present time, scrap cell wastes are disposed of in land dumps
or simple landfills. The water treatment sludges are either sold or land disposed.
In the case of scrap cell wastes, the volume is relatively small, while the con-
centration of potentially hazardous materials is high. Because of these two factors,
the most environmentally adequate disposal is in a secured tend fill as discussed in
Section 6.0. This procedure would not only insure against possible migration of haz-
ardous materials, but would provide a permanent record of their disposal.
The hazardous wastes generated by the primary batteries industry are, in general,
small in volume, making it uneconomical for the plants to absorb the capital cost of
the landfill operation themselves. Thus, most plants either hire contractors or utilize
municipal facilities for waste disposal. Accordingly, the costs herein presented reflect
contractor disposal costs, as opposed to on-site or plant disposal costs. The
rates are assumed (not including transportation) using contract disposal for the corre-
sponding technique.
simple landfill $10 per kkg
approved landfill $35 per kkg
secured landfill $50 per kkg
The total annual cost to convert a suitable local landfill to a secured landfill is
approximately $14,000.
In determining transportation costs to the nearest secured landfill, a cost of
$100 per kkg was assumed for 1 to 5 kkg loads over 402.5 kilometers (250 miles). For
larger loads, I.C.C. line-haul costs were used as presented in an earlier section
(approximately $50 per kkg for 10 kkg loads).
-178-
-------
The following Tables 69 through 75 and text summarize the annual treatment
and disposal costs for typical plants.
7.5.2.1 Carbon-Zinc
This ceii is produced in the largest quantity of any primary cell manufactured
in the U.S. The hazardous wastes to land are scrap and refect cells. The amount of
waste is estimated to be about 1% of production for a typical plant. It is estimated
that the waste stream contains approximately 19% zinc, 2.5% zinc chloride, 1%
mercury, and smaller amounts of lead and cadmium.
The successful implementation of a disassembly and recovery process would
reduce significantly the hazardous materials presently going to landfill from this
category. The mercury, lead, cadmium, and about 60% of the zinc could be re-
claimed, if disassembly of the cell could be economically achieved. In one pilot
study the use of paper separators is aiding in disassembly, and is showing promising
results. The cost for the typical plant is based upon the use of contractor disposal.
7.5.2.2 Alkaline Cell
This cell is produced in the second largest quantity of any primary cell manu-
factured in the United States. Hazardous wastes to land consist entirely of scrap and
reject cells. The waste is estimated to be about 1% of production for a typical plant.
The waste contains about 1% mercury and 16% zinc. The costs for the typical plant
are based on the use of contractor disposal.
7.5.2.3 AirCell
This is a specialty battery. Its hazardous wastes to land consist entirely of
scrap and reject cells, containing 0.1% mercury and 30% zinc. A 1% waste to
production ratio is assumed for a typical plant. The costs for the typical plant was
based upon the use of contractor disposal.
7.5.2.4 Mercury Ruben Cell
Hazardous waste from the production from this cell consists exclusively of scrap
cells. In the great majority of cases this waste is reclaimed by smelting. Reclaiming
is done either by the plant themselves or a private contractor. The final waste going
to landfill is slag from the reclaim furnace. This is estimated to be 1% mercury and
56% zinc. The costs for the typical plant are based on the use of contractor disposal.
- 179-
-------
Table 69. Carbon Zinc Battery Typical Plant Costs
For Treatment and Disposal
Typical Plant:
Identification of
Waste Stream;
Reject and
scrap cells
Production
Rate
2,270 kkg/yr
Composition
Zinc/ Zinc Chloride
Mercury, Cadmium,
Lead and 78% non-
hazardous materials
Location
Eastern U.S.
Form
Solid
Process
Standard
Amount to
Treatment/Disposal
1 kg/kkg product or
22.7 kkg/yr
'0 Level
Level I
Dollars (1973)
Ley<
el II
Level III
echnology
1
T
Investment Costs:
Land
Other
Total Investment
Annual Costs:
Cost of Capital
Operating Costs
Energy & Power
Contractor
Total Annual Costs
Cost/kkg of product
Cost/kkg of waste
2,500
2,500
1.10
110
3,020
3,020
1.33
133
3,635
3,635
1.60
160
0
0
0
Treatment/Disposal Technology
Level I — Simple landfill (Off-site Contractor)
Level II — Landfill with leachate surveillance (Contractor)
Level 111(1) — Secured landfill (Contractor)
Level 111(2) — Disassembly and reclaim (In-plant)
- 180-
-------
Table 70. Alkaline Manganese Battery Typical Plant
Costs for Treatment and Disposal
Typical Plant:
Identification of
Waste Stream:
Reject and
scrap cells
T/D Level
Production
Rate
2,000 kkg/yr
Composition
Mercury/ Zinc
and 83.7% non-
hazardous
Location
Eastern U.S.
Process
Standard
Amount to
Treatment/Disposal
1 kg/kkg product or
20 kkg/yr
Dollars (1973)
Level
Level II
Level III
Technology
I
1
2
Investment Costs:
Land
Other
Total Investment
Annual Costs
Cost of Capital
Operating Costs
Energy & Power
Contractor
Total Annual Costs
Cost/kkg of product
CostAkg of waste
2,200
2,200
1.10
110
2,660
2,660
1.33
133
3,000
3,000
1.50
150
Treatment/Disposal Technology
Level I — Simple landfill (Off-site contractor)
Level II — Landfill with leachare surveillance (Contractor)
Level 111(1) - Secured landfill (Contractor)
Level 111(2) ~ Disassembly and reclaim (In-plant)
0
0
0
0
- 181 -
-------
Table 71. Air Cell Battery Typical Plant Costs
For Treatment and Disposal
Typical Plant:
Identification of
Waste Stream:
Reject and
scrap cells
T/b Level
Technology
Production
Rate
l,540kkg/yr
Composition
Mercury, Zinc
and 70% non-
hazardous
materials
Level 1
1
Location
Eastern U.S.
Form
Solid
Dollars (1973)
Level II
1
Process
Standard
Amount to
Treatment/Pi sposal
1 kg/kkg product or
15.4kkg/yr
Level III
1 2
Investment Costs:
Land
Other
Total Investment
Annual Costs:
Cost of Capital
Operating Costs
Energy & Power
Contractor
Total Annual Costs
CostAkg of product
CostAkg of waste
1,695
1,695
0.85
85
2,048
2,048
1.02
102
Treatment/Disposal Technology
Level I — Simple landfill (Off-site contractor)
Level II — Same as Level I
Level 111(1) — Secured Landfill (Contractor)
Level 111(2) — Disassembly and reclaim
2,310
2,310
1.16
116
0
0
0
-182-
-------
Table 72. Mercury Ruben Battery Typical Plant Costs
For Treatment and Disposal
Typical Plant:
Identification of
Waste Stream;
Slag from
reclaim furance
T/D Level
Production
Rate
453 kkg/yr
Composition
Mercury/ Zinc
and 43% non-
hazardous
materials
Location
Eastern U.S.
Form
Solid
Process
Ruben Cell
Amount to
Treatment/Disposal
8 kg/kkg product or
3.6 kkg/yr
Dollars (1973)
Level I
Level II
Level III
Technology
1
1
1
Investment Costs:
Land
Other
Total Investment
Annual Costs:
Cost of Capital
Operating Costs
Energy & Power
Contractor
Total Annual Costs
Cost/kkg of product
Cost/kkg of waste
<500
<500
1.10
139
<500
<500
1.10
139
1000
1000
2.20
278
Treatment/Disposal Technology
Level I — Simple landfill (Contractor)
Level II — Simple landfill (Contractor)
Level III — Secured landfill (Contractor)
- 183-
-------
7.5.2.5 Mercury Weston Cell
This is a limited production cell. Its wastes are assembled rejected batteries.
Hazardous materials in the waste are estimated to be 18.5% mercury, 6.2% mercury
sulfate, 7.9% cadmium sulfate, and 4.4% cadmium. Present disposal practice is
indefinite on-site storage. The assembled cells are completely encased which reduces
their hazardousness while in storage. However, the potential release of these materials,
particularly soluble mercury and cadmium, definitely places them in the hazardous waste
category. Secured landfill is indicated for Level III disposal. The costs for the typical
plant are based on the use of contractor disposal.
7.5.2.6 Magnesium Carbon
This battery is produced primarily for military use. It is unique in that no haz-
ardous materials are contained in its reject cells. However, trivalent chromium
sludge is produced from water treatment. This sludge in the case of one plant, was
sold to a refractory brick manufacturer. Either chemical fixation or secured landfill
are recommended for Level III technology for land disposal. The costs for the typical
plant are based on the use of contractor disposal.
7.5.2.7 Lead Acid Reserve
The lead-fluoboric acid reserve cell wastes are scrap cells and scrap metals.
Hazardous materials in the scrap are estimated to be 55% lead and 31 % nickel. Future
water quality standards will probably result in a sludge from water treatment. The sludge
is estimated to be 26% lead hydroxide and 74% hickeUydroxide (dry basis). At present,
one plant is in the planning stages of a water treatment process, but no plant as y*t is
utilizing one.
The largest volume of waste is scrap metals from battery production (30% of
product). Much of the cost of the recommended secured landfill could be eliminated
if these materials were recyclable. The costs for the typical plant are based on the
use of contractor disposal.
- 184-
-------
Table 73. Mercury Weston Battery Typical Plant Cost
For Treatment and Disposal
Typical Plant:
Identification of
Waste Stream:
Reject and
scrap cells
Production
Rate
0.9 kkg/yr
Composition
Location
Eastern U.S.
Form
T/D Level
Mercury, Cadmium Scrap Cells
Mercurous Sulfate,
Cadmium Sulfate
and 67% non-
hazardous materials
Dollars (1973)
Process
Weston Cell
Amount to
Treatment/Disposal
10 kg/kkg product or
0.009kg/yr
Level I
Level II
Level
Technology
1
Investment Costs:
Land
Other
Total Investment
Annual Costs:
Cost of Capital
Operating Costs
Energy & Power
Contractor
Total Annual Costs
CostAkg of product
Cosr/kkg of waste
0
0
0
0
0
0
<500
<500
Treatment/Disposal Technology
Level I
Level II
Level III
— In-plant storage (Considered to be part of production cost)
— Same as Level I
— Secured landfill
*Waste amounts from this plant are so small that disposal costs per ton of product
or waste are meaningless.
- 185-
-------
Table 74. Magnesium Carbon Battery Typical Plant
Costs For Treatment and Disposal
Typical Plant:
Identification of
Waste Stream:
Waste Water
Treatment
Sludge
Production
Rate
l,350kkg/yr
Composition
Chromium
Hydroxy-Carbonate
Location
Eastern U.S.
Form
Sludge
(50% Solids)
Dollars (1973)
Process
Standard
Amount to
Treatment/Disposal
27.6 kg/kkg product or
37.5 kkg/yr
T/D Level Level 1 Level II
Technology 1 1 2
Investment Costs:
Land
Other 1,000 1,000 1
Total Investment 1 ,000 1 ,000 0 1
Annual Costs:
Cost of Capital 200 200
Operating Costs 1,000 1,000 1
Energy & Power 200 200
Contractor
Total Annual Costs 1 ,400 1 ,400 0 1
CostAkg of product 1.04 1.04 0
Level
1
,000
,000
200
,000
200
500
,900
1.41
CostAkg of waste 37.34 37.34 0 50.67
Treatment/Disposal Technology
Level 1 - Simple landfill (On- site)
Levei ||(1) - Simple landfill
Level 11(2) — Sale for non-clay refractory manufacture
Level 111(1) — Chemical fixation and simple landfill (On-sire)
Level 111(2) - Secured landfill
111
2
4,000
4,000
2.96
107
- 186-
-------
Table 75. Lead Acid Reserve Battery Typical Plant
Costs For Treatment and Disposal
Typical Plant:
Identification of
Waste Stream:
Scrap and
Reject Cells
Wastewatir
Treatment
Sludge
T/D Level
Production
Rote
45 kkg/yr
Composition
Lead and
Nickel
Lead and Nickel
Hydroxides
Location
Eastern U.S.
Form
Solid
Sludge
(35% Solids)
Dollars (1973)
Process
Plated Strip
Amount to
Treatment/Disposal
330 kg/kkg product or
15 kkg/yr
8.2 kg/kkg product or
0.37 kkg/yr
Level I
Level II
Level III
Technology
1
I
Investment Costs:
Land
Other
Total Investment
Annual Costs:
Cost of Capital
Operating Costs
Energy & Power
Contractor
Total Annual Costs
Cost/kkg of product
Cost/kkg of waste
0
2,000
2,000
44.45
130
2,000
2,000
44.45
130
3,500
3,500
77.78
228
Treatment/Disposal Technology
Level I — Simple landfill of scrap and reject cells (Contractor).
water treatment and no sludge generated.
Level II — Same as Level I
Level III — Secured landfllled of scrap and sludge (Contractor)
No
- 187-
-------
8.0 REFERENCES
(1) Bureau of the Census, 1972 Census of Manufactures, Industry Series, Preliminary
Report, "Storage Batteries, SIC 3691", U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, 0. C.
(2) Bureau of the Census, 1972 Census of Manufactures, Industry Series, Preliminary
Report, "Primary Batteries, Dry and Wet, SIC 3692", U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D. C.
(3) Birkhard, R.A., Vice President, Marketing, Globe Battery Company, "Industry
Forecast, 1974-1979", (copy of a speech).
(4) "Searching for the 'Super1 Battery", Chemical Week, pp. 27-28, 28 August 1974,
McGraw-Hill, New York, New YoiC
(5) Mantel I, Charles L., Batteries and Energy Systems, McGraw-Hill, New York,
New York, 1970.
(6) American Metal Market, p. 2a, July 17, 1974
(7) Bureau of Mines. "Minerals Yearbook, 1972", Vol. 1, pp. 227-233, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C., 1974.
(8) Bureau of Mines, "Cadmium in the First Quarter 1974", Mineral Industry Surveys,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C., 28 May 1974.
(9) Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 3rd Edition, Kirk, R. and Othmer, D.F.,
Vol. 3, pp. 106, 107, John Wiley i Sons, New York, 1965.
(10) Battery Council International, Burlingame, California, 1973.
(11) Independent Battery Manufacturers Association, Inc., Logo, Fla., 1973.
(12) Thomas Register of Manufacturers, 1973 Edition.
(13) Bureau of the Census, 1967 Census of Manufactures, "Electrical Equipment and
Supplies", U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
(14) Dun and Bradstreet Market Indicators, 1973.
- 188-
-------
(15) Versar estimate as of 20 September 1974.
(16) National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Washington, D. C.
(17) Folk, S. Uno and Sal kind, Alvin J., Alkaline Storage Batteries, John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1969.
(18) Vinal, George W., Storage Batteries, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
New York, 1955.
(19) Personal Comr.unication with Diamond Ordnance Fuse Laboratories, Washington,
D.C.
(20) Lithium Market Growth — Now and Tomorrow", Foote Prints, pp. 1-12, 1974,
Foote Mineral Company, Exton, Penn.
(21) Haas, Willard R., "Evaluation of bead Plant Wastewater Treatment Methods",
February 15, 1972, I IT Research Institute Report No. C 8213-2.
(22) Maryama, T., Hannah, S.A., and Cohen, J.W., "Removal of Heavy Metals
by Physical and Chemical Treatment Processes", 45th Water Pollution Control
Federal Conference, 1972.
(23) Patterson, J.W. and Minear, R.S., "Treatment Technology for Lead", con-
tained in Wastewater Treatment Technology, Illinois Institute of Technology,
January 1973.
(24) Private communication with Mr.Robert Kasz of Aztc Mercury Company, Alvin,
Texas.
(25) Private communication with Mr. Bert Fowler, Waste Management, Inc.,
Palos Heights, III.
(26) Private communication with Mr. John Starr, SCI Services Inc., Boston, Mass.
(27) Anonymous. "Truckloads of Landfill from Waste Sludge", Chemical Week, 26
January 1972, pp. 41--42.
(28) Connor, J.R., "Ultimate Liquid Waste Disposal Methods", Plant Engineering,
October 19, 1972.
-189-
-------
(29) Private communications with Mr. Charles Bourns, Solid Waste Management,
EPA Region IX, San Francisco, Calif.
(30) "Cost of Transporting Freight by Class I and Class II Motor Common Carriers
of General Commodities for the Year 1971% Interstate Commerce Commission,
Bureau of Accounts, Statement No. 2C1 -71.
(31) Annual Report of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
"The Cost of Clean Air", EPA Publication 230/3-74-003, April 1974.
(32) Internal Revenue Service, "Guidelines for Industry, 1973".
(33) "Recommended Methods of Reduction Neutralization, Recovery, or Disposal of
Hazardous Waste," TRW Systems Group, Redondo Beach, California, EPA
Contract No. 68-01-0089, August 1973, Vols. 1-16.
V01186
-190-
-------
APPENDIX A
PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL
AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROPERTIES
OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Subject
Cadmium and Its Compounds 'A-2
CHromixim and Us Compounds A-6
Copper and Its Oxides A-ll
Lead and Its Compounds A-15
Nickel and Its Compounds A-20
Mercury and Its Compounds A-22
Silver and Its Compounds &-2B
Zinc and Its Compounds A-30
-------
Cadmium and Its Compounds
A. Physical/Chemical Properties
Elemental Cadmium (Cd)
Cadmium (at. wt. 112.4 grams, nrup. 321° C, b.p. 767° C, d. 8.6)9 occurs
as a silver-white blue-tinged lustrous metal which oxidizes in moist air.1 It is
insoluble in water, slowly soluble in hot HCI, almost unattacked by cold H2SO4/
but converted into sulfate by hot HaSCU .T Cadmium is readily soluble in dilute
HNOs and in ammonium nitrate solutions. One hundred grams Hg dissolves 5.17
grams of cadmium at 18° C .*• Solutions of cadmium yield with H2S or Na3S a
yellow precipitate which is insoluble in excess Nc^S.1
In the elemental form cadmium is insoluble in water.3 Although the chloride,
nitrate, and sulfate of cadmium are highly soluble in water, the carbonate and
hydroxide are virtually insoluble. Hence at high pH values, cadmium will be
precipitated out.6
Cadmium Oxide (CdO)
CdO (m.wt. 128.41 g, d. 8.15)9 exists in two species; as either a dark brown
infusible amorphous powder or as cubic, brown crystals.4 Both decompose on heating
at 900° C and sublime at 1559° C.8" Cadmium oxide is soluble in dilute acids and
ammonium salts.1 Because of its amphoteric nature, its solubility increases as its pH
decreases. At pH 11.3, cadmium oxide's solubility in water is 0.094 ppm as Cd++
while at pH 9 its saturation point is 761.0 ppm as Cd-H-.«°
Cadmium Hydroxide (Cd(OH),)
Cadmium hydroxide (m.w. 146.431 , m.p. 300° C, d. 4.79) is a white pownh
der* consisting of trigonal or amorphous crystals.3 It is soluble in ammonium hydrox-
ide and dilute acid and virtually insoluble in water (2.6 mg/liter at 25° C)9 and
alkalis.4 Cadmium hydroxide absorbs carbon dioxide from the air4; dehydration to
CdO occurs at 130° C-2000 C.
Cadmium Sulfote (CdSCvO-7HaO)
Cadmium sulfate occurs in several hydrated forms in addition to an anhydrous
form. Anhydrous cadmium sulfate (formula CdSO4, m.w. 208.48, d. 4.69, m.p.
1000° C)3 is a white powder of colorless, odorless rhomboidal crystals3 9 which is
very soluble in water (755.0 a/liter at 0° C, 608.0 g/liter at 100° C) and insoluble
A-2
-------
in alcohol .* The properties of the hydrated forms are given below; all are very
soluble in water and almost insoluble in alcohol.4' 9
CdSCV H3O: m.w. 226.48, d. 3.79, transition pt. 108° C, monoclinic
crystals9
CdSCv4H2C>: m.w. 280.48, d. 305*
CdSCv7H2O: m.w. 334.57, d. 2.48, transition pt. 40° C, colorless mono-
clinic crystals9
3CdSO4'8HBO: m.w. 769.50, d. 3.09, transition pt. 4° C colorless, odorless
monoclinic crystals, HaO solubility at 0° C 1130.0 g/liter1'9
Cadmium Nitrate (Cd(NQ3)g)
Cadmium nitrate exists in two forms hydrated and anhydrous. Anhydrous cad-
mium nitrate (m.w. 236.41, m.p. 350° C) is a colorless compound which is very
soluble in water (1090 g/liter at 0° C, 3260 g/liter at 60° C, 6820 g/liter at 100°
C) and alcohol, and is soluble in ethyl acetate.9 Cadmium nitrate tetrahydrate
(formula Cd(NO3)s)-4H8O, n.w. 308.47, d. 2.455, m.p. 59.4° C, b.p. 132°
C9) is a white substance composed of amorphous or hygoscopic needles."1 It is very
soluble in water (2150 g/liter in cold water), soluble in alcohol and ammonia and
virtually insoluble in nitric acid.*
B. Biological Properties
Cadmium is absorbed into the human organism without regard to the amount
already stored, nor does there appear to be a mechanism to maintain a constant level
in blood and body fluids.8 Of 50-60 micrograms taken into the system daily, about
2 micrograms are retained mainly in the kidney and liver, the rest is eliminated in
the feces. Cadmium has no known biologic function. It is toxic to practically all
systems and functions of the human and animal organism.8 Cadmium inhibits the
functions of enzymes containing the sulfhydrile (SH) groups, which are dependent on
the presence of zinc, cobalt, and other metals. There is evidence that cadmium
acts upon the smooth muscle of the blood vessels, either directly or indirectly
through the agency of the kidneys.
The concentration and not the absolute amount determines the acute toxicity
of cadmium.15 Acute poisoning may result from the inhalation of cadmium dusts and
fumes (usually CdO) and from the ingest ion of cadmium salts. Inhaled as a dust or
aerosol, cadmium salts (including even the relatively insoluble oxide) probably have
a toxicity rating of "supertoxic" (with a LD equal to or less than 5 mg/kg body weight)
in man, with death from fatal pulmonary injury. When swallowed, cadmium com-
pounds are much less lethal than when inhaled, in part because they induce vomiting
and so are not retained. Although as little as 30 mg of soluble cadmium salts
A-3
-------
has produced severe toxic symptoms when ingested, death probably requires several
hundred mg by the oral route. A severe gastroenteritis is the chief response to
Ingested cadmium, but both kidney and liver injuries may occur and the kidney dis-
order has killed experimental animals. In man the kidney damage appears to be
secondary to the appearance of a low molecular weight protein in the urine. Cad-
mium produces more profound changes in urinary excretion of ami no acids than do
lead and mercury; urinary concentrations of hydroxyamino acids, rhreonine and
serine are particularly elevated.3
Finely divided cadmium of a critical particle size is inflammable and may
generate lethal fumes of cadmium oxide.9 The inhalation of 40 mg of cadmium
with the pulmonary retention of 4 mg has been estimated to be fatal in man.2 In
contrast to intoxication by ingestion of cadmium, the deleterious activities follow-
ing inhalation of cadmium dust or fumes are largely limited to the lungs and respira-
tory mucosa; although acute renal necrosis can sometimes be precipitated by inhaled
cadmium fumes.a Even brief exposure to high concentrations may result in pulmon-
ary edema and necrosis of the pulmonary epithelium. Other symptoms precipitated
by minor exposure include dryness of the throat, coughing, headache, a sense of
constriction in the chest, shortness of breath (dyspnea) and vomiting.
A characteristic sign of chromic cadmium poisoning is a mycrocytic hypb-
chronic anemia; another significant finding from a diagnostic standpoint may be the
formation of a yellow ring as a part of the tooth structure in chronically exposed
men.3 A severe disabling emphysema without clinical or histological evidence of
chronic bronchitis was the uniform syndrome exhibited by men chronically poisoned
with cadmium fumes.8
With regard to the toxicity of cadmium toward fish, cadmium can disrupt energy
production by the inhibition of oxygen uptake .6 Within the cells, this disruption can
occur at relatively low levels and be of such severity as to cause the deaths of fish,
particularly the blue gill.e Because cadmium acts synergistically with other substances
to increase toxicity, the lethal concentration for fish varies from 0.01-10.0 mg/liter
depending on the test animal, type of water, temperature, and length of exposure.6
A-4
-------
C . Environmental Properties
The water quality standard for cadmium and its compounds is 0.01 ppm.8
One of the problems with heavy metals is their tendency to concentrate
through both aquatic and terrestrial food chains.* Aquatic macro- and micro-flora
and fauna accumulate heavy metals such as cadmium in body tissues in significantly
greater concentrations than present in the surrounding environment. These organisms
are the food source for fish and insects which retain the cadmium in the tissues of the
consumed organisms; this process continues to the organisms at the top of the pyra-
midal food chain, such as man and large carnivorous birds and mammals. The more
links in the chain, the more severe the bioaccumulotion phenomenon.
D. Radioactive Properties
None
A-5
-------
Chromium and Its Compounds
A. Chemical/Physical Properties
Chromium Hydroxide (Cr(OH)3 'nHflO)
The solubility of this amphoteric green gelatinous precipitate4 varies signifi-
cantly with oH*° . In the presence of chloride ions, it is least soluble at pH 8.5;
2.61 x 10~11 g Cr4^ is present in one liter of saturated solution. At pH 9, 3.28 x
l(Pl g Cr^/liter remain in solution; at pH 7, 3.28 x 10~1° g Cr+3 /liter remain in
solution. As the pH becomes more acidic the rate of solubilization increases rapidly.
At pH 5 a saturated solution of Cr(OH)3' nH3O will contain 5.2 x KT1 g Cr^/liter.
At pH 3, 5.2 x 10s g Cr4"3 will dissolve in a liter of water.20
In the absence of chloride ions chromium hydroxide is dramatically less solur
ble. At pH 5 the saturation concentration is 2.07 x 10~9+ g Cr 3/liter; at pH 7 and
9 the saturation concentration is below 5.2 x 10 19 g Cr 3/liter. Please note that
the data forCrfOH^ in the absence of chloride ions may be too low. There is some
indication that this is theoretical data for the non hydroted form which is non-
existent.00
Chromium hydroxide can be decomposed to chromic oxide (Cr^O3) by heat.4
Chromic Oxide (CraOa)
The light to dark green trigonal crystals of chromic oxide (m.w. 151.99, d.
5.21, m.p. 2435° C, b.p. 4000° C)9 turn brown on heating but revert to a green
color on cooling.1 Because of this oxide's amphoteric nature its solubility is pH-
dependent. Chromic oxide is least soluble at pH 7 (1.51 x 10"1? g Cr4*/liter) in
solutions devoid of chloride ions.so In the absence of chloride ions, at a pH 9, a
saturated solution will contain 0.0126 x 10"3 g Cr*3/liter. 9° Acid treatment
solubilizes chromic oxide at a pH of 1, its solubility is above 52 g/liter.
Other Trivalent Chromic Salts
The nitrate and sulfate salts are readily soluble in water, but the carbonate is
quite insoluble.6 Neutralization of the soluble salts precipitates Cr(OH)3 * nH8 O.
A-6
-------
Hexovalenr Chromium Solts
Of these compounds only the sodium, potassium and ammonium chromates are
soluble.5 Hexavalent chromium can be reduced to the trivalent form by heat,
organic matter or reducing agents.
B. Biological Properties
Trivalent Chromium Compounds
Trivalent chromium compounds are said to be less toxic than the hexavalent
chromium compounds.6 Eczema-like skin conditions from trivalent chromium con-
tact have been reported. The toxicology literature discusses the hexavalent com-
pounds in considerable detail but the available literature does not distinctly describe
the hazardous properties of the trivalent compounds by themselves.6 Internally,
chrome salts act as an irritant causing tissue corrosion in the gastromntestinal tract.
Complaints of bad taste in the mouth, vomiting and bloody stools are often noted.
In addition, the central nervous system is often involved and dilated pupils, coma,
collapse, slow respiration, shock and death sometimes occur.8 In contact with the
skin, chromium metal and Cr^ combine with proteins to form complexes in the
superficial layers.
Hexavalent Chromium Compounds
The water soluble hexavalent compounds are extremely irritating, corrosive,
and toxic to human body tissue; they penetrate surface tissue before they react.
Insoluble chromium compounds, on the other hand, are retained in the lungs over
extended periods of time and play a role in the production of lung cancer.8 Chro-
mium in the hexavalent form is clearly a cause of ulceration and perforation of the
nasal septum.8 The septum is particularly susceptible to the action of chromium
not only because of the immediate contact of inhaled particles with the septum, but
also because of its structure; i.e., the mucous membrane covering this area is far
less vascular than the mucous membrane lining the rest of the nasal fossae and thus
is easily destroyed. Other sites where ulcers may appear as a result of contact with
chromium*8 are the skin, the roots of the fingernails, the knuckles, the eyelids,
the edges of the nostrils, the toes and rarely the throat.8
General
Chromium metal itself is stable and relatively non-toxic because of its insolu-
bility in water and body fluids.* Chromium, a trace element essential for sugar and
fat metabolism, is necessary for the action of insulin.8 Chromium deficiency in the
diet of animals causes a syndrome simulating diabetes. A lack of chromium has also
A-7
-------
been associated with arterioscleretic heart disease, elevated cholesterol levels in
the blood, and high fat content of the aorta. In areas where arteriosclerosis is
mild or absent, more chromium is found in body tissue than where the disease is
endemic.4
The toxic dose of chromium for man is reported by Roth stein to be about
0.5 g KgCrgOr .5 The toxicity of chromium salts toward aquatic life varies with
the species, temperature, pH, valence of the chromium, and synergistic or anta-
gonistic effects, especially that of hardness.6 Rsh are relatively tolerant of
chromium salts, but lower forms of aquatic life are extremely sensitive. There
appears to be no evidence to lead to a conclusion that hexavalent chromium is
more toxic toward fish than the trivalent form. Toward fish and other aquatic
organisms the toxicities of trivalent and hexavalent chromium compounds have
been reported as follows6:
Concentration
of Chromium
mg/liter
52
5.2
20
1.2
2.0
5.2
0.05
0.21
1.4
40.6
0.7
148
Compound
Used
KeCfcO
KaCraCV
K*Cr807
Cra(S04)»
Cra(S04),
KCr(SO*)8
K,Cra07
NoaCrO*
K3Cr807
KaCra07
CrO4
Type of
Organisms
Young eels
Brown trout
Rainbow trout
Sticklebacks
Sticklebacks
Young eels
Daphnia magna
Protozoan (Micro-
regma)
Gammarus pulex
Snail
E. coli
Polycelis nigra
Remarks
Tolerated for 50
Toxic
Toxic at 18° C
Lethal limit
Survived only 2
hours
days
Survived an average of
18.7 hours
Killed in 6 days
Threshold effect
Total mortality
Hardwater TL, ,
Threshold effect
Toxic threshold
20°C
A-8
-------
Towards mammals the effects of hexavalent chromium have been reported as
follows: IB
Average
Dose or
Animal
Rabbit & Cat
Route
IH
Material
Chromates
Concentration
1 -50 mg/m3
Duration
14 hr/day
for 1-8
months
Effect
Pathologic
changes in
lungs
Rabbit
Rabbit
Mouse
Mouse
Mouse
Dog
Dog
SC
IV
IH
IV
IV
IV
SC
20 mg
0.7ccof 2%
solution/kg
body wt.
Mixed dust 7 mg/m3 as 37 hours
containing CrO3 over 10 days
Zinc 0.75 mg
chromate
0.7ccof2%
solution per
kg body wt.
210 mg as
Cr
210 mg as
Cr
1 dose
KaCraO7
Lethal
Fatal
Fatal
Fatal
Fatal
Rapidly
fatal
Rapidly
fatal
*1H - inhalation; IV- intraveneous; SC - subcutaneous.
Chromium is present in trace amounts of soils and in plants, but there is no
evidence that chromium is essential or beneficial for plant nutrition.19 Sedora
reported that concentrations of trivalent or hexavalent chromium in excess of 1 .0
mg/kg of soil inhibited nitrification. On the other hand, the addition of 5 mg of
chromium per kg of soil resulted in a slight increase of the nitrogen content of peas.
Chromium is picked up by plants from the soil, for vegetables grown on soil irri-
gated with waste waters containing chromium had 3-10 times more chromium than those
those grown in similar soil devoid of chromium containing irrigation water.19
A-9
-------
C. Environmental Properties
The drinking water standard is 0.05 mg/liter for hexavalent chromium6; the
recommended standard for trivalertt chromium is likewise 0.05 mg/liter.6 The
chromium containing sludges when occurring as a result of the standard reduction/
hydroxide precipitation treatment methods can present a twofold toxicologicai
hazard if land filled.8 The sludges can contain soluble chromium salts and complexes
which, if leached out of the fill, can be detrimental. it is also possible for acid
species to be landfilled with the hydroxide sludges, dissolve them, forming water
soluble chromium compounds. Those water soluble materials can find their way to a
potable water table from an inadequately placed landfill site.6
D. Radioactive Properties
None
A-10
-------
Copper and Its Oxides
A. Physical/Chemical Properties
Copper (Cu)
Elemental copper (at. wt. 63.54 g, m.p. 1083° C, b.p. 2595° C, d. S.94)9
dissolves readily in nitric and hot concentrated sulfuric acid; it solubilizes slowly
In hydrochloric and dilute sulfuric acid but only when exposed to the atmosphere.1
Copper is more resistant to atmospheric corrosion than iron, forming a green layer
of hydrated basic carbonate. It is noncombustible except as powder. Metallic
copper is insoluble in water.
Cuprous Oxide (CugO)
Copper (I) oxide (m. wt. 143.08 g/ m.p. 1232° C, b.p. 1800° C, d.9B 6.0)9
exists as octahedral crystals or microcrystalline powder, the color varying from yellow,
red or brown, depending on the method of preparation and the particle size.1 This
oxide is stable in dry air but gradually oxidizes to CuO in moist air. It is insoluble
in water and alcohol but soluble in hydrochloric acid, ammonium chloride, ammonium
hydroxide and slightly soluble in nitric acid.
Cupric Oxide (CuO)
Copper (II) oxide (m. wt. 79.54 g, m.p. 1326° C, d. 6.S-6.49)9 occurs as
a black to brownish-black amorphous or crystalline powder or granules. It is soluble
in dilute acids, alkali cyanides and (NH4)2CO3 solutions; it is slowly soluble in
ammonia.1 Cupric oxide is slightly soluble in water; at a pH 9 it solubilizes to a
concentration of 1.54 x 10"B mg/liter as Cu44" in pure water.90 As the pH decreases,
the solubility of cupric oxide increases such that at pH 5 its saturation concentration
is 313.0 mg/liter as Cu4"1".
B. Biological Properties
Copper if found in traces in all plant and animal life; it is believed to be
essential for nutrition.5 The physiological function of copper appears to be involved
in the metabolism of iron, for the utilization of iron by the blood-forming organs
does not occur properly in the absence of copper. The copper requirement is reported
to be about 2 mg/day for children and 3 mg/day for adults.
A-ll
-------
In general, the soluble ionized salts of copper are much more toxic than the
insoluble or slightly dissociated compounds.3 Probably the most poisonous salts are
the chloride and the subacetate. Cuprous chloride is said to be twice as toxic as
the more common cupric salt, but no major toxicological distinctions are recognized
between the two valence states of copper. As the sublimed oxide, copper may be
responsible for one form of metal fume fever. Inhalation of copper dust has caused,
in animals, hemolysis of the red blood cells, deposition of hemofusion in the liver
and pancreas, and injury to the lung cell; injection of the dust has caused cirrhosis
of the liver and pancreas, and a condition closely resembling hemochematosis, or
bronzed diabetes. However, considerable trial exposure to copper compounds has
not resulted in such disease.
As regards local effect, copper chloride and sulfate have been reported as
causing irritation to the eye and upper respiratory tract. Discoloration of the skin
is often seen in persons handling copper, but this does not indicate any actual injury
from copper.
Copper resembles many other heavy metals in its systemic toxic effects: wide-
spread capillary damage, kidney and liver injury, and central nervous excitation
followed by depression.8 Hemolytic anemias are described in acute poisoning in
man and chronic poisonings in sheep. Copper appears to be less deleterious than
most heavy metals when ingested continuously in small amounts, but chronic feed-
ing to animals results in a pigmentary cirrhosis of the liver.
Acute poisoning from the ingestion of copper salts is rarely severe, if the metal
is removed promptly by emesis." Vomiting is provoked chiefly by the local irritant
and astringent action of ionic copper on the stomach and intestines. If vomiting fails
to occur, gradual absorption from the bowel may cause systemic copper poisoning.
Death is delayed for several days and apparent recovery may be followed by a fatal
relapse.
A type of chronic copper poisoning in man is recognized in the from of a
metabolic disease called hereditary hepatolenticular degeneration (Wilson's disease).8
Tissue copper levels are elevated in Wilson's disease, and this accumulation has been
noted to precede the development of liver pathology, which may ultimately prove
fatal. If dietary copper intake is reduced and urinary excretion promoted, the
neurologic signs and symptoms associated with Wilson's disease are alleviated. BAL,
calcium disodium edetate and sulfur-containing amino acids can mobilize tissue
copper stores for excretion; at least BAL has been shown to produce some clinical
improvement, but repeated injections frequently give rise to undesirable side
effects.
Because copper in concentrations high enough to be dangerous to human beings
renders water disagreeable to taste, it is believed by some that copper is probably not
a hazard in domestic water supplies; although in excessive quantities it has been
A-12
-------
found toxic to a wide variety of aquatic forms, from bacteria to fish. The toxicity
of copper to aquatic organisms varies significantly not only with the species, but
also with the physical and chemical characteristics of the water such as its hardness,
temperature, turbidity and carbon dioxide content.5 In hard water, the toxicity
of copper salts is reduced by the precipitation of copper carbonate or other insoluble
compounds. Ellis has found that the toxicity of copper to fish varies greatly depend-
ing on the presence of magnesium salts ana phosphates. In the control of Chironomus
larvae, copper and chlorine together act synergistically to increase the toxicity of
each acting alone. The sulfates of copper and zinc and of copper and cadmium are
synergistic in their toxic effect on fish. Synergism also exists between copper and
mercury and between copper and pentachlorphenate. On the other hand, sodium
nitrite and sodium nitrate have been reported to decrease the toxicity of copper
sulfate to fish, and copper has shown evidence of decreasing the toxicity of
cyanide.
C. Environmental Properties
The water quality standard for copper and its oxides is 1.0 mg/liter as Cu.B
Many copper salts are highly soluble as cupric or cuprous ions.5 Copper salts
occur in natural surface waters only in trace amounts, up to about 0.05 mg/liter so
that their presence is generally the result of pollution, attributable to the corrosive
action of the water on copper and brass tubing, to industrial effluents, or frequently
to the use of copper compounds for the control of undesirable plankton organisms.
The chloride, nitrate and suifate of divalent copper are readily soluble in water,
but the carbonate, hydroxide, oxide and sul fide are not. Indeed, cupric ions intro-
duced into natural waters at pH 7 or above will quickly precipitate as the hydroxide
or as basic carbonate, CuCCV Cu(OH)s-HsO, to be removed by absorption or
sedimentation. As a result, copper ions are not likely to be found in natural surface
waters or ground water.
Tobia and Hanna investigated the chemical fate of copper salts in the soil,
especially with respect to organic matter and carbonate content of the soil.5 They
found that when copper sulfate was added to irrigation water at a concentration of
20 mg/liter, it reached an equilibrium in the soil at 1 .0 mg/liter after 6 hours at
20° C. Copper retention in the soil appeared to be correlated more with organic
matter and soil alkalinity than with the clay content of the soil, and organic matter
appears to be more effective than carbonates in retaining copper.
One of the problems with heavy metals is their tendency to concentrate through
both aquatic and terrestrial food chains. Aquatic macro- and micro-flora and fauna
accumulate heavy metals, such as copper, in body tissues in significantly greater
A-13
-------
concentrations than present in the surrounding environment. Important mechanisms
for uptake of copper and other heavy metals include: absorption from the soil and
sediments by plants, ingestion by stream bottom feeders and by detrius feeders. The
aquatic macro- and micro-flora and fauna are the food source for fish insects which
retain the copper in the tissues of the consumed organisms. The fish and insects are
consumed in turn by larger organisms; this process continues to the organisms at the
top of the pyramidal food chain, such as man and large carnivorous birds and mam-
mals. The more links in the chain, the more severe the bioaccumulation phenomenon.
D. Radioactive Properties
None
A-14
-------
Lead and its Compounds
A. Physical/Chemical Properties
Lead (Pb)
Elemental lead (at. wt. 207.19, m.p. 327.4° C, d. ?°4 11.34) is a bluish-
white, silvery, gray metal.1 it is highly lustrous when freshly cut but tarnishes upon
exposure to air.* Because of lead's softness and malleability it can be easily meTted,
cast, rolled and extruded.1 Lead is soluble in hot concentrated nitric acid, in boiling
concentrated hydrochloric or suifuric acid, and in acetic acid. Lead is attached by
pure HaO and weak organic acids in the presence of oxygen but is resistant to tap HaO,
hydrofluoric acid, brine and solvents.1
Lead Carbonate (PbCOa)
Lead carbonate (m.w. 267.20, m.p. (dec) 315° C, d. 6.6)9 exists as white,
powdery crystals which are soluble in acids and alkalis, e.g., acetic acid or dilute
nitric acid with effervescence.1 Neutral lead carbonate is insoluble in ammonia,
alcohols and practically insoluble in water (solubility at 20° C 0.0017 a/liter).9
Neutral lead carbonate is usually accompanied by the impurity basic lead carbonate.
Basic Lead Carbonate (2PbCO3 Pb(OH)8)
This lead carbonate (m.w. 775.60, m.p. (dec) 400° C, d. 6.86)9 is a white
amorphous powder which is soluble in acids (especially nitric acid), slightly soluble
in aqueous CO2 and insoluble in alcohols.4 Basic lead carbonate solubilizes to the
extent of 1.1-1.7 mg of PbC Obiter at 20° C .9
Lead Sulfate (PbSCu)
Lead sulfate (m.w. 303.28, m.p. 1170° C, d. 6.12-6.39)9 is a white rhombic
crystal with water solubilities of 42.5 ma/liter (25° C), 28 mg/liter (0° C) and 56
mg/liter (40° C).n It is slightly soluble in concentrated HESO4 but is insoluble in
most acids. Lead sulfate is soluble in ammonium salts.9
Lead Monoxide (PbO)
Lead monoxide (m.w. 223.21, m.p. 888° C, d. 9.53, b.p. 1472° C)** con-
sists of a yellow to yellowish-red, heavy, odorless powder or minute tetragonal
crystalline scales.1 At 300-450° C in the air it is converted into PbaO* but at
higher temperatures it reverts bock to PbO.1 Lead monoxide is insoluble in alcohol
but is soluble in acetic acid, dilute HNO3, ammonium chloride, strontium chloride
and in warm solutions of fixed alkali hydroxides.1 Its solubility in water is 17.0
mg/liter.9
A-15
-------
Lead Dioxide (PbGg)
Lead dioxide (m.w. 239.21, m.p. (dec) 290° C, d. 9.S75)9 consists of dark
brown hexagonal crystals3 which evolve oxygen when heated, first forming
and at high temperatures PbO.1 This lead oxide is soluble in glacial acetic
in dilute HCI with the evolution of CU1 / in dilute nitric acid in the presence of
HgOg1 in alkali iodine solutions with the liberation of iodine and in oxalic acid
or other reducers.1 Lead dioxide is insoluble in water and alcohol. It is an oxidi-
zing agent and hence, reacts with reducing material; it is a dangerous fire risk in
contact with organic materials.4
Lead Hydroxide (Pb(OH)g)
Lead hydroxide (m.w. 241.20, m.p. (dec) 145° C, d. 7.592J9 exists as a
white bulky powder4 which is soluble in alkalis, nitric or acetic acid and fixed
alkali hydroxides.^ Its solubility at pH 9 is 8.54 mg Pb^/liter and at pH 7 is
150.0 Pb"H/liter, and as the pH decreases further lead hydroxide's solubility in-
creases by more than an order of magnitude.00 It absorbs CO2 from the air and
decomposes at 14.5° C .*
B. Biological Properties
The toxicity of the various lead compounds appears to depend upon:3
(a) the solubility of the compound in the body fluids;
(b) the fineness of the particles of the compound, solubility being greater in
proportion to the fineness of the particles;
(c) conditions upon which the compound is being used; where a lead compound
is used as a powder, contamination of the atmosphere will be much less where
the powder is kept damp.
The solubility of some of the lead compounds in the blood serum at 25° C in
mg/liter are:'*
PbO 1152.0
Pb 578.0
PbSCU 43.7
PbCO3 33.3
A-16
-------
Lead is poisonous in all forms. It is one of the most hazardous of the toxic
metals because the poison is cumulative and toxic effects are many and severe.3
Of the various lead compounds, the carbonate, monoxide and sulfate are considered
to be more toxic than elemental lead or other lead compounds. The toxicity of lead
chromate is less than would be expected, due to irs low solubility. All of the lead
compounds are sufficiently soluble in digestive juices to be considered i'oxic."
In soft H2O, lead may be very toxic whereas in hard HsO equivalent concen-
tration of 50 mg/liter has destroyed the toxic effect of 1.0 ma/liter of lead.5
Immunity to lead cannot be acquired and sensitivity to lead seems to increase with
exposure.
Lead may enter the human system through inhalation, ingestion or skin con-
tact.6 Direct skin contact is of negligible importance in connection with inorganic
lead compounds. However, in the case of organic lead compounds, skin contact
can be a real hazard. Industrially, inhalation of dust, mist or fumes, is the chief
method by which lead and its inorganic compounds may enter the body.6
Lead poisoning is rated as 10 times more liable to occur from breathing lead
dust than from swallowing it.84 This is probably due to the fact that the liver filters
out swallowed substances like lead and removes them from the blood before harm can
be done. If they are breathed, they are taken up by the blood stream, pumped all
over the body and thus make themselves felt more readily than would otherwise be
possible. Lead is thought to be toxic only when present in the systemic circulation.
Thus it can be stored by the body and only becomes a danger when it is returned to
circulation in greater amounts than the body can safely eliminate.3*
Following ingestion of a large amount of any insoluble lead saJt (especially the
acetate, carbonate or chromate), the signs and symptoms are due largely to local
irritation of the alimentary tract.8 If absorption is sufficient, pain, leg cramps,
muscle weakness, paresthesias, depression, coma, and death may follow within 1
or 2 days. Three clinical syndromes are recognized in the diagnosis of chronic
plumbism:"
(a) The alimentary type is characterized by anorexia, a metallic taste, constipa-
tion and severe abdominal cramps (lead colic clue to intestinal spasm).
(b) The neuromuscular type is characteristic of adult plumbism which consists of
peripheral neuritis limited to the extensor muscles. Weakness or paralysis
may occasionally be accompanied by arthralgia and myalgia, but sensation is
otherwise unaffected. As produced in laboratory animals a decrease in motor
nerve conduction velocity is associated with segmentol demyelination.
A-17
-------
(c) The cerebral type of lead poisoning (lead encephalopathy) is the most common
type in children. Encephalopathy is a complication in about 50 percent of
lead poisoning cases and the mortality rate among patients developing cerebral
involvement in about 25 percent.8
The daily intake of lead in food and beverages is approximately 0.3 mg which
the human body is capable of eliminating daily. However, if more lead is ingested
than excreted (0.3-1.0 mg/day)B a condition exists which is referred to as "chronic
lead poisoning", which may develop within weeks or months.6 Many acute poison-
ings, however, subside without sequelae, since the absorption of lead from the bowel
is inherently slow and incomplete.8 Presumably this outcome is also favoured by
vigorous treatment. As long as the body, however, contains excessive amounts of
lead fixed in the tissues, symptomatic recurrences are an ever present threat. l:i
all recurrent episodes there is a characteristic rise in the lead concentration of the
body fluids and excreta.9 A lead content in blood greater than 0.005 percent and
i n urine greater then 0.08 mg/liter support a diagnosis of lead poisoning.p
Lead accumulates in bones, where it replaces calcium.8 Bones store almost
one half of the total body pool, with long bones (arms and legs) accumulating about
3 times more than flat bones (breast bone, vertebrae). Becker and coworkers found
5 ppm lead in ancient bones 500 years old in comparison with 50 ppm which is present
in bones today. They implicated contemporary air pollution as the primary cause of
this increase.8 With advancing age, some of the metabolized lead accumulates in
soft tissues. Newly absorbed lead is retained in the body as lead triphosphate,
especially in liver, kidneys, pancreas,andaeorta.8
Plants growing on soils containing 1 ppm of lead have shown 20-25 ppm lead
per gram in their ash. Samples taken from different portions of a plant vary consid-
erably in their lead content.8
It is thought that inorganic lead salts in irrigation water may be toxic to plants
although toward giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera, lead was found to be less toxic
than Hg, Cu, Crt-6, Zn and N?.B Lead nitrate produced no deleterious effects on
the rate of photosynthesis of kelp in sea H8O during a 4-day exposure at 4.1 mg
Pb/liter.5
C. Environmental Properties
The water quality standard for all lead compounds is 0.05 mg/liter as lead.6
The solubilities of all lead compounds discussed in this report fall above this con-
centration: Pb(OH)n , 150 mg/liter; PbO, 64 mg/liter; PbSO4, 42 mg/liter;
PbCO3'Pb(OH)8, 1.1 -1.7 mg/liter; PbCO3, 1.7 mg/liter; PbCrO4, 0.1 mg/liter,
A-18
-------
therefore, surface disposal or landfilling procedures must provide for adequate pro-
tection of surface and ground waters. Disposal by landfill techniques in a California
Class I type disposal site would be adequate providing a "California type" climate
exists; in other areas protection would need to be more rigorous.
Under certain conditions lead is soiubilized as either the chloride or the sul-
fate which are both slightly soluble and hence landfill disposal of lead is not
recommended under certain conditions.6 The characteristics of water, soft or hard,
that appear to be conducive to plumbo-solvency, include comparative absence of
calcium and magnesium bicarbonates, low pH, high dissolved oxygen, and high
nitrate content.
One of the problems with heavy metals is their tendency to concentrate
through both aquatic and terrestrial food chains.^ Aquatic macro- and micro-
flora and fauna accumulate heavy metals such as lead in body tissues in significantly
greater concentrations than present in the surrounding environment. These organisms
are the food source for fish and insects which retain the heavy metals in the tissues
of the consumed organisms. The fish and insects are consumed in turn by larger
organisms, this process continues to the organisms at the top of the pyramidal food
chain, such as man and large carnivorous birds and mammals. The more links in the
chain, the more severe the bioaccumulation phenomenon.
For lead and its compounds, this bioaccumulative phenomenon is less acute.
Lead accumulates in the bones (and/or exoskeleton) of animals in somewhat greater
proportions than in other tissues.8 Since the bones and exoskeleton of most larger
animals are not consumed, the lead contained therein is not available to top carni-
vores. Also lead compounds tend to interact with soil particles to form complexes
which are not readily available to plant uptake. Although plants do accumulate
lead from soil and because lead is translocated poorly, it tends to remain in the
roots and return to the soil when the plant dies. Leaves readily accumulate air-
borne lead compounds in the leaf tissue, and most of the lead will still be in the
leaves when they are consumed by other organisms.
D. Radioactive Properties
None
A-19
-------
Nickel and Its Compounds
A. Physical/Chemical Properties
Nickel (N?)
Elemental nickel (at. no. 28, n.w. 58.71, d. 8.908, m.p. 1453° C, b.p.
2732° C, v.p. 1 mm at 1810° C)9 is a hard, lustrous, silver-grey ferromagnetic
metal which crystallizes in face-centered cubes.1 Its electrical resistivity is
6.844 microhms-cm at 20° C.1 Nickel is malleable and is readily fabricated by
hot- and cold- working.4 It is corrosion resistant at ordinary temperatures, and
bums in oxygen forming NiO. The solubility of elemental nickel in pure water at
20° C is 12.7 mg/liter;s0 it is soluble in dilute nitric acid, slightly soluble in
hydrochloric and sulfuric acids, and insoluble in ammonia and strong alkalis.4
Nickel Hydroxide (NitOH^- nH8O)
Nickel ous hydroxide (m.w. 92.7, d. 4.1 , m.p. (dec) 230° C)9 is composed
of light green crystals3 or an amorphous apple-green powder.1 When ignited in air
at about 400° C nickelous hydroxide absorbs oxygen and is converted to black
nickelic oxide (Nis O3 ).* NifOH^ is soluble in dilute acids and ammonia.1 Its
solubility in water is pH dependent. At a pH of 77 the solubility of N?(OH)s is
about 135 ma/liter. Solubility decreases as pH increases until pH 10.3, the pH at
which Ni(OH)a is least soluble (11 .7 x 10~* mg/liter (theoretical value)}; above -
pH 10.3 the solubility increases.80 The solubility of Ni(OH)g increases the pH in
acidic solutions, and is approximately two orders of magnitude more soluble in water
at pH 5 that at pH 7.20 Other ions in solution affect the solubility of N?(OH)3 . In
HCI solutions solubility is decreased by about a factor of ten. In H8SC>4 solutions
the solubility is increased by a factor of 5.B
B. Biological Properties
Nickel occurs naturally in the blood in two forms: an ultrafilterable fraction
and a protein bound fraction, which together account for 87 to 89 percent of the
nickel in man.18 A dietary requirement for Ni has not been determined. Nickel
ions can replace calcium ions in the generation of action potentials in muscU, but
the duration of the potential is increased.18
Nickel and its compounds in high doses have produced cancer of the sinuses
and of the lungs in nickel workers in Wales and Ontario.8 Furnace workers with
more than three years of exposure had a death rate 200 times higher than expected .
The disease may not develop for 22 years after exposure. However, nickel cannot
be considered the exclusive cause of cancer in these cases because of the simultan-
eous presence in the atmosphere of other air-borne poisons, particularly arsenic
A-20
-------
and fluoride. Nor has it been determined to what extent the population near such
establishments has been affected by the metal.8
Partly because of local astringent and irritant actions, nickel salts act as
emetics when swallowed (but also by other routes).8 As with other irritant-emetics,
the lethal dose is presumed to vary widely. Although absorption of nickel and most
of its salts from the intestines is poor, sufficient quantities are absorbed to cause
systemic responses. These include capillary damage (especially in the brain and
adrenals), renal injury, myocardial weakness, and central nervous depression. Pul-
monary effects are predominant after a respiratory exposure to gaseous nickel car-
bonyl.0 injection of large doses of Ni, as a N? compound (1-3 mg/kg body weight]1
has been shown to cause internal disorders, convulsions and asphyxia in dogs.3
Nickel dermatitis can be induced in humans through contact with nickel-
plated articles, industrial exposures to nickeious dusts or baths or internal exposure
to nickel ,18 The symptoms compose two levels: (1) a simple dermatitis at the area
of contact, the typical "nickel itch", consisting of burning and itching of the ex-
posed skin. There is marked variation on individual susceptibility to the dermatitis.
It occurs more frequently under conditions of high temperature and humidity when the
skin is moist, and chiefly affects the hands and arms; and (2) a chronic eczematous
reaction, in which erythema occurs, and later nodules, which may eventually form
pustules, appear in the web of the fingers and the forearm.w
In many green plants, degree of absorptions of Ni by the roots appears to be
dependent upon the soii pH.18 Raising the pH of serpentine or high nickel solids by
the addition of lime usually somewhat alleviates the toxic effects of nickel. The
excessive absorption of nickel is thought to reduce the cation exchange capacity of
roots in such diverse plants as oats, beans, peas, sunflowers, and tomatoes.18
Nickel is extremely toxic to citrus piants.6 It is found in many soils in California,
generally in insoluble form but excessive acidification of such soil may render the
nickel compounds soluble, causing severe injury or death of plants.5
C. Environmental Properties
The provisional limit in water and soil for nickel and its compounds is 0.05
ma/liter.6
Little information concerning accumulation in organisms, magnification in
food webs and mechanisms of transport throughout the environment is available for
nickel and its compounds. The biomagnification phenomena which involves most
heavy metals appears to be effective for nickel as well, with the major exception
that plants are so sensitvie to Ni that relatively little is accumulated before its
toxic effects result in the death of the plant.
D. Radioactive Properties
None
A-21
-------
Mercury and Its Compounds
A. Physical/Chemical Properties
Elemental Mercury (Hg)
Mercury (at. wt. 200.59, m.p. -38.89° C, b.p. 356.9° C, v.p. 1 mm at
126.2° C, d8 4 13.5939)9 is a silver-white, heavy, mobile, liquid metal which is
slightly volatile at ordinary temperatures1; with every degree rise in temperature its
volatility rises 10 percent.8 It is insoluble in hydrochloric acid, water, alcohol and
ether but is soluble in sulfuric acid upon boiling and readily soluble in nitric acid.4
Mercury has an extremely high surface tension engendering it with unique rheoiogical
behavior.4 This metal is converted by heating with concentrated HsSCX into mer-
curous or mercuric sulfate (depending on the excess of the acid at the time of heating).1
When pure, mercury does not tarnish on exposure to air at ordinary temperature, but
when heated to near the boiling point, mercury slowly oxidizes to HgO.1
Mercuric Chloride (HgClg)
Mercuric chloride (m.w. 271.52, d. 5.4, m.p. 277° C, b.p. 302° C9 } is n
white substance which occurs as crystals, granules, or powder.1 HgCI2 volatilizes
unchanged at about 300° C, it is slightly volatile at 25° C and appreciably so at
100° C .* Its solubility in water is 69.0 g/liter at 20° C and 480 g/liter at 100° C9;
the pH of a 0.2 molar aqueous solution is 2.2.1 HgCla is amphoteric; therefore, its
solubility is increased by HCI or alkali chlorides. HgCIs is soluble in alcohol (very
soluble in hot alcohol)/ benzene, ether, gtycerol and acetic acid.1
Mercuric Oxide (HgO)
Mercuric oxide (m.w. 216.61, d. 11.14, m.p. (dec) 500° C1) is soluble In
water as follows: 53 mg/liter at 25° C, 395 mg/liter at 100° C .9 It exists in two
forms, red and yellow.
Red mercuric oxide is a heavy, bright red or orange-red, odorless, crysta11ine
powder or scales. Its color is yellow when finely powdered. HgO (red) decomposes
into its elements when exposed to light1 or when heated to 500° C3 . At 400° C 'tt
becomes dark red-black but becomes red again upon cooling. Amphoteric HgO (red)
is soluble in dilute HCI or HNOs and solutions of alkali cyanides or alkali iodides;
it is slowly soluble in a I kali bromides, and insoluble in alcohol.1
A-22
-------
Yellow mercuric oxide is on odorless, amorphous yellow to orange-yellow
powder3 which turns red when heated; the yellow color returns after cooling1 which
decomposes to its elements at 500° C .3 It is stable in air but turns dark opon ex-
posure to light.4 Other physical properties and solubilities are the same as those
of the red form, but the yellow form is more reactive because the particles are more
finely divided -1
Mercurous Sulfate
Mercurous sulfate (m.w. 497.24, d. 7.57} is a white to yellow crystalline
powder which deconyoses when heated* and becomes gray on exposure to light.1
HgaSO4 is soluble in nitric and sulfuric acids; its solubility in water is 600 mg/liter
at 25° C and 900 mg/liter at 100°C.9
Mercuric Sulfide (HgS)
Mercuric sulfide (m.w. 232.68, sp. gr. 8.06-8.12, m.p. (sub) 583.5° C)9
(Red: Hg-86.22%, S-13.78%) precipitates out as a bright scarlet-red powder or
hexagonal red crystals which blacken on exposure to light, particularly in the pre-
sence of water or alkali hydroxides.1 When it is ignited in air it decomposes into
elemental Hg and sulfur, the latter burning to SOs.1 Mercuric sulfide is practically
insoluble in water (at 18° C, solubility is 1 .25 x 10~6 g/liter) and alcohol but is
soluble in aqua regia with separation of sulfur in warm hydriodic acid with the
evolution of
Other Mercury Salts
When heated with NaaCOa, mercury salts yield metallic Hg and are reduced
to metal by HaOa in the presence of alkali hydroxide.1 Soluble ionized mercuric
salts give a yellow precipitate of HgO with NaOH and a red precipitate of Hgl2 with
alkali iodide.1 Mercurous salts give a black precipitate with alkali hydroxides and
a white precipitate of calomel with HCI or soluble chlorides. They are slowly de-
composed by sunlight.1
B. Biologica| Properties
General
Mercury is a cumulative protoplasmic poison; after absorption it circulates in
the blood and is stored in the liver, kidneys, spleen and bone. It is eliminated in
the urine, feces, sweat, saliva and milk. Adequate evidence now exists to ascribe
differences among various forms of mercury poisoning to differences in the biological
A-23
-------
distribution and excretion of the causitive agents and their metabolites.8 E.g.
respiratory exposure to mercury vapor results in the retention of high initial con-
centrations in the lungs. A large proportion of this lung burden is absorbed and
gradually cleared. Transiently, high concentrations are said to exist in the brain
and may be related to the high incidence of central nervous system signs seen after
this type of exposure. The kidneys, however, eventually accumulate the greatest
proportion of the total body burden."
Mercury poisoning may be acute or chronic with the latter being the more
prevalent of the two types. Symptoms and signs involving the central nervous sys-
tem are those most commonly seen in chronic poisoning of inorganic mercury, the
principal features of which are tremors and psychological distrubances.9 Intoxica-
tion from mercury vapor or from absorption of mercuric salts may be due, in both
oases, to the action of the mercuric ion.8 Metallic mercury vapor is able to diffuse
much more extensively into the blood cells and various tissues than inorganic mercury
salts, but once distributed, most of it is oxidized to the mercuric form, in most cases
of industrial exposure to mercurials, symptoms of mercury poisoning were observed
only among workers who had been exposed to mercury levels above 100 micrograms/
M3 in air.6
Elemental Mercury
Metallic mercury constitutes a special case in the toxicology of mercury com-
pounds since dangerous symptoms are recognized only after inhalation or prolonged
skin contact.' In respiratory exposures, Hg vapor diffuses through the alveolar mem-
brane and reaches the brain where it interferes with coordination; severe non-
productive cough and dyspnea sometimes precede symptoms of systemic mercury poi-
soning. 3 Inhalation of mercury in concentrations of 1200-8500 micrograms/M3 in air
results in acute intoxication, affecting primarily the digestive system and kidneys,
and is characterized by a metallic taste, nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea,
headache and sometimes albuminuria.5 After a few days the salivary glands swell,
stomatitis and gingivitis develop, and a dark line of mercuric sulfide forms on the in-
flamed gums. Death as a result of extreme exhaustion frequently occurs with poison-
ing of this degree of severity.6
Inorganic Mercury
The action of inorganic mercury differs considerably from that of organic methyl
mercury." Inorganic mercury usually settles in and damages the liver and kidneys,
especially the kidney tubules (the portion of the nephron involved in reabsorption of
A-24
-------
of vital agents from the urine). In the small intestines it accounts for diarrhea.
Mercury vapor diffuses readily through the alveolar membrane and reaches the
brain, where it interferes with coordination.8
Organic Mercury
The discovery of the facile, biological conversion of mercury and its compounds
to methyl mercury have brought info question the wisdom of any large scale use of
mercury and its inorganic and organic compounds.6
Organic mercury compounds may enter the body by inhalation, skin absorption
or ingestion.6 There is evidence that inhalation of organic mercury vapor and
aerosols may be more detrimental than the other means of entry since absorption
through the respiratory tract leads to a higrter rate of accumulation of mercury in
the brain.8
The toxicoiogic effects of organomercuriais are strongly influenced by the
nature of the organic portion of the molecule.6 Short chain alkyl mercury compounds
(e.g., methyl and ethyl mercury) are relatively stable in the body and may circulate
for a long time unchanged in rhe blood; methyl mercury has a biological half-life in
man of about 70 days. The stability of the aikyl mercurials, particularly methyl
mercury, favors their accumulation in the body where they are found principally in
the brain. Thus, more than 98 percent of the mercury found in the brain is in the
form of methyl mercury.6
Aromatic mercury compounds, memoxyaikyl mercurials and most other organic
mercury compounds are degraded to inorganic mercury in the body.6 Therefore, the
physiological and toxicologicai behavior of the nonaikyf organomercuriais resembles
that of inorganic mercury compounds, with preferential accumulation in the kidneys
and more rapid excretion than the snort chain aikyl analogs.6
The symptomatology of acure and chronic poisoning from methyl and ethyl
mercury is iimilar; including numbness end tingling of the lips or hands and feet,
ataxia, disturbances of speech, concentric constriction of the visual fields, impair-
ment of hearing, and emotional disturbances.6 With severe intoxication the symp-
toms are irreversible. Children born to mothers with exposure to large amounts of
methyl mercuiy exhibited mental retardation and also cerebral palsy with convulsions.6
» /•
Because so few cases of toxicity have appeared from phenyl mercurials expo-
sure, even to high ievels in air over a period of years, it is apparent that these
compounds are low in toxicity relative to other forms of mercury.6 Clinical and
experimental evidence suggests that a similar conclusion is applicable to methoxy-
ethyl compounds.
A-25
-------
Toxicity of Hg Compounds Towards Aquatic & Terrestrial Life
The lethel concentrations of mercury compounds for various aquatic organisms
have been summarized in a 1970 U. S. Geological Survey Report.8 For mercuric
chloride, the lethal concentrations in ppb are: E. coii (bacteria), 200; Schendismus
(phytoplankton), 30; Microregma (protozoa), 150; Daphnia magna (zooplankron), 6;
Marinogammarus marinus (amphipod), 100; Polycelis nigra (flatworm), 270; Bivalve
larvae (Mollusca), 27; Stickleback (fish), 4-20; Guppy (fish), 20; Eel (fish), 27;
Rainbow trout (fish), 9200. The lethal dose of mercuric chloride for rats is 37 mg/
kg body weight.7
For mercuric nitrate, the lethal concentrations in ppb are: Guppy, 20;
Stickleback, 20; Mericierella enigmatica (polychaete), 1000; Mesospheroma orego-
nesis (isopod), 15. The lethal dose for mice is 4 mg/kg body weight.6
No toxicity data were found for Hg, HgSO« or mercuric diammonium chlo-
ride. Mercuric sulfate decomposes in cold water into a yellow insoluble basic
sulfate and free Ha SO*/ and both Hgand mercuric diammonium chlorkt* ore insoluble
in cold water. It is to be noted, however, fhat Hg and all inorganic Hg compounds
discharged into the aquatic environment could eventually be biologically converted
into the more toxic methyl Hg by anerobic microorganisms, which can then be taken
up by living aquatic organisms.6
C. Environmental Properties
The U.S. Drinking Water Standards for Mercury and Its Compounds is summarized
in the following table:6
Contaminant in HgO and Soil Provisional Limits
Mercury 0.005 ppm
Mercuric chloride 0.005 ppm as Hg
Mercuric nitrate 0.005 ppm as Hg
Mercuric sulfate 0.005 ppm as Hg
Mercuric diammonium 0.005 ppm as Hg
chloride
Through the food chain mercury becomes more concentrated as it is taken up by
various links; mercury penetrates the surface of plankton by passive absorption.6 In
contrast, fish takes up methyl mercury both through consumption of food, mainly
plankton, and through their gills. Fish that breathe faster and eat more than other
species, such as the tuna, concentrate more mercury in their bodies during their life-
time than other fish. The older the fish, the greater is the mercury concentration in
A-26
-------
its body. The metal accumulates in its body fats. A long retention time in some fish
(mercury's half-life is 200 days) accounts for added accumulation. Birds that eat
fish concentrate even more mercury in their body. Whales and seals have been found
to contain very high levels of mercury.8
A terrestrial bioaccumulation of mercury also occurs. Mercury is accumulated
by growing plants, it is absorbed through leaves and roots and is subsequently trans-
mitted to the remainder of the plant.8 Rodents and ungulates accumulate mercury
from the plants, and carnivores feeding on these animals accumulate even more mer-
cury. Therefore, the organisms at the top of the food chain tend to accumulate the
greatest amounts of mercury.
D. Radioactive Properties
None
A-27
-------
Silver
A. Physical/Chemical Properties
Silver (at. wt. 107.87, m.p. 960.5° C, b.p. 2212° C, d. 10. S)9 is a soft,
ductile and malleable, lustrous white solid* with a face-centered cubic structure.1
It resists oxidation, but tarnishes in air through reaction with atmospheric sulfur com-
pounds (sulfur and HS) and ozone.* Ag is the best conductor of heat and electricity
and is more malleable and ductile than any other metal except gold. This metal is
insoluble in water and in most acids; readily soluble in dilute nitric acid, KCN, in
hot concentrated sulfuric acid; it is superficially attacked by HCl.1 In the presence
of air or oxygen, silver solubilizes in fused alkali hydroxides and alkali cyanides.1
Most silver salts are photosensitive.1
Silver Chloride (AgCI)
Silver chloride (m.w. 143.32, d. 5.56, m.p. 455° C, b.p. 1550° C) is a
white powder with cubic crystals which exists in nature as the mineral cerargyrite.
it is soluble in ammonium hydroxide, sodium thiosulfate potassium cyanide,9 con-
centrated sulfuric acid, potassium bromide,3 concentrated hydrochloric acid,
ammonium chloride, mercuric nitrate and silver nitrate*; its solubility in water is
0.89 mg/liter at 10° C,9 2 mg/liter at 25° C * and 21 mg/liter at 100° C9 ; it is
insoluble in alcohol and dilute acids.4 AgCI darkens upon exposure to light and
finally turns black, it exists in several modifications differing in conduct toward
light and in solubility in various solvents. AgCI can be melted, cast and fabricated
like a metal.9
Silver Nitrate (AgNOs)
1 9
/ /
Silver nitrate (m.w. 169.87, d. 4.352, m.p. 212° C, b.p. (dec) 444° C) is
a colorless, transparent, tabular, rhombic, crystalline substance which is odorless
and has a bitter, caustic metallic taste and which becomes gray or grayish-black on
exposure to light in the presence of organic matter or H8S regardless of presence or
absence of light. AgNOs is a strong oxidizing agent and caustic. It is soluble in
ether, glycerin, hot alcohol, ammonia water, and very slightly soluble in absolute
alcohol and acetone. Its solubility in water is 1220 g/liter at 0° C and 9520 at
190° C; the resulting pH of a saturated aqueous solution of AgNO3 is about 6.
Silver Oxide (AgsO)
Silver oxide (m.w. 231 .74, d. 7.143, m.p. (dec) 300° C) Is a heavy, odorless,
brown-black cubic powder with a metallic taste which breaks up into its constituents
A-28
-------
upon exposure to sunlight; moist Ag8O absorbs carbon dioxide. It is soluble in
potassium cyanide solution, ammonium hydroxide, acids; e.g., dilute nitric acid,
and sodium thiosulfate solution; it is virtually insoluble in alcohol. The solubility
of AgsO in water is 13 mg/!iter at 20° C and 53 mg/liter at 80° C . Its solubility
is pH dependent. As pH decreases solubility increases such that below pH 5, AgsO
is freely soluble. As pH increases above pH 7 solubility decreases to pH 12, the pH
at which Ag2O is least soluble (0.92 mg/liter). Above pH 12 solubility increases.
Silver Hydroxide (AgOH)
Almost no information is available on the properties of silver hydroxide. Be-
cause of its high solubility in water end the preferential formation of AgsO (discussed
previously), it is virtually nonexistent.
B. Biological Properties
Although the essentially insoluole chloride, bromide, iodide, and oxide of
silver are generally non-irritating and relatively benign, some silver salts have been
found to be irritating to skin and mucous membranes.* The ingestion of corrosive
silver nitrate (AgNOs) has been responsible for most cases of acute silver poisoning.
The symptoms are those of a severe gastroenteritis and shock, with vertigo, coma,
convulsions, and death.2 Chronic exposure to silver salts may cause argyrism, solely
of cosmetic concern.2 Argyrism is characterized by a greyish-blue discoloration of
the skin.
Silver poisoning is treated like acute copper poisoning, except that gastric
lavage should be performed with sodium chloride solutions.0 Apparently BAL has
not received a therapeutic trial in acute poisoning. In cases of argyria (result of
chronic exposure to silver), BAL has been found not to increase the excretion of
silver.8
C . Environmental Properties
The water quality standard for silver and its compounds is 0.05 mg/liter as
Ag.6
From silver ores (AgaS, AgCi/ etc.) silver ions may be leached into ground
waters and surface waters, but since many silver salts such as the chloride, sulfide,
phosphate and arsenate are insoluble, silver ions cannot be expected to occur in
significant concentration in natural waters.5
D. Radioactive Properties
None
A-29
-------
Zinc and Its Compounds
A. Physical/Chemical Properties
Zinc (at. wt. 65.37, m.p. 419.4° C, b.p. 907° C, d. 7.14)9 is a hexagonal
crystalline/ lustrous, bluish-white metal which is stable in dry air and becomes
covered with a white coating of basic carbonate on exposure to moist air. Pure zinc
is very slowly attacked by dilute sulfuric or hydrochloric acid; the presence of a small
amount of another metal; e.g., copper, tin, lead, accelerates the action of the acids.
This metal is slowiy soluble in acetic acid and ammonia water; soluble in nitric and
readily soluble in solutions of fixed alkali hydroxide with the evolution of hydrogen.
Zinc foil will ignite in the presence of moisture.
Zinc Chloride (ZnCU)
Zinc chloride (m.w. 136.29, d. 2.907, m.p. 290°C, b.p. 732° C3) is a
deliquescent white granular powder composed of cubic crystals, granules, fused pieces
or rods. It is extremely soluble in water (4320.0 g/liter at 25° C, 6150.0 g/liter at
100° C9 ) In dilute concentrations some zinc oxychloride (ZnaOCls) is formed.1 The
pH of a concentrated solution of zinc chloride is approximately 4.O.1 ZnCIs is very
soluble in dilute hydrochloric acid, alcohol, glycerol and acetone.1
Zinc Hydroxide (Zn(OH)g)
Zinc hydroxide (m.w. 99.38, d. 3.053, m.p. (dec) 125° C) is a colorless,
rhombic powder which is soluble in acids and alkalies, forming zinc salts and zincates
(HZnOa-; ZnOa—). The water solubility of this amphoteric compound varies with
pH; it is least soluble at pH 9.2 (1.04 mg/liter). Solubility increases as pH increases
or decreases from 9.2; at pH 7 its solubility is about 2 g/liter; at pH 5 its solubility is
about 1000 g/liter.9
B. Biological Properties
Zinc is not inherently a toxic element to man, however, when heated, it
evolves a fume of zinc oxide which, when inhaled fresh, can cause a disease known
as "brass founders' ague" or "brass chills."3 It is possible for people to become
immune. However, this immunity can be broken by cessation of exposure of
only a few days. Zinc oxide dust has also been known to block the ducts of the
sebaceous glands and give rise to a popular pustular eczema in men engaged in pack-
ing this compound in barrels.3 Zinc oxide dust which is not freshly formed is vir-
tually innocuous. There is no cumulative effect to the inhalation of zinc fumes.
Fatalities, however, have resulted from lung damage caused by the inhalation of
high concentrations of zinc chloride fumes.8
A-30
-------
Soluble salts of zinc have a harsh metallic taste; small doses can cause nausea
and vomiting, while larger doses cause violent vomiting and purging.3 So far as can
be determined/ the continued administration of zinc salts in small doses has no effect
in man except those of disordered digestion and constipation. Another local mani-
festation of zinc salts is their caustic effect on the skin leading to ulcerations.8
Exposure to zinc chloride fumes can cause damage to the mucous membrane of
the nasopharynx and respiratory tract and give rise to a pale grey cyanosis.3 Chlo-
ride, because of its caustic action, can also cause ulceration of the fingers, hands
and forearms of those who use it as a flux in soldering. This condition has even been
observed in men who handle railway ties which have been impregnated with this mote-
rial . It is the opinion of some who work with it that it is carcinogenic.8
The particle size of zinc oxide and zinc chloride is largely responsible for the
type and degree of respiratory symptoms and for their differing toxic effects.8
It is towards fish and aquatic organisms that zinc exhibits its greatest toxicity.6
In soft water, concentrations of zinc ranging from 0.1-1.0 mg/liter have been repor-
ted to be lethal, but calcium is antagonistic toward such toxicity. Zinc is thought
to exert its toxic action by forming insoluble compounds with the mucous that covers
the gills, by damage to the gill epithelium, or possibly as an internal poison. The
sensitivity of fish to zinc varies with species, age and condition of the fish, as well
as with the physical and chemical characteristics of the water. Some acclimatization
to the presence of zinc is possible, and survivors from batches of fish subjected to
dissolved zinc have been less susceptible to additional toxic concentrations than fish
not previously exposed. It has also been observed that the effects of zinc poisoning
may not become apparent immediately, so that fifh removed from zinc-contaminated
to zinc-free water (after 4-6 hours of exposure to zinc) may die 48 hours later.5
The presence of copper appears to have a synergistic effect on the toxicity of
zinc.5 The Water Pollution Research Board found that there was little toxic action
of zinc precipitated from solution in alkaline water, almost a!l of the toxicity being
attributable to the zinc remaining in solution. They also showed that the toxicity of
zinc salts to sticklebacks in soft water is reduced by the addition of calcium corbon-
ats; hence the calcium ion rather than the carbonate ion appears to be the antagonistic
factor.5
The toxicity of zinc salts is increased at lower concentrations of dissolved oxy-
gen in about the same portion as for lead, copper and phenols; e.g., the lethal con-
centration at 60% saturation of dissolved oxygen is only about 0.85 that at 100%
saturation ,B
A-31
-------
Zinc has a toxic effect towards protozoa and bacteria, but not nearly as
pronounced as copper.5 As little as 0.1 mg/liter of zinc will have an effect upon
biochemical oxygen demand and 62.5 mg/liter zinc will cause a 50% drop in the
5-day BOD. In concentrations up to 1 .0 mg/liter, zinc is reported to stimulate
nitrification, but 10 mg/liter is inhibitory. In very small amounts, zinc has been
reported to be dangerous for oysters and in large amounts to impart a blue-green
color. Toward snails, toxic action by zinc has been reported at 1.0 mg/liter in
natural water and as low as 0.05-0.10 mg/liter in distilled water.5
C. Environmental Properties
Many zinc salts (e.g., zinc sulfate and zinc chloride) are highly soluble in
water; hence, it is to be expected that zinc might occur in many industrial wastes.6
On the other hand, zinc salts such as the carbonate, oxide and sulfide, are insoluble
in water and consequently it is to be expected that some zinc will precipitate and be
removed readily in most natural waters.6
One of the problems with heavy metals is their tendency to concentrate through
both aquatic and terrestrial food chains.9" Aquatic macro- and micro-flora and fauna
accumulate heavy metals such as zinc in body tissues in significantly greater concen-
trations than present in the surrounding environment. These organisms are the food
source for fish and insects which retain the zinc in the tissues of the consumed organ-
isms. The fish and insects are consumed in turn by larger organisms; this process con-
tinues to the organisms at the top of the pyramidal food chain, such as man and large
carnivorous birds and mammals. The more links in the chain, the more severe the
bioaccumulation phenomenon.
The drinking water qualify standard for zinc is 5.0 mg/liter.6
D. Radioactive Properties
None
A-32
-------
APPENDIX B
PRIVATE WASTE CONTRACTORS AND
SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS
A. Large Multi-Site Integrated Hazardous Waste Contractors
Rollins Environmental Services, Inc. Integrated multi-treatment com-
P. O. Box 2349 plexes and disposal services;
Wilmington, Delaware 19899 3 sites
Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. Integrated national treatment and
300 Fannin Bank Building disposal facilities; about 100 sites,
Houston, Texas 77002 mostly landfill but including 5
chemical fixation stations.
Waste Management, Inc. Integrated national treatment and
900 Jorie Boulevard disposal facilities; about 50 sites,
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 mostly landfill.
SGA Services, Inc. Integrated national treatment and
99 High Street disposal facilities; about 50 sites,
Boston, Massachusetts 02109 mostly landfill, but with waste
treatment subsidiaries.
B. Hazardous Waste Treatment and Recovery Contractors
Chem-Trol Pollution Services Inc. Liquid treatment and secured land-
P. O. Box 200 HI! disposal.
Model City, New York 14107
Hyon Waste Treatment Services Integrated waste treatment facility,
Chicago, Illinois 60607 biological, chemical incineration.
Chemical Control Corporation Liquid and solid chemical process-
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07207 ing and incineration.
Conservation Chemical Company Treatment and disposal of liquid
P.O. Box 6066 and hazardous wastes.
Gary, Indiana 46406
Preceding page blank
B-2
-------
Conservation Chemical Company
P.O. Box 6304
Kansas City, Missouri 64126
Industrial Waste Disposal Co. Inc.
Dayton, Ohio 45401
Nelson Chemical Company
12345 Schaefer High way
Detroit, Michigan 48227
Evor Phillips Leasing Co.
Old Bridge, New Jersey 08857
Erieway Pollution Control, Inc.
33 Industry Drive
Cleveland, Ohio 44101
Industrial Tank, Inc.
210 Berrellesa Street
P.O. Box 831
Martinez, California 94553
Bio-Ecology Systems, Inc.
4100 E. Jefferson Avenue
Grand Prairie, Texas 75050
Systems Technology
Franklin, Ohio 45005
Environmental Waste Control Inc.
26705 Michigan Avenue
Inkster, Michigan 48141
Western Processing Company
Kent, Washington 98031
Pollution Controls, Inc.
P. O. Box 238
Shacopee, Minnesota 55379
Pollution Abatement Wastes
Oswego, New York 13126
Treatment and disposal of liquid
and hazardous wastes.
Treatment and disposal plant.
Wet chemical treatment of cyanides,
chrome, plating solutions and simi-
lar wastes amenable to this approach.
Industrial liquid transportation and
treatment, ocean disposal.
Industrial waste treatment and
chemical fixation.
Liquid transporting, treatment, and
disposal; Class I hazardous waste
disposal sites, State of California
Liquid treatment of metal process-
ing wastes (plating etc.) chemicals,
acids, incineration.
Hazardous waste treatments.
Liquid treatment of acids, alkalies,
pickle liquor.
Contractor for chemical reclamation.
Incineration and liquid waste
treatment.
Industrial waste disposal; landfill
and incineration
B-3
-------
Aztec Mercury
P. O. Box 1676
Alvin, Texas 77511
Wood Ridge Chemical Corp.
Division of Troy Chemical Co.
Park Place, East
Wood Ridge, New Jersey
SGC Industries
Old Bridge, New Jersey 08857
Renner, Inc.
P. O. Box 3224
Port Arthur, Texas 77640
Environmental Sciences, Inc.
Chemfix Division
505 McNeilly Road
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15226
George Brodney
Brooklyn, New York
New Jersey Zinc
New York, New York
Ball Corporation
Muncie, Indiana 47320
Universal Metals & Ore Co.
Mount Vernon, New York
Englehard Industries
Newark, New Jersey
Handy & Harmon
New York, New York
Mercury Refining Co.
Albany, New York
Commercial Metals Company
San Francisco, California
Mercury recovery from industrial
wastes.
Reprocessors of mercury wastes.
Chemical fixation processes.
Landfill ing and chemical fixation.
Chemical fixation on-site and
off-site mobile treatment units.
Reclaims scrap from lead-acid
battery plant.
Reclaims zinc.
Reclaims zinc.
Reclaims Ni-Cd cells.
Reclaims silver cells.
Reclaims stiver cells.
Reclaims mercury cells.
Reclaims mercury cells.
B-4
-------
Simmons Refining Company
Chicago, Illinois
Ventron Corporation
Beverly, Massachusetts
Eastern Smelting and Refining Co.
Lyim, Massachusetts
Reclaims mercury cells.
Reclaims silver and mercury cells.
Reclaims mercury cells.
C, General Purpose Landfill Contractors and Services
Koslci Construction Co.
5841 Woodman Avenue
Ashtabula, Ohio 44004
Knickerbocker Landfill
Malvem, Pennsylvania 19355
Pottstown Disposal Services
Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464
Scientific Inc.
17 E. Second Street
Scotch Plains, New Jersey 07076
Sanitas Waste Disposal of Michigan
15500 Schaeffer Road
Detroit, Michigan
Tork Construction
Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin 54494
Burgess Brothers
Bennington, Vermont
Trashmaster, Inc.
Mathews, North Carolina
Harry Rock and Company
Cleveland, Ohio
Impervious base settling pond.
Lined landfill.
Lined landfill.
Landfill operators accepting liquids.
Contractor for disposal in commer-
cial landfill.
Contractor for disposal in private
landfill.
Construction company which opera-
tes landfill. Battery wastes encap-
sulated in steel drums are sent here.
Landfill.
Landfill.
B-5
-------
County Line Landfill, Ltd.
Fremont, Ohio
Ohio Liquid Waste Disposal, Inc.
Fremont, Ohio
BFI Waste Systems
Kansas City, Missouri
Landfill.
Landfill. Leachate collection
and treatment.
Landfi 11. Leachate survei I lance.
D. General Purpose Secured Landfill Contractors and Services
Nuclear Engineering Co. Inc.
Hurstbourne Park
9200 Shelby Road
Louisville, Kentucky 40222
Wescon Inc.
P. O. Box 564
245 Third Avenue, E.
Twin Falls, Iowa 83301
Industrial Hazardous Waste Land
Disposal Site
Route 2
Lindsay, Oklahoma 74052
Resource Recovery Corporation
Pasco, Washington 99301
Chemical Processors, Inc.
5501 Airport Way, South
Seattle, Washington 98108
County Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County
2020 W. Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90057
Ventura Regional County
Sanitation District
181 S. AST, Street
Ventura, California 93001
Primarily nuclear waste disposal;
hazardous containerized waste
burial plus some liquid chemical
treatment; 3 sites.
Hazardous wastes secured disposal
Hazardous materials landfill.
Interrelated companies - liquid,
sludge, and solid hazardous chemi-
cal disposal by evaporation plus
secured landfill.
Municipal Class I disposal sites;
State of California
Municipal Class I disposal site;
State of California
B-6
-------
APPENDIX C
COST CONVERSION INDICES
Costs for treatment and disposal reported herein were based on mid-1973
pricing. Table C-l presents applicable indices (or estimates) for converting to
December^ 1973 dollars. Based-on this table, we estimate the average cost increase
to be approximately +4% between the two dates. The price increase for particular
cost elements (i.e., land, labor, energy, etc.) may be applied individually for those
treatment/disposal situations in which the total is particularly influenced by an ele-
ment which varies significantly from the 4% average. In light of the goal ±25% for
most cost estimates, it is not believed necessary for corrections to be made.
C-2
Preceding page blank
-------
Construction
Table C-l. Comparison of Costs, June, 1973 and December, 1973
Index
June
Element Source
C.E. Plant Cost Index
Equipment
Energy
Gas Fuels
Electric Power
Petroleum
Prod., Refined
Labor
Contract
Construction
Chemicals &
Allied Products
Transportation
Land
Boeckh Index (Commercial
Factory Buildings)
M & S Equipment Costs
Wholesale Price Index
(BLS)
Avg. Hourly Earnings
Current Labor Statistics,
(BLS)
June
1973
144.5
155.3
Dec.
1973
148.2
157.7
Change
+2.6%
+1 .0%
342.9* 349.5**
128.0
128.4
146.6
No applicable index found
Society of Industrial Realtors
* Second quarter
** Fourth quarter
6.35
4.46
.9%
137.6 +7.5%
135.9 +5.8%
252.0 +71.9%
6.70 +5.5%
9.60 +31%
+5-10%
(est.)
+5%
C-3
-------
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLE OF COST
ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS
Cost Example for Treatment and Disposal of
Calcium Sulfate Sludge from Lead-Acid Battery Producing
Using Lime Treatment
A. Basis (Typical Plant)
(1) Amount of Sludge
= 17,300 kkg/yr (19,000 tons/yr) sludge basis
= 17,300 kkg/yr = ]
1.6 kkg/cu.m.
(2) Land
- 10.800 cu.m. = aaZSisJL ;M17«f 05,400 ft.*)
7.62m 25 ft. (height)
= 0.142 ha. (0.35 acre)
B. Level I — Simple On-Site Land Storage
(1) Land = (0.142ha) x $12,345 = $1/770/yr
Year ha
(2) Capital
* Front end loader - $10,000 x 1/4 = $ 2,500
*Dump truck - $13,000 x 1/4 = $ 3,250
* Bulldozer - $56,000 x 1/4 « $14,000
$19,750
*Used for other purposes
Assume 5-yr. life — capital recovery factor = 0.2638 x (19,750) - $5,210
Preceding page blank
D-2
-------
(3) Operoting
1/4 man at $8.50/hr on front end loader
$8.50x2hr/day x 260 day/yr = $ 4,420
1/4 man at $8.50/Tir on truck = $ 4,420
1/4 man at $8.50/hr on loader = $ 4,420
supervision 1/4 man at $10/1ir = $ 5,200
Total Labor $18,460
(4) Energy and Power
BulWozerSOgal. fuel/day at 10 hr/wk
Truck — 1 gal/day
Front end loader — 2 gal/day
Total Fuel — 10 gal/day
Fuel cost - $0.40/gal x 10 gal/day x 260 day/yr = $1000/yr
(5) Taxes and Insurance (2% of capital) = $400
(6) Total Annual Costs
Land $ 1,770
Capital 5,210
Operating 18,860
Energy 1,000
$26,840
(7) CostAkg Product - $26,840 _ 2?
8,200 kkg
CostAkg Waste - $26,840 t
17,300 kkg " >K53
D-3
-------
C. Level II — Land Storage With Leachate Collection and Treatment
Assume operating costs for leachate collection and treatment to be neglible
as leachate is treated along with plant effluent.
Capital cost for installation of leachate collection system is estimated to be
$100,000.
Annual capital recovery cost over ten years is, therefore, $16,280.
Total Annual Costs
Land
Equipment
Leachate Collection System
Operating
Energy
Total Cost
CostAkg Product
CostAkg Waste
Level 111(1) —Chemical Rxation
$ 1,770
5,200
16,280
18,860
1,000
$43,110
$ 5.26
$ 2.49
(Pilot Study)
Landfill costs are assumed to be the same as Level I.
Chemical fixation cost is contractor estimated to be approximately $3.50/ton
17,300 kkg (wet sludge) x $3.86 _
Year ~ kkg
Level 111(2) - Approved Landfill
Operating costs for monitoring is taken at $10,000/yr
Four (4) monitoring wells @ $2,500 ea. = $10,000
Rainwater diversion estimated to be $5.38 $4. m ($0.50/ sq. ft.)0sing 30 mil
lining material) Approximately 1,860 sq.m. (20,000 sq.ft.) of surface must be cov-
ered per year, therefore, annual cost will be $10,000.
Other landfill costs are taken to be identical to those of Level I.
D-4
-------
APPENDIX A REFERENCES
(1) The Merck Index, 8th Edition, Paul G. Stecher, Ed., Pub. Merck &Co.
Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, 1968.
(2) Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, M. Gleason, R.D. Gosselin,
H.C. Hodge, R.P. Smith, 3rd Edition, The Williams &Wilkms Co.,
Baltimore, Md., 1969.
(3) Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, N. Irving Sax, Van Nostrand
Reinheld Company, New York, New York, 1968.
(4) The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 8th Edition, Revised by Gessner G .
Hawley, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, New York, 1971.
(5) Water Quo!ity Criteria, 2nd Edition, E. McKee and H .W. Wolf, eds.,
Resources Agency of California State Water Quality Control Board, 1963.
(6) Recommended Methods of Reduction, Neutralization, Recovery, or Disposal
of Hazardous Waste. Vols. I, It, VI, VIM, X, XII, XIII by TRW Systems
Group for EPA. August, 1973.
(7) Toxic Substances List, 1973 Edition, H.E. Christensen, ed., U.S. Dept. of
H.E.W., National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Rockville,
Md., June, 1973.
(8) Health Effects of Environmental Pollutants, George L. Waldbott, The C .V.
Mosby Company, St. Louis, Mo., 1973.
(9) Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 52nd Edition 1971-1972, Pub. by The
Chemical Rubber Co., Cleveland, C^hio.
(10) Fluorides, (Biologic Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants), National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D. C., 1971.
(11) Asbestos, The Need for and Feasibility of Air Pollution Controls, National
Academy of Sciences, 1971.
(12) Chromium, Medico! and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants,
National Academy of Sciences, 1974.
(13) Toxiciry of Arsenic Compounds, W.D. Buchanan, Elsevier Publishing Co.,
New York, N. Y., 1962.
-------
(14) Methods for Disposal of Spilled and Unused Pesticides/ E.W. Lawless, et. al.,
for EPA, Midwest fteseardh Institute, Kansas City, Mo . , Oct. 1973.
(15) Water Quality Criteria, 1972, (I PA-R3-73-033), National Aurfemy of
Sciences & National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D. C., 1972.
(14) NERC/RTF Position Paper on Vanadium, U.S. EPA National Environmental
Researcn Center, Research Triangle Park, N.C., January, 1974.
(17) Motnmolion Toxicology and Toxicity to Aquatic Oroonisums of y>Mt« Phoyhorus
and "Phossy Woter," A Woterborne Munitions Manufacturing Waste Pollutant,
A Literature Evaluation fteol Comprehensive Report, D. Bytiewi, J.C. Docre,
November, 1973. Associated Water & Air Resources Engineers, Inc.,
Nashville, Tenn.
(1 8) Preliminary Investigation of Effects on the Environment of Boron, Indium, Nickel,
Telenium, Tin. Vanadiugr and Their Compounds, Versor Inc., for OfRc^ef
Hazardous Materials Control of the U .5 . EFA Contract No. 68-01-2215,
June, 1974.
(t9) Water Quality Criteria Data Book, Vol. 3: Effects of Chemicals on Aquatic
Lift for EPA Rete«rch & Monitoring, BotteJIe's Columbus Laboratories,
May, 1971.
(29) At tes of Electrochemical Equilibria in Aqueous Solutions, Marcel Pattrbeix,
Petyirten Press, Len^on, England.
(21) Manganese, Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants, National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C., 1973.
(22) Tcxieity of Arsenic Compounds, D. C. BuaHanon, Elsevier Publishing Co., New
Yofk, N. i ., l^Vr.
(23> Lyye's Handbook of Chemistry, John A. Dean, Ed., llth ed., McGrow-HIfl
Book Company, New YonV, N. Y., 1973.
(24) Jdcobs, M. B., The Analytical Toxicology of Industrial Inorganic Poisons, Inter-
science Publishers, New York, N. Y., 1967.
(25) Odutn, E. P., Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd ed., W. B. Sounders Company,
Philadelphia, Pa., l97l.
------- |