-------
ability to damage metal. It is believed that control of dis-
posal of wastes with, a pH equal to or less than 3 or equal to
or greater than 12 will provide a certain amount of protection
to those likely to come into direct contact with the waste.
Protection of the environment will be afforded by preventing
the solubilization and subsequent migration of heavy metals
and by decreasing the likelihood that dangerous heat generat-
ing chemical reactions will occur as a result of co-disposal
of incompatible wastes. Ose of a metal corrosion characteristic
will assist the development of proper containerization practices
thereby furnishing additional safeguards to public health and
the environment.
The following is a brief list of cases documented by EPA
illustrating the mismanagement of corrosive wastes.
Damage Incidents
Pennsylvania
North Cordorus Township, 1975
The Sunny Farm Landfill was not authorized to receive
industrial waste, but upon inspection such wastes were found.
An inspector attempting to halt disposal of a drum of indus-
trial waste was splashed by the contents of the drum as it
was being compacted. He sustained burns on the face and
neck.
Pleasant Township, 1972
An earthen dike at a refinery waste lagoon ruptured, re-
leasing sludge with a pH of 1.7 into the Allegheny River. Abcut
450,000 fish were killed along a 60 mile stretch of river.
-------
New Beaver Borough, 1971
A sludge composed of spent pickle liquors and org
wastes and having a pH of 1.6 was stored in a mine pifc
a shale dam. Local residents complained of well water
tion, and a nearby pond turned highly acidic and becaffl
lifeless.
Elkland Borough, 1973
A former tannery site with 2-4 million gallons <^
sulfuric acid, tannic acid, liae and sodium hydroxide
stored in lagoons and tanks was destroyed by fire.
leveling operations 20,000 gallons of waste liquid
and drained into the Cowanesque River, killing
for 7 miles.
New Jersey
Kin-Buc Landill, 1974 .
i X
During the first 10 months of 1974, five chemicaJ-
disposal injuries were noted in the Kin-Buc logs. &$
included eye irritation and chemical burns from
corrosive wastes.
Virginia
Carbo, 1967
A dike containing an alkaline waste lagoon for a
generating plant collapsed and released 400 acre feet
fly ash into the Clinch River. It traveled at 1 mil6 £
hour down river for several days, killing 216,000
°
15
-------
Illinois
Granite City, 1975
A leaking storage tank discharged caustic soda into a
creek. Five children who came into contact with the creek
suffered severe chemical burns.
Texas, 1971
Barrels containing chemical wastes were caught in
shrimpers' nets in the Gulf of Mexico. Physical damage to
nets *T"* equipment occurred, and exposed shrimper crewmen
experienced skin burns and eye irritation.
Minnesota
Fine Bend, 1972
Seepage with a pH less than 2 from a waste basin at a
chemical plant was believed responsible for well water
degradation by reaction of the acid on subsurface formations.
16
-------
REFERENCES
29*
Bates, R.G. Determination of pH, theory and practice.
New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1973
Birmingham, D.J. Acids, alkalis, oils and solvents. -gtft
Cantor, ed. Traumatic medicine and surgery for tne
Washington, Butterworth, Inc., 1962. pp. 364-370.
Corrosives. In Encyclopedia of occupational health a°
v.l. Geneva, International Labour Office, 1971-72.
220-221.
Epstein, E. and R.L. Chaney. Land disposal of toxic^
and water related problems. Washington, U.S. " ~"
of Agriculture.
™
Fitzpatrick, T.B., ed. Dermatology in general medic*11
York, McGraw-Hill, 1971.
i a I £8$
Kohan, A.M. A summary of hazardous substance cla
systems. Environmental Protection Publication
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975
^v>
Lewis, G.K. Chemical burns. American Journal of.
98:928-937, 1959.
Luckey, T.D,r B. Venugopal and D. Hutcheson. Heavy
toxicity, safety and hormology. Supplement v.l. Ne
San Francisco, London, Academic Press, 1975. *
$i>
Mattack, A. pH measurement and titration. New York/ ^
1961.
McCreanney, W.C. Skin care. In W. Handley, ed.
safety handbook. Maidenhead, Berkshire, EngTand,
Hill, 1969
Meidl, J.H. Explosive and toxic hazardous material*
Hills, Glencoe Press, 1970. ,
y
Montagna, W. and W. C. Lobita, Jr. The epidermis.
Academic Press, 1964.
tr
Peterson, J. E. Industrial health. Englewood Cli£fs'
Jersey, Prentice-Hall, inc., 1977. ,
V**
pH value, in Standard methods for the examination
wastewater. 14th ed. Washington, American Health
Association, 1975.
17
-------
Pourbaix, M. Atlas d'equilibres electrochimique a 25°C.,
Paris, Gauthier-Villars s Cie., 1963.
Solubility chart. In Handbook of chemistry and physics. 56th
ed. Cleveland, CRC Press, 1975-76. D131-132.
18
-------
-------
BD-3
DRAFT
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
SECTION 3001 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE
SECTION 250.13 - HAZARDOUS WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
REACTIVITY
DECEMBER 15, 1978
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
-------
This document provides background information and
support for regulations which have teen designed to identify
and list hazardous waste pursuant to Section 3001 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. It is being
made available as a draft to support the proposed regulations.
As new information is obtained/ changes may be made in the
background information and used as support for the regulations
when promulgated.
This document was first drafted many months ago and has
been revised to reflect information received and Agency
decisions made since then. EPA made some changes in the
proposed regulations shortly before their publication in the
Federal Register. We have tried to ensure that all of those
decisions are reflected in this document. If there are any
inconsistencies between the proposal (the preamble and the
regulation) and this background document, however, the
proposal is controlling.
Comments in writing may be made to:
Alan S. Corson
Hazardous Waste Management Division (WH-565)
Office of Solid Waste
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
CHAPTER 4 - REACTIVITY
Highly reactive waste present a danger either from high
pressure and heat generation and/or toxic fume generation
during reaction. Reactive wastes have been implicated in
landfill incidents causing damage to persons and property
(Table I lists and discusses some of these damage incidents.)
Also reactive substances have caused damage during transportation
storage and handling, and various Federal Agencies have
promulgated regulations prescribing how these reactive
substances should be managed. (Table 2 lists and discusses
o.\ Will 14
Federal regulations for. the National Fire Protection Association
guidelines . )
For these reasons wastes which are highly reactive
should be identified and placed in a management system to
ensure proper and precautious handling.
Reactivity is a relative term and has meaning only in a
relative sense. Reactive substances have been described as
those which:
1) autopolymerize
2) are unstable with respect to heat or shock
3) are explosive
4} are strong oxidizers
5) react vigorously with air or water
6) react with water to generate toxic fumes
These descriptions (or categories) of reactive substances
are also relative and not absolute measures.
-------
Rather, these categories are descriptions of either the
physical consequences of>or descriptions of,the type of
reaction undergone. Also they are not discrete phenomena
and a particular waste (or substance) undergoing a reaction
might exhibit several of the characteristics of these categories
(for example, certain organic peroxides would fall into four
of the six categories). These categories not only overlap
with each other but also with other characteristics, such as.'
flammability (the difference between a conflagration and a
deflagration is only one of degree^and corrosiveness (the
chernQijal parameters that make something a strong oxidizer
can also make it a corrosive).
As discussed in the introduction to the 3001 background
documents, a primary goal of OSW has been to identify simple
standardized testing methods which a generator could use to
unambiguously determine if his waste would fit each 3001
hazard criterion. As was the case for flammable solids the
testing methods identified for reactive wastes are less than
ideal. The available testing methods suffer from the follow-
ing deficiencies:
1. The Tests are too Specific
These tests are used to dfetermine how a specific
aspect or manifestation of waste reactivity behaves
under a special and specific type of stress. For
example, DTA (Differential Thermal Analysis) measures
how temperature gradients produced by the waste,
-------
(one specific aspect of waste reactivity) behave under
a slow input of thermal energy (one special and specific
type of stress). This would not indicate how the waste
reacts to mechanical shock (a drop test would be
necessary to determine that), electrical shock, whether
or not the waste is a strong oxidizer, or even what is
producing the temperature gradient (pressure buildup,
toxic fumes, heat of mixing, etc.). The information
derived then is specialized and these tests do not lend
themselves for use in a rigid regulatory program.
2. Reactivity of a Sample may not Reflect Reactivity
of the Whole Waste;
In the case of wastes which are thermally unstable
the reactivity of the sample may not adequately reflect
the reactivity of the whole waste. The kinetics of
reaction are not only a function of the available
initiating sources and ambient temperature, but are
also a function of the mass, configuration, geometry,
etc. of the sample. For a "runaway" reaction to occur,
the system must surpass that steady state where the
(V*aV) -pfo4«t»L*.6H
energy^radiated or transferred to the surroundings
from the reacting mass. When this critical tempera-
ture is reached, the mass experiences catastropic self-
heating. As is obvious from the foregoing, this heat
transfer phenomenum is a function of sample size, density,
and geometry. The relationships are demonstrated in
equation 1, for the rate of temperature rise:
-------
CdT/dt = QVp exp (-E/RT) + hs (T - To)
C = me
m = mass
c = specific heat
T = Temperature of the material
Q = Heat of decomposition
V = Volume
p = Density
E = Activation energy
R = Gas constant
h = Heat transfer coefficient
S = Surface area of the material
As is evident from the above, the physical para-
meters (extensive and intensive) of the sample will all
play an important part in the rate of temperature rise.
3. The Test Results are in Most Cases Subjective
or not Directly Applicable
The ideal test to use in a regulatory program is
usually one which requires minimal interpretation:
The majority of available reactivity testing methods
are not of the "pass-fail" type. Rather the test
results usually consist of a first order differential
plotted against time or against a standard, from which
relative reactivity can be accessed. The decision as to
whether a waste meets the criterion now requires inter-
pretation of these results. That the available testing
methods are of this type is not surprising, usually when
-------
a test of this sort is run, it is not run to determine
reactivity "per se" but rather to elicit information
concerning how "fast" a material reacts (or exhibits
i &
some measureable physical manifestation reaction )
r+
to a particular stress (i.e. kinetic information)
or how vigorously it reacts (thermodynamic information) .
This information may not be directly related
to the reactivity 4 for example, the resultant informa-
tion extracted from the test might be activiation
energy, an interesting bit of information, but potentially
misleading.
Again this harkens back to the indefinite meaning of
the term "reactivity" , a term which draws its meaning from
the context of its use. A chemist^think of a "reactive"
substance as one with a small activation energy (the energy
difference between the initial and transition states) i.e.
one which reacts easily. Even this simple concept is a
relative one, since the magnitude of "low" depends upon the
energy profile of the system. We^unlike the hypothetical
chemist, are not only interested in things that react "easily"
but also those which react vigorously. This depends not
only on the activation energy, but also the heat of reaction,
the molecular ity of the reaction and other factors, . .
We're not really interested in performing a thermodynamic
measurement, but rather are interested in observing if the
waste in question behaves in such a way to pose a danger
under normal handling conditions
-------
4. The Standardized Methods That Do Exist Were Not
Developed For Waste Testing.
«r
The consequence of this fact, is that standardized
methods are applied to non-standardized samples,
standardized methods applied to samples with physical
consistencies the method was not designed for, and
more importantly standardized method used to evaluate
(waste) materials even though no data base exists
for use of these methods with waste materials.
-r &•
' if such methods ***re used,
the results would be difficult to interpret with
certainty.
5. The Available Methods Do Not Reflect Waste
Management Conditions.
Using a laboratory testing method to predict field
behavior is difficult enough for well understood
systems. There are always complexities one is not
aware of, e.g., trace contaminants, local concentration
fluctuations, etc. It is important to attempt to
simulate the field conditions as closely as possible.
This presents a problem in the case of waste
reactivity, not only are we unsure of the ambient
conditions the waste will be subject to (there are
wide fluctuations), but we cannot even predict the
magnitude (and in some case the kind) of stresses,
(i.e., initiating forces) which might be present.
Ideally, the initiating force used in the testing
procedure should be id^ejtical (or as similar
-------
as practical) to the field initiating force. Obviously
if we cannot predict the initiating force, we can't
duplicate it.
The available reactivity testing methods are described
and evaluated in Appendix A*. As is evident from those
specific evaluations and from the preceding discussion of tV>£
five generic shortcomings of the available testing methods,
none of these "type" methods are suitable
for use to unequivocally determine if a was.te is a reactive
hazardous waste. This is not as big a problem as might be
thought on initial reflection. Most generators who generate
waste which are dangerous due to their reactivity are well
aware of this property of their waste. Reactive wastes are
rarely generated from unreactive feed stocks, or in processes
producing unreactive products.
Also, as is evident from the damage incidents synopsized in
Table 1, there does not seem to be any widespread consistent
pattern of mismanaged reactive wastes. There are only a few
damage incidents, and these are either the result of the
formation of H2S (from either soluble sulfides or biological
degradation of sulfur containing wastes) or explosions of some
"unidentified" waste material. Since there are no systematic
_ , j- <,
* These evaluations are taken from "A second appraisal of
T^thnds for Kst-JTiiaH ng^Self Reaction Hazards" , B. S.
Domalski, Report No. DOT/MTB/OHMD-76-6, ".Classif ication,
of Test Methods for Oxidizing Materials" V.M. Kuchta,
A.C. Furno, and A.C. Imof, Bureau of Mines, Report of
Investigations 7594 and "Classification of Hazards of
^aterials-Water Reactive Materials, and Organic Peroxides".
C. Mason and V.C. Cooper, NTIS No. IB 209422, slightly
modified so as to determine applicablity to waste
materials.
-------
examples of environmental damage from reactive wastes,
rather only the anomalous incident, either the quanity of
reactive waste is small,or it is being properly managed.
Those few wastes that have been identified as reactive,
have been placed on the hazardous waste listings.
Therefore it will only be in rare instances a
generator will be unsure of the reactivity class of his
waste, or will be unable to judge whether it fits a
prose definition, and would therefore require the applic-
ation of testing protocols to determine the reactivity of
his waste. Even in these cases the generator should know
what types of stress his waste is unstable towards, and
could choose from a battery of tests, chosen and listed on
the basis of stress type. The tests chosen (by stress type)
for inclusion in the regulations are as follows:
1. Explosion temperature test for thermally unstable
waste.
2. The Bureau of Explosives impact apparatus and the
test cited in 49 CFR 173.53(b),(c),(d), or (f) as
appropriate for waste unstable to shock.
These test are "pass-fail" test which require no
subjective interpretation. They may not however, be applicable
for all waste types or for all waste management conditions,
However, the prose definition -should characterize as hazardous
those wastes which cannot be tested by the approved methods
f
-------
Since the testing methods available are not ideal for
identifying those wastes categorized as hazardous due to
reactivity, the alternative chosen is to make use of a
prose definition coupled with a comprehensive listing and
suggested testing methods for those instances where the
generator is uncertain if his waste fits the prose defini-
tion. The regulation presently being proposed is the
following:
Reactive Waste
(1) Definition - A solid waste is a reactive waste
if it:
(A) Is normally unstable and readily
undergoes violent chemical change without
detonating; reacts violently with water,
forms potentially explosive mixtures with
water, or generates toxic fumes when mixed
with water; or is a cyanide or sulfide
bearing waste which can generate toxic
fumes when exposed to mild acidic or
basic conditions.
(B) is capable of detonation or explosive
reaction but requires a strong initiating
source or which must be heated under
confinement before initiation can take
place, or which reacts explosively with
water.
-------
(C) is readily capable of detonation or
of explosive decomposition or reaction at
normal temperatures and pressures.
(D) is a forbiden explosive as defines in
49 CFR 173.51, Class A explosive as defined
in 49 CFR 173.53, or Class B explosive as
defined in 49 CFR 173.58.
NOTE; Such wastes include pyrophoric sub-
stances, explosives, autopolymerizable
material and oxidizing agents. If it not
apparent whether a waste is a reactive waste
using this description, then the methods cited
below or equivalent methods can be used to
determine if the waste is reactive waste.
-------
(2) Identification Method
(A) Thermally unstable wastes can be identified
using the Explosion Temperature Test (see Appendix B)
of this document. Those wastes for which explosion,
ignition, or decomposition occurs at 125 C after
5 minutes are classed as reactive wastes.
(B) Wastes unstable to mechanical shock can be
identified using the test cited in 49
CFR 173.53(b),(c),(d), or (f) as appropriate.
This covers all the types of reactivity of concern;
oxidizing agents, and autopolymerizers fit into part A,
i.e. "undergo violent chemical change", and likewise the
rest of the categories listed at the beginning of this
chapter are paraphrased in this definition. Also, this is
as inclusive as any State regulation, and is a paraphrase
of the NFPA catetory 2, 3, 4 reactive material definitions
(which have been advocated for use as a reactivity definition
by several commentors to the Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.
Oxidizing agents are covered under this section of the
Section 3001 regulations and are also covered under the
ignitable waste definitions. Oxidizing agents fit parts of
the prose definition for hazardous waste, however the main
danger from these waste are the fires they initiate. Since
there are no tests available
-------
satisfactorily determining whether a waste is hazardous
due to oxidizing capacity (see Appendix A), these types
of wastes are also listed with flammable solids, to be
consistent with the DOT approach.
The test chosen as an indicator of thermal instability
is a modification of the explosion temperature test (Test
VII in Appendix A). The Wood's metal bath has been replaced
by a standard temperature bath because of the cadmium fumes
given off by the Woods metal bath, and because the Woods
metal bath is not commonly available for use. This test was
chosen as it met the criteria of being easy to perform
(minimal technical skills and standard apparatus are used)
unambiguous to interpret (either some decomposition, ignition
or explosion occurs or it doesn't). (See test evaluation Appendix
A). The mechanical instability tests chosen are those cited
by DOT for transportation (the DOT thermal instability test
is included by references in the prose definition). These
tests are familiar to industry and DOT has found them to be
adequate for transportation purposes. Since the shocks
experienced by wastes during management will certainly be of
no greater magnitude then the potential shocks a commodity
may experience during transport, these tests are satisfactory
for our purpose.
-------
TABLE I
DAMAGE INCIDENTS INVOLVING LAND DISOPSAL OF REACTIVE WASTE
1. Baltimore County, Maryland - 6 men hospitalized
due to inhalation of hydrogen sulfide gas liberated from
salts being landfilled.
2. Edison Township, New Jersey, - bulldozer operator
killed at landfill when barrel of unknown waste exploded.
3. Crosby, Texas - residents subjected to sore throats,
nausea, and headaches from reaction between oily wastes and
acids, dumped in an abandoned sand pit (twenty-six wells
were closed by this incident).
4. Edison Township, New Jersey, - cases of conjunctiv-
itis, eye irritation, burn on cornea, and chemical burns due
to reactive wastes being landfilled.
5. Juean County, Wisconsin - Police officer injured
and squad car damaged by explosion of battery wastes.
6. Santa cAr/2, California - Bulldozer operator overcome
by hydrogen sulfide fumes generated while mixing tanning
waste with other wastes. (Four deaths have occured in
California between 1963 - 1976 from inhalation of H2S from
waste tanning sludge).
7. Northern California - drum of toluene diisocyanate
(TDI) exploded spreading extremely toxic toluene diisocyanate
throughout the area.
-------
TABLE 2
STATE, FEDERAL AND NFPA REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
1. Texas
(Texas Water Quality Board) Texas uses the following defini-
tion "Industrial Hazardous Waste" means any waste or mixture
of waste which . . . generates sudden pressure by decomposition,
heat or other means and would therefore be likely to cause
ii
substantial personnel injury. . .-in combination with a
listing of 40 reactive compounds.
2. State of Washington
Defines explosive using a 5" drop test, or class A explosive
(see DOT)
-------
1) Is a Forbidden or class A, B, or C explosive
as defined in Title 49 CFR, Sections 173.51,
173.88, and 173.100 respectively* (see DOT)
n2) Is a water reactive material
3) Is in NFPA category 2, 3, or 4 (see NFPA)1
5. Illinois
Uses the following definitions:
"Explosives - Any waste having concentration of 1% or
morj5 of a substance described as an explosive (high, low, or
permissible) by Sax (Dangerous properties of Hazardous .Materials
by N. Irving Sax, Van Nostrand Reinhold) shall be considered
as explosive "per se".
"Reactives - Any waste having a composition of 5% or
more of a substance that (as described by Sax) readily
reacts with air, water, or other substances to produce heat
and/or toxic fumes shall be considered a reactive waste..
The definition includes oxidizing agents.
6. NFPA
Category 0 - Materials which in themselves are
normally stable, even under fire ex-
posure conditions, and which are not
reactive with water.
Category 1 - Materials which themselves are norm-
ally stable, but which can become un-
stable at elevated temperatures and
pressures or which may react with
water with some release of energy but
not violently.
/->*"
-------
Category 2 - Materials which in themselves are
normally unstable and readily under-
go violent chemical change but do not
detonate. Also materials which may
react violently with water or which
may form potentially explosive mix-
tures with water.
Category 3 - Materials which in themselves are cap-
able of detonation or explosive reaction
but require a strong initiating source
or which must be heated under confin-
ment before initiation or which react
explosively with water.
Category 4 - Materials which in themselves are
readily capable of detonation or of
explosive decomposition or reaction at
temperatures and pressures.
-------
7. DOT The Department of Transportation lists explosive
wastes (these are typically propellants, explosives, initiating
compounds etc.) and also specifies testing methods for liquids
and solids unstable to thermal and mechanical stresses.
(See 49CFR 173.53). We have included all the definitions,
listings, and protocols used by DOT in the regulations by
reference.
-------
Appendix A
The testing methods examined in this section-'- are separated
into tests for thermal instability, (Tests I thru X) tests for
impact mechanical shock instability (Tests XI a and b) test
identifying oxidizing agents, Tests XII, XIII, and XIV) and
a test identifying water reactive materials, Test XV.
Most of the information contained in this Appendix was
taken from "A second appraisal of methods for Estimating Self
Reaction Hazards" E.S. Domalski Report No. DOT/iMTB/OH.MO-76/6.
-------
A. Tests Indentifying Wastes Unstable"co "Thermal Stress
I. JANAF (Joint Army Navy Air Force) Thermal Stability Test
Number Six for Liquid Propellants.
1. Purpose of Test;
To determine the maximum temperatures to which thermally
unstable liquids can be subjected for short periods of tine
without danger of explosive decomposition.
t
2. Operating Principle;
Under confinement in a microbomb a liquid sample is either
heated rapidly and held at a pre-determined temperature for
an arbitrary time interval, or heated at a constant rate until
evidence of rapid decomposition appears. Spot immersion is
also possible, where the microbomb containing the sample is
immersed into the bath at some elevated temperature.
3. Test Description;
A microbcmb which is drilled and tapped for a thermocouple
and burst disc fitting, has an internal volume of 1.3 cm3. A
liquid sample of 0.5 ml volume is used and burst diaphrams
ranging from 300 to 8400 psi failure pressure can be used. The
microbomb is immersed in a bath containing a bismuth-lead alloy,
which melts in the range 150 to 250 F. Maintenance of the bath
around 200 F and of the heating rate at 20 F per minute, allows
detection of rated of decomposition of 2 - 5 F per minute. An
air-vibrator is used to agitate the bath and the sample in order
-------
-7
A2 " • .. r .•
to establish the desired heat transfer between bath and
sample. The sample temperature and the temperature difference
between the bath and sample are recorded as a functions of
time. The temperature at which self-decomposition begins and. the
rate of decomposition can be derived.
4 . Test Evaluation;
This test utilizes small samples of material in good thermal
contact with thermos tated suroundings. The temperature of the
sample can be increased with time at such a slow rate that
quasisteady states are maintained.
Rates of decomposition can be estimated from plots of th.e
sample temperature vs. time, and from plots of the temperature
difference between the sample and bath vs. time. The slope of
the temperature differential curve represents the rate of heat
transfer between the sample and the bath. Factors which nee«3.
to be taken into account are the rate at which the bath is fc>ei
heated, heating from the self-reaction of the sample, and
temperature gradients in the microbomb. From a plot of the
self -heating rate of the sample vs. the reciprocal of the
temperature, a linear slope proportional to the activation
energy should result. The precision of activation energies
derived in this manner is about _+ 15 percent.
5. Applicability of Test as an Index of Waste Reactivity;
The activation energy of the reaction in question, whii
certainly an important parameter in assessing waste reacti
-------
53 fij !
_ ___ is- i
A3
(as discussed previously) is not the only parameter.
Also important are heat of reaction, waste geometry,
density, the heat transfer etc. To indicate a particular
activation energy as a cut-off for waste reactivity would
result in many false positives, and negatives.
II. ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials) Standard
Method of Test S-476-73, Thermal Instability of Con-
fined Condensed Phase Systems (Confinement Test)
1. Purpose of Test;
To determine the temperature at which a chemical mixture will
commence reaction, liberating appreciable heat or pressure/
when subject to a programmed temperature rise. This method
applies to solids or liquids in a closed system in air or some
other atmosphere present initially under normal laboratory
conditions.
2. Operating Principle:
The sample to be tested is confined in closed vessel equipped
with a burst diaphram, pressure transducer, and thermocouple.
The apparatus is equilibrated in a bath at room temperature and
subsequently heated at a constant rate. The temperature
difference between the bath and sample, the pressure in the
closed vessel, and the bath temperature are recorded continuously
during the course of the test.
-------
3
3. Test Descrintion:
This apparatus is a modification of that described under
the JANAF Thermal Stability Test. The sample (300 mg.) is
placed in the test cell or vessel (volume 1 cm3) and is in
intimate contact with a thermocouple. The apparatus also has
a burst diaphram-vent tube system to release gases formed during
decomposition if the pressure reaches too high a value, and a
pressure transducer to provide measurement of the total pressure
inside the vessel as heat is supplied from a bath at a
constant rate. The nominal heating rate of the bath is 8 to lo
C per minute. Silicone oil is used in the range 0 to 370 C.
and a low-melting alloy (i.e., Wood's metal) in the range 100
to 500 C. Recorders are used to monitor, first, the difference
between the sample temperature, T, and bath temperature, TQ, as a
function of bath temperature, and, second,, pressure, P, as a
function of bath temperature. No agitation to minimize thermal
lag is used.
4. Test Evaluation:
The threshold temperature is the lowest temperature at th
left hand base of the positive peak which appears in the plot
of T-T0 vs T0. The threshold temperature is an indication of
the onset of thermal instability in the sample. A potential
hazard exists, therefore, when the temperature of the sample
exceeds this value. The instantaneous rate of pressure vs.
bath temperature. The maximum pressure generated and the rat
of pressure rise are useful hazard parameters related to roucrK
approximations of reaction time, and damage potential.
-------
Examination of the rate of temperature rise of the
sample, cT/dt, and rate of temperature rise of the bath, dTQ/dt,
not only allows an evaluation of the Arrhenius constants, but
also provides for arbitrary scaling of the process. A simpler,
and probably preferable procedure, may be to record only To
corresponding to a runaway condition (e.g., a specified value
dT/dt dT0/dt, or rupture of a pressure disk; there is some
arbitrariness in the definition of the runaway criterion, but
this feature may not be serious), and then repeat the experiment
with a different sample diameter, d. The Frank-Kanenetskii
condition then gives the value of S from
(dL/d2)2 = (Tol/To2)2 exp (E/R) (l/Tol-l/To2)l.
This procedure obviates the necessity of evaluating A and , and
allows immediate scaling to any size.
5, Applicability of Test as an Index of Waste Reactivity;
This test suffers from the same drawbacks as the JANAF
test (pA-2), i.e. the activation energy gotten from the test
is not a definitive indicator of waste reactivity.
III. SELF HEATING ADIABATIC TEST
This test is run under adiabatic conditions, conditions of
this sort do not correspond to normal waste management conditions,
and the test results by the test is comparable to the test results
of I and II. Since different information cannot be gotten from
this test, than is already available from tests I and II, and
the test conditions correspond less to waste management conditions
than do tests I and II, no further evaluation of this test is
presented here. ^3
-------
IV. THERMAL SURGE TEST
1. Purpose of Test;
To determine explosion temperature (temperatures for
which there is a delay time of 250 sec before explosion).
2. Operating Principle:
The discharge of a capacitor across a thin-walled tube
provides the termal stimulus to initiate explosive decomposition.
The time-temperature profile of the decomposition is obtained
from oscillographic records. Although the tubes are thin-walled
(0.089 nun), they have considerable strength and provide a state
or heavy confinement for the explosive or unstable material.
3. Test Description;
A test sample is loaded into hypodermic needle tubing which is
heated, essentially instantaneously, by a capacitor discharge.
The temperature and time of the explosive event are recorded
from a continuous measurement of the electrical resistance of
the tubing by means of an oscilloscope. The test is particularly
suited to liquid material but solids can also be accomodated
by melting prior,to their insertion into hypodermic needle
tubing. Materials are subject to temperatures in the range of
260 to 1100 C and delay times of 50 m sec. to 50 sec. The
delay time, T is given by A exp (B/RT) where A and B constants
(somewhat related to the Arrhenius pre-exponential factor and
activation energy), R is the gas constant, and T is the absolute
temperature.
-------
Test Svaulation;
The thermal surge test supplies data on explosion
temperatures which represent conditions of minimal heat transfer.
This test measures the true induction time of an explosive rather
than the time required to heat up the sample. Wenograd 15
was able to show a correspondence between the temperature of the
system 250 sec prior to explosion and impact test data. The
activation energy parameter obtained in thermal surge test
measurements under dynamic conditions are considerably lower
than those determined in other measurements under isothermal
conditions. This test is probably one of the best available
approximations to a point source heat initiation of an unstable
material in a multicomponent system.
5. Applicability of Test as an Index of Waste Reactivity
The high temperatures the test materials are subject to in
this test, do not correspond to those temperatures wastes might
be subject to during management (unless the waste is subject
to a strong electric discharge). For this reason, this test is
unacceptable.
V. ADIABATIC STORAGE TEST
Like test III, this test is run also under adiabatic
conditions, and therefore no further evaluation is presented.
-------
VI. ISOTHERMAL STRONG TEST
This test determine the heat generation rate as a function
of time and estimates the induction period at a given temperature
for a material. This test is run under isothermal conditions
and takes anywhere from weeks to months to complete, for these
reasons no further evaluation is presented.
VII. EXPLOSION TEMPERATURE TEST
1. Purpose of Test:
To determine the temperature at which a material explodes,
ignites, or decomposes after a five second immersion in a Wood's
metal bath.
2. Operating Principle:
This test gives an estimate of how close the explosion
temperature is to ambient condition for a material, and, hence,
provides a measurable indication of thermal instability.
3. Test Description;
The material to be tested ( 25 mg.) is placed in a copper
test tube (high thermal conductivity) and immersed in a Wood's
metal bath. This test is made at a series of bath temperatures,
and the time lag prior to explosion at each temperature is recorded,
The bath temperature is lowered until a temperature is reached
at which explosion ignition, or apparent decomposition does not
occur. The bath temperature working range from about 125 to 400 C.
The sample is removed from the bath after 5 minutes if no
explosion had occurred at 360 C.
-------
A9
-T-.C, - ^valuation:
~~l • "" ""* *"" ..... . — _,.- —
ThTexolosion time is very nearby independent of sample
SJ2e crovided the sample size is in the range 10 to 40 ,g .
Pa-t;=l, size is also important in providing consistent re-
au-, -or a group of material. Rapid equilibration of tte
s^:l. u=on contact with the high te,perature bath will depend
..,-m -;.,., heat capacity and thermal conductivity of the material,
L 'could '- - **1™ •»«=« tainty la th* '""• EX?1°Slm
t.,,erature data is a function of ti.e serve as useful indi-
cators to assist in .maintaining safe thermal condition
durir.3 handling and transport.
5
test is the most suitable for our purposes. The test
ar, pass-fail, either an explosion, ignition, deco.po-
.ition etc. taxes place or not. The results are not subjective
i-. th,, sonse, as are most of the other available tests.
Proble,s do arise out of distortion of th«nal transport
,ron samPle si.e, however, this is a problem with all tests.
vso the Woods Metal Bath results in Cadn>ium furaes being generated
lid should only be operated in a hood. A sand bath or nonfl-n^bl.
oil bath might be more suitable for our purposes.
_
determine the self-heating of a sample at small to
v ,eat generation rates as a function of temperature
rtt.1-- -•
or
-------
:;
2. Operating Principle; '• ~ . ..:.."—-'-~^_ - -'
A cylindrical aluminum block contains a cavity which has
a Peltier element attached at the bottom and a sample is placed
on the Peltier element. Heat flow from the block to sample
is measured by means of the Peltier element which provides
an electrical signal to a recording device.
3. Test Description;
A sample vessel constructed of stainless steel (volume,
2 crn3) is positioned over a Peltier element, and both are
housed inside the cavity of a cylindrical aluminum block. This
central block is surrounded by mantles containing electrical
heating elements in addition to an insulating layer. The
electrical input to the block and mantles is maintained in
such a manner as to keep the temperature difference between
the block and mantles as small as possible while the block
is heated linearly at about 10 C per hour. The heat flow from
the aluminum block to the sample is measured by the Peltier
element. As soon as the sample begins self-reaction the heat
flux to the sample starts to decrease. From a plot of the
heat generation of the sample vs. the reciprocal of the absolute
temperature, the activation energy can be calculated.
-------
$, ft
-.f.iyf^r^- "
4. Test Evaluation:
Changes in the heat capacity of the aluminum block over
the temperature range 20 to 200 C will cause the temperature
increase over this range to be slightly non-linear. The
Peltier element is temperature dependent, and calibration
using a pure copper sample having known thermal properties is
recommended.
4
5. Applicability of Test as an Index of Waste Reactivity
This test yield activation energy as a result, subject
therefore to the same drav/backs as tests I and II.
IX Homogeneous Explosion Test
1. Purpose of Test^:
To determine the pressure-time profile of the thermal
explosion of solid or liquid materials.
2. Operating Principle;
A sample is heated under adiabatic conditions in a closed
vessel until explosion occurs. The maximum rate of pressure rise
and the maximum overpressure are measured as a function of
time at different heat input rates.
3. Test Description:
About 100 ml of a sample is introduced into the lower part of
a stainless steel vessel. The lower section is sealed off from
a larger upper section above by a membrane (breaking pressure
1 bar). The larger upper section serves as a free space for
j
-------
A12
the expansion of reactant or product vapors. During the
main part of the induction period, pressure equalization is
accomplished by a capillary tube connecting the upper and
lower sections of the vessel. The two-compartment vessel is
placed inside a larger vessel of 20 liter capacity which seals
the former from the external surroundings. A heating.mantle
around latter vessel allow heating of the inner vessel to take
place as near to adiabatic conditions as possible. Around
the sample vessel there is also an auxiliary heater which
heats the sample at a constant (but adiabatic) rate until
explosion occurs. When explosion takes place, the membrane
is ruptured and expansion into the larger volume takes place.
A piezo-electric pressure transducer records the pressure
prior to, during, and after explosion.
4. Test Evaluation;
Differentiation of materials which give large rates of
pressure rise and overpressures can be singled out from those
which give low values. Subsequent precautions for management
can be taken.
5. Applicability of Test as an Index of Waste Reactivity;
This test identifies those wastes which react under
thermal stress to produce large pressure gradients. This
information could be of use to .identify potentially reactive
wastes, hazardous due to pressure generation. This type of
-------
' 1
reactive vasts would also be identified by the explosion
temperature tast. Since some part of degradation or change in
the sample would be apparent for these samples failing this test
X. Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA) Test
1. Purpose of Test;
To determine exothermic and endothermic reactions in a
material as Reat is applied at a particular input rate.
2. Operating Principle;
The material under test and a stable reference material
are heated simultaneously at the same rate. Exothermic and
endothermic traces are measured using a recorder providing a
temperature-time plot of the reaction process.
3. Test Description;
The material to be tested ( 5 to 25 rag) and a reference
material (such as alumina or glass beads) are placed into
identical compartments in an aluminum block. Heat is supplied
to both compartments at the same constant rate of input.
Temperatures are measured using thermo-couples in conjunction
with automatic recording devices so that a plot of temperature
vs. time is obtained. A shift in the base line results from a
change in the heat capacity or mass of the material under test.
Particular care must be given to the type of temperature sensor
used and to the choice of its location in the compartment inside
the aluminum block. The geometry of the sample and thermal
characteristics (such as thermal conductivity) of the sample
will affect the shape of the DTA curve.
-------
"N'ar-^v- f^rS^
4. Test Evaluation:
From the exotherms and endotherms of"the DTA curve
decomposition temperatures corresponding to various rates of
temperature rise can be obtained. Kinetic parameters can be
calculated as a result of properly varying the heating rates
and assuming a constant degree of conversion of reactant when
a specific thermal event (such as the peak temperature of a
given exotherm) takes place. When the temperature sensors are
placed in the path of the heat flow the DTA apparatus can
measure the enthalpies of processes such as heats of decomposition
or transition.
5. Applicability of Test as an Index of Waste Reactivity:
This test will give information as to how a waste reacts,
thermally, to thermal stress. There are several problems beyond
those normally associated with test's of this kind:
' 1) The stress is specialized, as is the reactivity
information.
(2) The test must be interpreted, and is sometimes
ambiguous (as in the case where several reactions are
taking place, one of which is endothermic e.g. decomposition
of NH4N03).
(3) Usually very small samples are used, which makes
getting a representative sample even more difficult.
On the other hand this is a standsrdized, procedure which is
familiar to-industry, widely known and often used.
-------
, Ilil4lr s
3 . T e s t s ~ o r ?. e act; ive Wastes Sensitive to Mechanical Stress
A great many sensitivity tests using mechanical stimuli
have Loc.n devised, mostly by the military, hencs generally
ir.tonJcc: for the rating of sensitive energetic materials
(explosives and propellants ) . Since we are interested mostly
in waste commercial materials or byproducts of lower sensitivity
(although handled in larger amounts), the main problem is to
select a few suitable tests from the large number of existing
-------
XI. Impact Test
1. Purpose of Test:
To determine the minimum drop height of a falling weight
which strikes an explosive material and produces either a mild
or violent decomposition reaction. Both falling weight and
explosive material have a fixed and constant mass.
2. Operating Principle:
Impact energy is supplied to an explosive by a weight of
constant mass which is dropped from varying heights to establish
the minimum height to provide detonation, decomposition, or
charring. The impact provides rapid compression and crushing
of the sample (which may involve a frictional component of
crystals rubbing against crystals) and detonation ensues.
3. Test Description:
The two most prevalent impact tests are those by Picatinny
Arsenal (PA) (Test XI a) and the Bureau of Mines (B*l) (Test XI b) .
In the PA apparatus a sample is placed in the recess of a
small steel die cup, and capped with a thin brass cover. A
cylindrical steel plug is placed in the center of the cover,
which contains a slotted-vent and the impact of the 2 kilogram
weight is transferred to the steel plug.
In the BM apparatus a 20 mg, weight is always employed while
the PA sample size may be varied for each experiment. The explosive
sample is held between two flat parallel plates made of hardened
steel and impact is transmitted to the sample by means of the
uoper plate. Sample decomposition is detectable by audible,
visual or other sensory means.
-------
"i ^ «^ ' ik"~ *-"• J *\ -' ' *• «•- •
"i
4
In an apparatus used by the Bureau of Explosives (part
of the Association of American Railroads) and cited in Title
49 CFK (DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations) a falling weight
is guided by a pair of rigid uprights into a hammer-anvil
assembly containing a 10 rag. sample of explosive. Reproduci-
bility can beccme a problem here because of a non-ideal
collisions between the "drop weight and the impact hammer since
only a fraction of the drop-weight energy is transmitted to
the sample.
4 . Test Evaluation :
Greater confinement of the sample will limit the translationa1
component of the impulse to a smaller area as is the case with
the PA apparatus. Factors which play an influential role in
the test are: materials of construction, sample thickness , sample
density, hammer geometry, mass of drop weight, impact area,
surface finish, the surrounding atmosphere, temperature, and
pressure. Modifications can also be made to accomodate cast
and liquid samples.
5. Applicability of These Tests as Indicies of Waste Reacti v^ |.v.
Impact tests suffer from the drawback that the fundamental
processes leading to energy release are complicated and poorlv
understood. Failure of good agreement between various imoact
tests shows that these tests contain uncontrolled parameters
-------
On the other hand, (I) partial correlations do exist, (2)
the history of the test indicates rough agreement with
field experience, (3) the stimulus is of reasonable severity,
(4) the test are widely known and relatively wasy to use.
These facts make them useful for a partial definition of
hazards.
-------
A19
C. Tests Identifying Oxidizing Wastes
XII. Burning Rate Test for Solid Oxidizers
1. Purpose of Test:
To determine the relative fire hazard present when in-
organic oxidizers are heated in the presence of wood or cellulosic
substances.
2. Operating Principle;
A set sample size and ratio of dried sawdust (12-50 mesh)
and oxidizer is ignited and the burning rate is determined by
measuring the time for the burning to propogate at least 5 inches
2Most of the information contained in this section was taken
from "Classification Test Methods for Oxidizing Materials" by
J.M. Kuchta, A.L. Furno, and A.C. Imhof, Bureau of Mines,
of Investigations 7594.
-------
A20
'; -j"'^^"-^ :M. fr*"*""?!--''
; I
3. Test Description
For the test, sawdust is initially screened to provide
particles ranging in size from 12 to 50 mesh (Tyler screen
series). The sawdust is dried in an overn at 215 + 5 F for
about six hours, and then test mixtures having various
concentrations of the oxidizers are prepared. To obtain a
uniform mixture, the materials were agitated for 10 minutes or
more in a closed container. Generally, fine oxidizers are used
"as received" but coarse oxidizers can be pulverized and
screened to obtain samples at least as fine as the wood sawdust.
For most of the oxidizers, a particle size range of about 20 to
100 mesh appears to be adequate for determining their hazard
classification by this proposed test. However, where the
hazard level of such materials is uncertain because of particle
size considerations, the burning rates of the mixtures should
also be determined using oxidizer samples that have fractions
finer than 100 mesh.
Burning rates are measured using a rectangular rack that
was mounted horizontally and equipped with a 60-mesh steel screen
to support the sample. The sample bed is separated from the side
rack mounts to insure unrestricted burning along the sides of the
sample. To form the sample bed, the sawdust-oxidizer mixture
is placed on a rack between a pair of spacer bars which fixed the
bed size and which are removed before ignition. The bed can also
be formed in a U-shaped wire screen channel which is transferred
onto the burning rack; the wire screen channel is then removed
before ignition. The sample is ignited by a propane torch or
-------
or similar flame source and the burning rats determined by
measurements are made with two fuse wire (0.5 amp) stations
and an electric timer, although slow-burning mixtures can be
followed visually and timed with a stopwatch. The sample bed
was normally 7 inches long and the rates are measured ever a
distance of 5 inches and at least 1 inch from the point of
ignition.
4. Test Evaluation:
• This proposed test method permits classification of
oxidizers into two or more groups based on their relative
burning rates with a cellulose-type combustible such as wood
sawdust. The least hazardous class includes those oxidizers
burn at low rates ( 10 in/min) when mixed with the select-q>- ^
red oak sawdust. A second class consists of oxidizers, such
the alkali nitrates and chlorates, which burn at relatively >>•
rates ( 10 ir./min) when mixed with this sawdust. A thirr)
1XiU/ rtiore
hazardous class should include those oxidizers, which when \i
mixed or mixed with a combustible, might ignite spontaneous!
and burn vigorously if moisture is present or if they are he
slightly. This class would include sodium peroxide and calc *
hypochlorite (69.5 ptc C1.2) which gives very hioh burnin
with the sawdust. A fourth class is also required for thos
oxidizers, such as ammonium perchlorate, which may detonate
when heated under confinement or when exposed to shock.
-------
5. Applicability of Test as an Index of Waste Oxidizing Strength
This method is designed to provide a relative measure of
the increased ignition or burning hazard that may exist when
inorganic oxidizers are mixed with an organic substance such
as sawdust. They are not applicable to organic peroxides or
to inorganic oxidizers that may detonate when heated with or
without a combustible.
In the application of this test method, it must be recognized
that a reliable hazard rating may not be possible for all
oxidizers using a single reference combustible. If the adjacent
material is not cellulosic in nature, (and in a landfill
this may or maynot be the case) it is conceivable that
an oxidizer may display a greater level of hazard than observed
with the select-grade, red oak sawdust used in the present
study.
XIII. Ignition Hazard Test for Liquid Oxidizers;
1. Purpose of Test:
To determine the relative fire hazard by exothermic reaction
of liquid inorganic oxidizers with other substances or by
decomposition to products which ignite or sustain a fire.
Generally, these liquids react with many organic substances and
some are capable of producing spontaneous ignition when mixed
with the combustible at normal or slightly elevated temperatures;
some may also ignite spontaneously when heated in the absence
of a combustible material.
-------
2. Operating Principle:
In this proposed test, the ignitability or reactivity of
the oxidizer sawdust mixtures is determined in an open reaction
vessel using small quantities of the reactants. Temperatures
up to at least 190 F are used to compare the oxidizers, depend-
ing upon their reactivity. Such temperatures are not
necessarily unrealistic, considering particularly the possibilitv
of over-heating from the reaction of liquid oxidizers with
contaminants. The reaction vessel in these experiments is a
200-cm3 Pyrex beaker that is equipped with insulated heating
tapes and which rested on a flat ceramic heater; however, a
stainless steel beaker can be used. Because of possible violent-
reactions, the reaction vessel is placed in a larger vessel of
heavy-duty steel and the experiments are to be performed in a
protected area.
3. Te s t D i s cription:
In a trial, a predetermined quantity of the sawdust Ho ^_
x * to
50 mesh) is added to the reaction vessel and brought to the
desired temperature. The liquid oxidizer is then cautiouslv
injected with a long hypodermic syringe ( 12 inches) from belt • A
a protective shield, and the extent of reaction is determ
from continuous temperature measurements arid visual observ
5
-------
The mixture temperature is measured with a 30-gage iron-
constantan thermocouple protected against corrosion by a thin-
walled glass sheath and located near the center of the reacting
mass. Ignitions are confirmed visually since the flame reactions
does not necessarily occur in the immediate area cf the
thermocouple; in many ignitions, the sawdust-oxidizer mixture
is scattered or the flames occurred primarily near the top or
outside of the test vessel. Generally, evidence of ignition
is observed for periods of at least 15 minutes. If no significant
temperature increase occurred, experiments are made at higher
temperatures and with various sawdust-oxidizer quantities.
Preliminary trials are always made with a small quantity of
oxidizer ( 1 ml), particularly in the case of an oxidizer of
unknown reactivity.
4. Test Evaluation:
This method is not applicable to detonable liquid oxidizers,
such as concentrated hydrogen peroxide ( 90 pet) or perchloric
acid ( 72 pet). A shock sensitivity or thermal stability test
(s.a. test XIV) is required for evaluating these types.
5. Applicability of Test as an Index of Waste Oxidizing Strength
(se Test XII, No. 5).
-------
hWftftl3^
XIV. Self-HeaJ:irT.g__?est for Organi'C'Tefoxides-*-
1• Purpose of Test:
To determine the minimum ambient temperatures for the self-
heating to explosion of thermally unstable compounds in charges
of specified shape but varying size.
2. Operating Principle:
The thermal decomposition of organic peroxides is observed
from studying temperature-time plots to obtain the critical
temperatures for explosion, heat transfer coefficient data, and
apparent activation energies.
A circulating fan located within the working space of the
furnace provides temperature control to within 0.5 C.
3. Test Description:
A cylindrical tube furnace constructed of steel housed
an aluminum open-topped cylindrical container which could hold
40 to 60 grams of organic peroxide. The furnace was heated
electrically over the range 50 to 350 C and could be maintained
at a fixed temperature to within 0.3 C. The progress of self_
heating in the peroxide sample relative to the furnace was
observed by using a differential thermocouple at the center f
the sample. A second thermocouple attached to the side of -nh
container monitored the surface temperature. Temper ature-t-;
plots were recorded for different cylindrical diameters
the samples and critical temperatures were calculated.
-------
A26
Explosion studies were carried out with sample amounts
as large as 800 grams using a somewhat modified apparatus,
and similar parameters examined.
4. Test Evaluation:
The chief disadvantage of the method is the long period
over which readings must be recorded and the long time required
for the furnace to stabilize following a large change in
operating temperature.
5. Applicability of Test as an Index of Waste Oxidizing Strength
This test can be used to identify detonable oxidizers. This
ioes not give any additional needed information than provided by
the explosion temperature test.
c/t
-------
"
f~.
A27
XV. Test Method for Water Reactivity
1. Purpose of Test:
To identify materials which react so violently with
water and provide a danger from ignition of nearby cornbustables,
generation of flammable gases or generation of toxic fumes.
2. Operating Principle:
Water reactivity of a substance is determined either
by adding a given weight of water to a given weight of material
or vice versa. In either case, the rate of temperature rise
and the gross temperature rise are recorded, and the gases
evolved are sampled for analysis.
3. Test Disc rip tiojn;
Tests XV, XVI, and XVII are taken from "CLASSIFICATION OF
HAZARDS OF MATERIALS—WATER-REACTIVE MATERIALS AND ORGANIC
PEROXIDES" - C. Mason and J. C. Cooper, NTIS No. PB 209422.
-------
•li-^S 1
A28 . ...;._: "•-— ""
The sample container is a Pyrex tube, 1-3/8 inches in
diameter by 10 inches long, imbedded to a depth of 3-1/2
inches in block of insulating foam (polyurethane or poly-
styrene) 3 inches square by 5 inches high. A thin piece of
copper 3/8 inch square and weighing 0.5 gram (about 0.025
inch thick) is silver-soldered to the tip of a chromel-
alumel thermocouple which measures the temperature rise. This
thermocouple is placed in the Pyrex tube in such a way that the
copper square is near enough to the bottom to be covered by
the sample. The output of the thermocouple is fed to a
suitable recorder.
An initial estimate of the severity of the reaction is
..made by adding 5 grams of water slowly to 0.5 gram of material
with the apparatus behind a protective shield. Since either
toxic or flammable gases may be evolved, the test must be
carried out in a suitable fume hood. The temperature rise
is measured by adding 10 grams of water slowly (10-20 sec) from
behind a protective shield to 1, 2, 5, 10, and 20 grams,
successively, of the sample. Measurements are continued
until the temperature reaches a peak and then begins to drop.
If 1, 2, and 5 grams of the material give virtually no temper-
ature increase in 4 minutes, 10 grams of water are added to
10 grams of sample and the temperature is monitored for 1
hour to determine whether a slow reaction occurs ('as in the
case of A 4C3). If the reaction is not too violent, 10 grams
-------
A29
of water are added to 20 grams of the material to see whether
a greater rise in temperature results. The procedure may be
reversed by adding the material to the water in the container.
The best method to determine whether a flammable or toxic
gas is evolved is by chemical analysis of the gas. If a gas
is*evolved, a sample from the reacting material is collected
through a flexible needle inserted into the reaction con-
tainer to within about an inch of the reacting mixture. The
sample is then analyzed on a chromatograph for flammable and/or
toxic gas.
4. Test Evaluation;
The test is reproducible to withing 10 percent. The test
results for known reactives like the hydules of the alkali
metals are positive. There seems to be little difference in
the results caused the order of mixing.
5. Applicability of Test as an Index of Waste Reactivity;
A test such as this could be used to identify pyrophoric
wastes, wastes which generate toxic gases when contacted with water
etc.
The test method appears to define the activity of the
various materials tested. Classification of the water reactivity
hazard could be based on the temperature rise which is a
measure of the heat released by reaction with water. The
release of flammable and/or toxic gases would create an
additional hazard which could be covered by a classification
such as the following:
-------
"D'J
ex
A30
Reactive Wastes:
Wastes which react with water to give
temperature rises of 140° F and evolve
toxic or flammable gases.
Wastes which react with water to give
temperature rises greater than 140° F or
evolve toxic or flammable gases.
Simplified methods of analysis for toxic gas, (partic-
ularly HCN and H-S) must be developed before this test could
be considered.
-------
Appendix B
Explosion Temperature Test
1. Purpose of Test:
To determine whether a material explodes, ignites, or
decomposes after a five second immersion in a sand bath
or low flammability liquid (such as high molecular weight
silicone oil) at temperatures up to 125°C and if so, at what
temperature.
2. Operating Principle:
This test gives an estimate of how close the explosion
temperature is to ambient condition for a material, and, hence,
provides a measurable indication of thermal instability.
3, Test Description:
The material to be tested (25 mg.) is placed in a
copper test tube (high thermal conductivity) and immersed
in the controlled temperature bath. This test is made at a
series of bath temperatures, and the time lag prior to
explosion at each temperature is recorded (up to 10 min.).
The bath temperature is raised until a temperature of 125°C
is reached if no explosion, ignition, or apparent decompostion
occurs.
Note: This is a modification of the test taken from K. Henkin,
and R.G. McGill, Industrial & Engr. Chera. V44 p!35
-------
-------
ED-4
DRAFT
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
SECTION 3001 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OP
HAZARDOUS WASTE
SECTION 250.13 - HAZARDOUS WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
TOXICITY
December 15, 1978
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
-------
This document provides background information and
support for regulations which have been designed to identify
and list hazardous waste pursuant to Section 3001 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. It is being
made available as a draft to support the proposed regulations.
As new information is obtained, changes may be made in the
background information and used as support for the regulations
when promulgated.
This document was first drafted many months ago and has
been revised to reflect information received and Agency
decisions made since then. EPA made some changes in the
proposed regulations shortly before their publication in the
Federal Register. We have tried to ensure that all of those
decisions are reflected in this document. If there are any
inconsistencies between the proposal (the preamble and the
regulation) and this background document, however, the
proposal is controlling.
Comments in writing may be made to:
Alan S. Corson
Hazardous Waste Management Division (WH-565)
Office of Solid Waste
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction
Toxic properties Considered and Those Selected
Extraction Procedure
Sample Preparation
Leaching Media Composition
Extractant to Sample Ratio
Agitation Methods
Extraction Contact Time
Post Extraction Sample Handling
Groundwater Dilution
Toxicity
Genetic Activity
Bioaccumulation and Persistence
Human Toxicity
Aquatic Toxicity
Phytotoxicity
Regulatory Approach Selected
Bibliography
Appendices
I Proposed Toxicity Definition
II Mutagenicity Test Protocol
III Controlled Substances List
IV Bioaccumulation Potential Test
V Biodegradation Assay
VI Daphnia Magna Reproduction Assay
VII Terrestrial Plant Assays
VIII Demonstration of Non-Inclusion in the
Hazardous Waste System Procedures
-------
Introduction
Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (referred
to herein as Pub. L. 94-580 or "the Act"), creates a regula-
tory framework to control hazardous waste. Congress has
found that such waste presents "special dangers to health
and requires a greater degree of regulation than does non-
hazardous solid waste" (Section 1002(b)(5) of the Act).
This rule is one of a series of seven being developed
and proposed under Subtitle C to implement the hazardous
waste management program. It is important to note that the
definition of solid waste (Section 1004(27) of the Act)
encompasses garbage, refuse, sludges, and other discarded
materials including _liquids^u-_aemiTSolids,. .and,. contained
gases (with a few exceptions) from both municipal and
industrial sources. Hazardous wastes, which are a sub-set
of all solid wastes and which will be defined by regulations
under Section 3001, are those which have particularly signif i.
cant impacts on public health and the environment.
Subtitle C creates a management control system which,
for those wastes defined as hazardous, requires "cradle-to-
grave" cognizance including appropriate monitoring, record-
keeping, and reporting throughout the system. Section 3001
requires EPA to define criteria and methods for identifying
and listing hazardous wastes. Those wastes which are
fied as hazardous by these means are then included in the
-------
management control system constructed under Sections
3002-3006 and 3010. Those that are excluded will be subject
to the requirements for non-hazardous solid waste being
carried out by States under Subtitle D under which open
dumping is prohibited and environmentally acceptable prac-
tices are required.
Section 1004(5) defines a hazardous waste as that which
may -
"(A) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase
in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible/ or
incapacitating reversible, illness; or
(B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to
human health or the environment when improperly treated,
stored, .transpor.ted,- ~or™dispased-.of.*. ,or.-otherwise
managed."
Section 3001(b) requires EPA to promulgate regulations
identifying those characteristics of a waste which cause a
waste to be a hazardous waste. In order to carry out not
only the mandate laid out in Sections 1004(5)(A) and 3001(b)
but also 1004(5)(B), the development of the toxicity hazard-
ous waste characteristics was keyed to the concept of improper
management.
Three criteria were then used in developing the candi-
date set of characteristics: that a characteristic was
specifically stated in Section 3001 by the definition of
hazardous waste in Section 1004 (.5) of the Act? and/or that
-------
damage cases collected by EPA over the past several years
demonstrated incidents of harm to human health or the environ-
ment attributable to a characteristic or property of waste;
and/or that other government agencies or private organizations
which regulate or recommend management methods for hazardous
substances have identified a characteristic to be of concern.
This candidate set of characteristics was then refined
on the basis of the following: that the characteristic
could provide a general description of the property or
attribute rather than appearing merely as a list of sources;
that the likelihood of a hazard developing if the waste were
mismanaged is sufficiently great; and that a reliable identi-
fication or test method for the presence of the characteris-
tic in waste is available. Use of this last criterion-has.
led EPA to describe each characteristic by developing or
adopting specific testing protocols.
This Background Document describes the rationale behind
the test procedures developed to describe the toxicity
characteristic stated in the proposed regulations published
on December 18, 1978 as 40 CFR 250.10 - 250.15 (Appendix I).
The Problem
In order to select those properties of a waste which
could result in their becoming a human or environment health
hazard, an examination was made of damage which has resulted
from past improper disposal.
In 1977, a study (1) of 50 land disposal sites that had
received industrial wastes was conducted to determine the
6
-------
prevalence of subsurface migration of hazardous chemical
constituents. At 13 sites, the study was able to obtain
confirmatory evidence for the migration of organic chemicals
from the disposal location. At these sites organic contami-
nation of the groundwater had occurred. In those cases
where it could not be clearly shown that the landfill or
lagoon under study was the source of the specific contaminant,
the site was ruled out as one at which migration had occurred.
Similarly, while heavy metals (excluding iron and manganese)
were found at 49 sites, migration could only be confirmed at
30 sites. Selenium, arsenic, and/or cyanide were found in
37 sites with migration confirmed at 30 sites. At 26 of the
sites, hazardous inorganic constituents in the water at one
or more monitor ing-wells was-found to-exceed—fche"-EPA"tfrinkfc
ing water limits. Of the hazardous substances, selenium
most frequently exceeded drinking water limits, followed by
arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Ground water contamination was measured by drilling
sampling wells at various distances from the landfill and at
various depths. Distances of wells from the disposal site
ranged from 3 to 300 meters (10 - 1000 ft.), while depths
ranged from 2 to 49 meters (6 - 160 ft.).
A few specific examples of damage which has occurred as
a consequence of improper storage or disposal of wastes
further illustrate the problem.
-------
New Jersey
Middlesex County, 1967
A plant recovering metals such as lead and
zinc from waste, stockpiled their raw materials
in the open. Metals subsequently leached into
the ground water resulting in contamination and
closure of public water supply wells in 1971
and 1972.
Salem County
Groundwater beneath a 40-acre chemical
manufacturing site has been contaminated by
waste chemicals disposed of over a 50-year
period.
Atlantic County 1973,
A landfill which has been the depository
of large quantities of industrial wastes is
causing a groundwater pollution problem.
Camden County 1973
The wall of an industrial lagoon ruptured
resulting in 75,000 gallons of latex paint sludge,
containing high concentrations of lead and
mercury, entering Billiard Creek.
Gloucester County 1970
During the 1960's a landfill in Mantua
accepted miscellaneous industrial wastes which
eventually leached out and entered the Chestnut
Branch of Mantua Creek. This subsequently
8
-------
resulted in contamination of the groundwater
system.
Maryland
Somerset County, 1975
At Crisfield there is a holding pond that
daily received 15,000 gallons of waste water
containing toxic chemicals such as arsenic,
lead, nickel, chromium and cyanides. The pond
is unlined and contamination of the underground
waters has been found to extend to a depth of
50 feet and a radius of 1,000 feet.
Illinois
Jo Dayiess County
Between 1966 and 1968 a mining company
discharged waste water into an abandoned shaft
of a lead-zinc mine. As a result, the Galena-
Platteville aquifer has become contaminated.
Washington
Spokane County
Aluminum processing wastes were dumped into
an old basalt quarry during the period 1967-1974.
Heavy rains in 1973 caused two sources of domestic
water to become contaminated with chloride rang-
ing from 600 to over 1100 ppm.
These examples illustrate that damage to ground and
surface water frequently result from migration of toxic
-------
chemicals from the initial disposal site. Groundwater
contamination is a major concern because it is a source of
drinking water for approximately one-half the population of
the United State. Furthermore because it is widely available
/> *
and less subject to the fluctuations that affect surface
water supplies, its use is increasing each decade by 25%.
Within a specific locality, the quality of groundwater is
fairly uniform, and little or no treatment may be required
prior to utilization. However, once contaminated, an aquifer
cannot be easily restored to its original state and its use-
fulness as a source of drinking water may be impaired for
years.
There is now ample evidence of damage to these important
resources as~a~result -of "improper-disposal- of..wastes*~^Table
1 summarizes the results of a 1974 study (2) of ground and
surface water contamination in the Northeastern United
States. Of the 60 municipal and industrial landfill contami^
nation cases studied, 25 resulted in water supply wells
being affected. At least 9 of these wells had to be abandoned,
Toxic Properties Considered and Those Selected
In order to devise a contamination model suitable for
use in estimating the consequences of improper disposal, a
groundwater scenario was selected. By selecting a ground-
water contamination scenario we do not mean to imply that
other vectors are not important. However, we do feel though
10
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF DATA ON 42 MUNICIPAL AND 18 INDUSTRIAL
LANDFILL CONTAMINATION CASES.
Findings
Assessment of principal damage
Contamination of aquifer only 9
Water supply well(s) affected 16
Contamination of surface water 17
i
Principal aquifer affected
Unconsolidated deposits 33
Sedimentary rocks 7
Crystalline rocks 2
Type of pollutant observed
General contamination 37
Toxic substances 5
Observed distance traveled by pollutant
Less than 100 feet 6
100 to 1,000 8
More than 1,000 feet 11
Unknown or unreported 17
Maximum observed depth penetrated by pollutant
Less than 30 feet 11
30 to 100 feet 11
More than 100 feet 5
Unknown or unreported 15
A
Action taken regarding groundwater resource
Water supply well(s) abandoned 4
Groundwater monitoring program established 12
No known action 26
Type of Landfill
MunicipalIndustrial
8
9
1
11
3
4
4
14
0
4
2
12
3
3
2
10
5
2
11
11
-------
that except in rare cases, control levels set using this
model will be sufficient to protect against other routes of
contamination.
The contamination model selected is based on chemical
wastes creating a problem by leaching or leakage of toxicants
from the disposal site to a drinking water aquifer. The
control thresholds used in defining the toxicity characteris-
tic have been designed to insure the safe disposal of wastes
which could, if improperly disposed of, contaminate ground-
water to such an extent that use of the water would consti-
tute a human or environmental health hazard. It must be
emphasized that the contamination model has been developed
for definitional purposes only. It does not address actual
disposal methods which might be used in any specific circum-
stance. Site or waste specific models could be used in the
permit process for determining the suitability of a particu-
lar disposal method.
In addition to being chronically toxic upon ingestion,
materials present in wastes can cause other environmental
and health problems. Toxicity is thus used in its broader
sense to encompass the specific properties of acute and
chronic toxicity, aquatic toxicity, phytotoxicity, carcino-
genicity, mutagenicity, and teratogenicity. Another group
of potential hazards consists of those materials which can
persist in the environment and bioaccumulate in animal
12
-------
tissue. Other manifestations of toxicity, while of impor-
tance in specific instances, are not thought to be critical
to the definition of a hazardous waste.
Inhalation toxicity, for example, has not been specifi-
cally addressed in this definition for two reasons:
1) The number of volatile chemicals ..which are toxic
by inhalation without also being either flammable,
i
genetically active, bioaccumulative, or toxic by
oral ingestion is thought to be very small.
2) Wastes containing potentially hazardous volatile
chemicals have often resulted in environmental
contamination and human exposure through improper
handling of wastes at hazardous waste disposal
facilities. -This is-in contrast to^problems^-
resulting from improper disposal of potentially
hazardous wastes because they were not identified
as hazardous. Prevention of improper disposal
practices is the objective of the section 3004
regulations not 3001.
Some examples of actual damage incidents, supplied by the
California Department of Health, serve to illustrate this
second point.
1) During late 1975, a liquid waste hauler deposited
5,000 gallons of a liquid waste containing volatile,
chlorinated organic compounds into an evaporation
pond at a Class I disposal site in the San Francisco
13
-------
Bay Area. A Class I site is a permitted hazardous
waste facility. The material appeared to react
with the contents of the pond, releasing a large
cloud of extremely odoriferous material. Hundreds
of complaints were filed by residents in the City
of Richmond, with several persons claiming illness
from the odors. A visible plume produced by the
incident was reported still visible over ten miles
down wind over San Francisco Bay. The hauler had
driven from Los Angeles with the waste because
Class I disposal site operators in Southern
California rejected it due to its odor.
2) A load of concentrated nitric acid was discharged
into a disposal well at an unauthorized chemical
dump in Los Angeles. The well subsequently emitted
a brown cloud of nitrogen dioxide. A workman at
the site was observed standing over the well
shoveling dirt into it in an attempt to stop the
discharge of the gas. He wore no respirator.
3) The cyanide wells receiving alkaline cyanide
wastes at a Class I landfill in Los Angeles were
closed down in January 1977, because routine air
sampling detected hydrogen cyanide gas being
emitted from the landfill in the vicinity of the
wells. It is speculated that the acid conditions
produced by the decomposing rubbish in the landfiii
lowered the pH sufficiently to release HCN.
14
-------
4) In Southern California, a mixture of liquid waste,
including sludge from the production of perchloroethy-
lene and trichloroethylene, was dumped into a cavity
dug in the working face of a Class I landfill.
Subsequently dense fumes were seen coming out of
the cavity, so two bulldozers were summoned to cover
the waste. Both bulldozer operators, as well as
i
a truck driver, were overcome by the fumes.
5} At a Class I landfill near San Diego, a waste hauler
emptied several gallons of methyltrichlorosilane
into the rubbish. The material reacted with moisture
in the landfill, releasing hydrogen chloride gas.
During covering operations, a bulldozer operator was
overcome by the gas and was sent to a hospital .for - -
recovery.
6} At a Class II-1 landfill in Martinez, California, a
Health Department inspector observed several large
piles of uncovered, powdered waste from refineries
discharging large quantities of dust into the air
because of the high winds. Samples of the powders
were taken, and analysis showed the presence of Cu,
V, Ni, Cd, Zn, Pb, Cr, Co, and Hg in varying concen-
trations from 10 ppm to 2%. Accordingly, to prevent
environmental contamination, the site operator was
required to cover the material daily.
15
-------
Prevention of environmental exposure due to improper disposal
site practices will be covered under Section 3004 regulations.
Protection of disposal site personnel from exposure to
hazardous wastes during transportation and at the disposal
site will be derived from operational procedures of Section
3004 as well as by regulations of the Occupational Safety &
Health Administration. The purpose of the Section 3001
regulations is to identify wastes that are potentially
hazardous so that proper management practices can be brought
to bear on their disposal. Other sections specify how
wastes should be controlled during transportation, disposal,
or resource recovery.
Additional properties of toxicants that have not been
addressed are those related to allergens and sensitizers^
Though exposure to these agents can lead to debilitation,
the effects are usually reversible once exposure has ceased.
There are two reasons why controlling human exposure to such
substances is a problem.
a. The response of the population to sensitizers and
allergens is very diverse; it is doubtful that there
is any chemical to which at least some group is not
sensitive. Under these circumstances, it is difficult
to determine the existance of a significant health
hazard.
b. Procedures for identifying substances with allergic
properties are very expensive, time consuming, and
imprecise.
16
-------
Therefore, sensitizers and allergens have not been addressed
in these regulations.
Once those properties of toxicity having a significant
effect on public health and the environment were selected,
other objectives of the hazardous waste definition became
important. These include:
1) formulation of a dynamic definition which
would not only identify those wastes which contain
known toxicants but also those wastes which con-
tain materials or combinations of materials whose
toxic properties have not been recognized, and
2) specification of toxicant control levels con-
sistent with environmental goals formulated under
other regulatory authorities.
3) maintenance of low testing costs so that
non-hazardous wastes will not be forced into the
hazardous waste net as a result of prohibitively
expensive test procedures.
The test scheme devised to meet the aforementioned goals
employs a combination of analytical procedures and bioassays,
and is outlined in Figure 1.
While use of this type of definition has been under
active study since June 1977, the data obtained to date is
insufficient to permit this total test scheme to be proposed
at the present time.
17
-------
FIGURE 1
PROTOCOL FOR CLASSIFICATION OF
HAZARDOUS WASTES
Waste
Liquid-Solid
Separation
KEY
Exceeds
Threshold
Lass than
Threshold
(Passes
Test)
^.Exceeds
Threshold
(Fails
Test)
Solid
Extraction
Procedure
40 CFR 250.13dX2i)
Analytical
Analysis for
DWS Species
40 CFR 250.12
-------
The complete definition would employ biological tests
for mutagenic activity and environmental persistence coupled
with an instrumental method for bioaccumulation potential.
*•/
It also includes a choice between using either bioassay or
analytical tests for measuring chronic toxicity, aquatic
toxicity/ and terrestrial plant toxicity. For those toxicants
known to be either mutagenic, carcinogenic, or teratogenic
but which are not biologically active in the in vitro muta-
genicity assays prescribed, control will be via listing on
the "Controlled Substances List".
A major goal of the characteristics development program
has been to keep testing costs to a minimum consistent with
the need for adequate information. Toward this end standard
procedures and short-term in vitro bioassays have been
selected whenever possible.
In order to take into account the difficulty of formulat-
ing a testing scheme applicable to wastes of widely varying
complexity, a parallel approach was selected. These two
parallel criteria sets are being designed so that either one
may be used to evaluate whether a waste is hazardous. The
analytical approach relies on a quantitative analysis of the
mobile portion of the waste (the extract), combined with
hazard thresholds calculated based on mammalian, aquatic,
and terrestrial plant toxicity data. If the concentration
of any species in the extract exceeds the calculated threshold
value the waste is deemed to be a hazardous waste. A
19
-------
bioassay approach would be available to use when complicated,
or hard to analyze, extracts are to be evaluated. In this
approach sensitive aquatic and plant species are exposed
to the extract and examined for signs of toxicity. if mani-
festations of toxicity are noted then the waste is a hazard-
ous waste. We feel that using this type of definition is
desirable for several reasons.
1) The definition is dynamic because it is keyed
to waste properties rather than a static list of
known hazardous materials or wastes. As new toxic
agents enter the waste disposal network they are
immediately covered.
2) the use of biological indicators offers a mechanism
for assessing toxicant synergism and antagonism in
complex mixtures characteristic of wastes.
3) A choice of cost effective testing schemes is
offered to the generators.
At this point it would be useful to examine in some
detail the specific aspects of toxicity which are of concern
and our present thinking on appropriate test procedures to
use in defining what should constitute a hazardous waste.
However it must be pointed out that many of these tests and
threshold setting approaches have not undergone sufficient
testing to permit their incorporation in this initial
proposal. The toxicity definition proposed in the Federal
Register on December 18, 1978 incorporates a measure of
20
-------
migration potential coupled with hazard thresholds derived
from the National Primary Drinking Water Standards.
The first aspect of toxicity to be discussed relates to
the tendency of the constituents of a waste to migrate out
and become available to contaminate the environment under
poor management conditions. The approach developed to measure
this aspect has been termed the Extraction Procedure.
Extraction Procedure
Two general approaches can be used to evaluate the
teachability of waste material:
(1) A very intensive study of the leaching
characteristics of a specific waste using conditions
representative of both the waste and its disposal or
(2) A quick test subjecting the waste to standard-
ized procedures.
The intensive study gives more meaningful information
about the leaching characteristics of the waste since test
conditions can be varied as needed, and the effects of differ-
ent environmental stresses on leaching can be measured. Such
a test takes considerable time/ money, and personnel. The
standardized test uses only predetermined testing conditions,
and therefore it cannot show the effects of the different
variables on the itaste leaching pattern. It can, however,
be used for screening purposes and in this mode can give
useful information on the leaching characteristics of a
waste in a short period of time and with limited resources.
21
-------
As with any screening procedure it is important to clearly
define how the results are to be interpreted.
In devising a test to use in defining a hazardous waste
it is important to insure that problems which may manifest
themselves only after many years are identified (i.e., the
method roust be agressive enough to accommodate long term
exposure conditions).
The RCRA set up a control system for waste disposal in
order to insure the safe disposal of those wastes which if
improperly disposed of could result in harm to either humans
or the environment. It was thus incumbent upon the Agency
to develop a definition of a hazardous waste which will
identify those wastes which when improperly disposed of could
result in the types- of damage
-------
In order to devise such a standard test a grant was
given to the University of Wisconsin, Madison, in July, 1976
to develop a leaching test which could be used widely to
assess the leaching characteristics of industrial waste.
While this work was in progress, a contract was awarded to
the Mitre Corporation to study those leaching tests currently
in use by industry and government organizations and to
compile and evaluate these procedures. The object was to
select the most promising of the available procedures for
later evaluation at Madison along with the procedure under
development.
During mid-1977 the D19.12 subcommittee of the American
Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) began to address the
problem of developing a standard extraction procedure. in
early 1978 they selected for further evaluation a modified
test developed by a supplier of fixation technology, then in
use for evaluating the leaching potential of stabilized
wastes. Since information on the reproducibility of this
procedure was not available, ASTM began an inter-laboratory
reproducibility study in the later part of 1978. This study
is still in progress. However information developed by
members of the ASTM D19.12 subcommittee and made available
to us was used in developing the extraction procedure (EP) .
Before the work at Wisconsin had been completed, how-
ever, it became apparent that the extraction fluid developed
23
-------
would be too toxic to permit its use later in bioassay tests
for toxicants which might have been extracted. Thus in the
fall of 1977, research began at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory on an extraction procedure suitable for use in
the scheme shown in Figure 1. The development of the extrac-
tion procedure which resulted from the work at Wisconsin and
Oak Ridge is described on the following pages. (It has been
included in the proposed toxicity characteristic, as described
in Appendix I.)
Two types of tests are commonly employed for determining
the leaching potential of a landfilled waste—batch and
column tests. In a batch test, a properly prepared sample
of the waste to be tested is placed in a container along
with the leaching medium.. After a suitable-period-of-time,
and under conditions specified as being appropriate to the
test, the extract or leachate is separated from the waste
and analyzed to determine the material leached from the
waste. Column tests, in which the waste is packed in a
column and the leaching solution passed through, give a
closer approximation of landfill conditions than a batch
test, at least at first glance. The column test simulates
both the waste-leachate contact (except around the column
edge) and the rate of leachate migration found in landfills.
The column test also is good for predicting the release
pattern with time, since it models the continuous leaching
found in landfills and can be run for long periods of time.
24
-------
However, column tests have the following disadvantages:
1. problems arising from channeling and non-
uniform packing.
2. potential unnatural clogging,
3. possible unnatural biological effects,
4. edge effects,
5. long time requirements, and
6. difficulty in obtaining reproducible results
even if done by experienced lab personnel.
All of these difficulties, but particularly the time
requirement for an adequate column test (months to years),
suggest that a batch test be chosen as the standard testing
procedure. Both batch and column test might be used though
in an intensive study.
There are several parameters affecting toxicant con-
centration in the extract from a batch test that need to be
considered in designing any leaching test. Some of these
parameters are:
1. Sample preparation
2. Leaching medium composition
3. Solid to liquid ratio
4. Agitation technique
5. Extraction contact conditions
6. Sample preparation after extraction
Several batch leaching tests have been developed. A
survey of some of the existing tests has been done by the
Mitre Corporation (3). A summary of the surveyed tests is
25
-------
given in Table 2. The table provides both the range and the
frequency at which values occur within the range for each of
the various test variables discussed in this section. For
those factors for which the selection of a value is somewhat
arbitrary, as in the solid to liquid ratio or the elution
time, the range of values reported has been given consider-
ation in the specification of values to be used in a test.
and an average value used. For other factors (especially
the number of elutions, for example), average values have
little meaning. The wide variety in all the specified
factors indicates the need for a standardized test so that
results on different wastes and by different laboratories
will be comparable.
In developing the Extraction Procedure each of the
previously described parameters was taken into account.
Consideration was given to values already in use in leaching
tests developed by other regulatory and testing groups as
well as to results of research carried out in support of
this effort. A discussion of each of these parameters
follows.
Sample Preparation
The initial step in the leaching test is the separation
of the solid and liquid components of the waste. "Solid"
and "liquid" in this context are defined by the separation.
The rationale for the separation process is that the solid
and liquid components of the waste will probably separate in
26
-------
. TABLE 2 ! SUMMARY OF EXISTING JCHING TEST VARIABLES
(NUMBER OF-TESTS SPECIFYING EACH OPERATING VARIABLE INDICATED)
Leachates
to
-4
H20.(dist, deioh/ dist-deion Or unspecified)
II20 with pH 'adjustment or simple acid base
Site specific
Acetate buffer '
Synthetic municipal landfill leachate
Synthetic natural rainwater
Bacterial nutrient media
Tests with more than one leachate
Solid-liquid ratio .
Time per elution
•
No, of elutions
Agitation
rt A
• iirfaco area
— -'
range 1:1-1:500
range 30 min-
10 days
r
• ,
range 1-10
• .
: • • ' .:-.-. • .
TilO
2
72
hrs
2
10 '
.
/>
'
No.
17
5
1
l
l
1
1
5
varied
2
>72
hrs
•
3
"
calculated
l
to
"equiV."
• •
2
c
• •
: •
use short agitation times
aati-V-UJF1-'i''"-"-1 'I'lAnK PfJH,,l,l ,' ii. j: n.f"<' ; ' . r;]-. ^>.-r ••.;..., .->....-.--.-
-------
a landfill. As Figure 2 illustrates, three separation
processes might occur. After the waste is deposited in the
landfill, the liquid components could flow downward due to
gravity, be absorbed by surrounding materials, or move away
from the waste by capillary action. In municipal refuse,
the predominant material is often paper so that absorption
is probably important. The solid material remaining after
i
the liquid components have moved will be subjected to leach-
ing by whatever leaching media is available in the landfill.
Thus, it is more realistic to use only the solid portion of
the waste in the leaching test, and to analyze the liquid
portion separately, than to use the whole waste in the
leaching test. The movement of the liquid portions of a
waste from a landfJ.ll..-ls-.no.t..Jiecessarily.-depjendent.Qa.tlifi
leaching process.
Separations occurring in landfills will depend both on
the environment immediately adjacent to the waste and on the
landfill conditions and design. Modeling such potentially
varied conditions in the laboratory is very difficult.
Therefore, it was considered more useful to develop a widely
applicable and relatively easy to use solid-liquid separa-
tion scheme. Although the separation scheme is not unrealis.
tic with regard to the separation that might occur in a
landfill it should not be considered an attempt to model
that separation.
28
-------
municipal
refuse
action and
absorri.
municipal -refuse
absorption, and capiTIar
flow
gravity flow to
underlying soil
Figure 2: Movement of moisture frcm waste in: a landfill.
29
-------
Several particle separation techniques are given in
Table 3. Of these, screening, filtration and centrifugation
where chosen as being the most appropriate for the test
scheme. Filtration was chosen as a final step in the
scheme, since it is easily appled, readily available and
standardized, inexpensive, and roughly approximates the
separation processes in the landfill. Filtration operation-
ally defines solids and liquids—anything that will pass
through the filter is liquid, and all that does not is
solid. It is important that the nature of waste components
not be changed, but rather that they simply be separated.
This precludes addition of coagulating or deemulsifying
agents, for example.
Table 3
A List of Several Particle Separation Techniques
Filtration Particle Electrophoresis
Sedimentation Electrostatic Precipitation
Elutriation Flotation
Centrifugation Screening
30
-------
The selection of filter pore size is an important
consideration. A small pore size will retain particles in
the solid portion which might be considered liquid if a
larger pore size were used. For example, hydrous ferric
oxide Cferric hydroxide precipitate in water) precipitates
in colloidal size particles. A 0.45 micron pore sized
filter will trap many of the colloidal sized particles in
the solid portion, whereas a larger pore sized filter, e.g.,
8.0 micron, will allow most of the colloidal sized particles
to pass through the filter. Analysis for iron in the
filtrates from the two pore sizes would give different
values for the iron concentration in the "liquid" portion.
Many materials may occur in or be associated with colloidal
sized particles, .so .it is .important to standardize the pore
size used and to keep in mind the importance of the pore
size on the designated liquid and solid fractions.
Centrifugation is employed in those cases where the
nature of the mixture is such that use of filtration would
require too much time. Centrifugation conditions have been
selected so that separation of particulate material is
insured.
A filter pore size of 0.45 micron was selected on the
basis of its wide use in water and wastewater analysis, its
availability/ and the resonableness of the pore size for
modeling landfill situations. Particles larger than 0.45
31
-------
micron occur in leachate, as shown by suspended solids
measurements and the presence of bacteria, but such mater-
ials are usually removed by passage through soils,, as evi-
denced by the low suspended solids content of most groundwaters.
In order to insure reproducibility of test results a
homogenenous sample is required. This can best be accomplished
by reducing the particle size of the waste sufficiently to
insure that a given aliquot of the original sample is
representatative of the whole. Since data relating homogene-
ity to particle size are not available, a compromise was
selected between very fine grinding, as specified in the
procedures used by Illinois and California, and the use of
a monolithic mass as in the ASTM and IU Conversion Systems
procedures. The resul-t is- the -requirement--that" the'-sol-id
portion of the waste sample must be ground to pass a 3/8"
standard sieve.
However, the concern for reproducibility is balanced by
the need to consider real world conditions. A variety of
processes have been developed for "fixing" wastes in order
to reduce the mobility of the toxic species in the waste.
These processes function by either incorporating the waste
into a solid matrix, encapsulating the waste with an imper-
vious coating, or causing a reaction within the waste through
the addition of binders. These wastes need special consider-
ation with regard to sample preparation. If it can be shown
32
-------
that these wastes do not physically break down during dis-
posal, then it would be inappropriate to divide the waste
into smaller particles than is necessary for testing. The
leaching characteristics for a divided waste may be quite
different from that of the waste in it orginal monolithic
form.
In order to accommodate this problem a Structural
Integrity Procedure (SIP) has been adopted. The SIP is
designed to be a moderately severe approximation of the
disintegration which might be expected to occur if a fixated
waste was used as fill or construction material. Under
these conditions crushing might occur from the passage of
heavy equipment over the waste.
Mahlock and coworkers (4) determined that a compaction
test identical to the procedure of ASTM D698-70 but using
only 15 hammer blows simulates the compactive effort that
might be expected from passing equipment over a placed
landfill. Their 15-blow test uses a 5.5 Ib hammer impacting
on a 1/30 cu. ft. cylinder of sample after dropping 12
inches. This apparatus would exert an impact of 165 ft-lbs/
cu. ft. on the sample.
2
v = 2(acceleration of gravity)(distance)
- 2(32.2 ft/sec2)(1 ft)
=64.4 ft2/sec2
2
Kinetic energy =» 1/2 m v
volume of sample (1/30)
= (.5)(5.5/32) (64.4)
.0333
=165 ft-lbs/cu. ft.
33
-------
A modification of this procedure was selected in order
to quickly and inexpensively "age" the sample of waste. The
goal is to simulate the physical degradation which might
take place after the waste has been placed in the disposal
site and compacted by earthmoving equipment.
The specific procedure selected was one based on a
scaled down version of the 15-blow compaction procedure.
The scaled down procedure uses a 0.73 Ib hammer acting on a
0.0022 cu. ft. sample with a 6 inch free fall. This device
(Figure 3) has approximately the same compaction action as
the larger unit.
2
v «* 2 a x
« (2) (32.2) (0.5)
* 32.2
Kinetic energy = 1/2 m TT
Volume of sample (.0022)
= (0.5)(0.73/32 (32.2)
C.0022)
= 165 ft Ibs/cu. ft.
With a typical stabilized waste, such as that obtained
by lime addition to flue gas desulfurization sludge, a
. sample this size weighs approximately 100 grams
This is a convenient size for extraction using the equipment
described in the proposed regulation (40 CFR 250.13).
In order to account for the cushioning or energy dissi-.
pation resulting from the compressiblity of surrounding
wastes, a polymer foam sample holder was incorporated in
design.
34
-------
Figure 3
6"
COMBINED
WEIGHT
.73 Lb.
•1.25 D
-SAMPLE s
/-POLYURETHANE FOAM
z—•HOLDER
1.3 D
'— 3.7 D
2.8
1
COMPACTION TESTER
fc
Polyurethane foam shall conform to requirements
for Grade 21, performance Grade AD or BD,
established in ASTM Standard D3453.
35
-------
Weeter and Phillips (5} evaluated this procedure using
a flue gas desulfurization sludge fixated by addition of
varying amounts of water. The sludges chosen represented a
range of unconfined compressive strengths representative of
sludges of all types. Three sludges were examined:
21 day UCS*
(Ib/in2)
Sample No.
A
B
C
Density
(Ibs/ft3)
50
120
101
81
586
1450 *
When subjected to a series of blows by the 0.73 Ib
hammer sample A cracked throughout the upper half of the
cylinder while the bottom half remained intact. The pulver-
ized particles formed in the upper half of the cylinder
seemed to dissipate much of the energy exerted by the" hammer
after the third or fourth blow. As a result, the following
blows had little effect upon the remaining structure of the
cylinder. This may be an approximation of what actually
occurs. No visible change in structure was noted in speci-
mens B and C after the SIP procedure.
One shortcoming of the SIP as currently formulated is
the lack of any measure of weatherability. Wastes deposited
in or on the land will be subjected to effects of water,
freeze-thaw cycles, and seasonal and daily temperature
changes. We intend to explore these factors and to devise,
for use in future regulations, an improved procedure in
which these additional factors are incorporated.
* Uncontined Compressive Strength
36
-------
Leaching Media Composition
Three landfill situations represent the extremes in
leaching media composition to which a waste might be sub-
jected in a sanitary landfill, as shown in Table 4. Depend-
ing on the relative amounts of the (potentially hazardous)
waste and municipal solid waste, and the extent of decomposi-
tion of the municipal waste, the appropriate leaching media
may range in composition from leachate modeled on actively
decomposing, municipal solid waste sanitary landfill leach-
ate to something approaching distilled water. The latter
would take on leaching characteristics from the waste itself.
This would also represent the situation in which the waste
in question is disposed by itself. The third possibility is
codisposal-.with another..induatrinl>waste^-wherfi..jbhfi.ja.ther_ .
waste controls the leaching media composition.
As discussed earlier, in order to carry out the man-
dated enunciated in 1004(5) (B), the concept of improper mange-
ment has been adopted. Based on this concept of a reasona-
bly worst case disposal situation, the use of the codisposal
situation as a model for developing the leaching media
composition was selected.
For codisposal with mixed municipal refuse, a municipal
landfill leachate could be used. However, municipal landfill
leachate has widely differing characteristics depending on
the refuse composition, state of decomposition, dimensions
37
-------
TABLE' 4 ' CLASSIFICATION OF LANDFILLS AS RELATED TO
' COMPOSITION
Waste Landfilled
By itself, with relatively
small amounts of other
wastes ,-or with-deeetnposed-
v/astes
With municipal v/astes
With major amounts of other-
industrial wastes
Leachate* CbtnpositTcm
. Controlled by
The «ast& its&lff
Municipal refuser £&~
composition. products.
Other industr-iaT
38
-------
of the landfill, age, degree of channelling of moisture, and
both long-term and instantaneous climatic effects, etc.
Further, even for a given sample of such leachate, the
composition is very complex, precluding developing an exact
recipe from which leachate of both reproducible and realis-
tic composition can be produced. Rather than attempt to
define a standard landfill, from which leachates representa-
tive of different landfill ages would conceiveably be obtained,
it was deemed more promising to examine the leaching character-
istics typical of actively decomposing municipal landfills,
and to model a synthetic leachate on the results. Such a
synthetic municipal landfill leachate has been developed
(6), which simulates aggressive leaching conditions which
might be .obtained by- codisposal'-af-the- waster being1' tested" — —*
with municipal refuse. University of Wisconsin researchers
identified the following parameters to be of importance in
describing the leachate that is characteristic of a muni-
cipal waste landfill.
pH
completing capacity
redox potential
organic solvency
ionic strength
During the aging cycle of a landfill, these paramenters will
vary in strength due to changes in the concentrations of
39
-------
materials producing them. In order to understand and evaluate
the variations found in the parameters being considered for
the synthetic leachate, some understanding of the .processes
occurring in landfills is necessary.
Consider a hypothetical landfill with no external
influences except for a constant water input; as the land-
fill ages, a succession of stages will occur.
Initially little or no leachate is produced until the
landfill reaches field capacity (becomes saturated with
water). The composition of any liquid which is mobilized
prior to saturation, due to compaction and squeezing, will
depend on the composition of the waste initially landfilled,
and may vary greatly.
Three major- bacterial—processes--primarirly- Tespons*ibie-«>
for degrading refuse are shown in Figure 4. Initially,
aerobic decomposition predominates. This phase will gener-
ally be very short, given the limited amount of oxygen in
the landfill and the high biological oxygen demand (BOD) of
he refuse. During this phase, a large amount of heat is
produced, raising the landfill temperature well above ambient
temperature. (Assuming an initial temperature high enough to
start the degradation processes.) Leachate produced during
this phase would be expected to dissolve very soluble salts
(e.g., NaCl) landfilled with the refuse.
As oxygen is depleted, decomposition caused by faculta-
tive anaerobic bacteria will predominate. During this first
40
-------
THEORETICAL DEGRADATION CURVES
pH
o
o
a.
I
to
VOLATILE
AGIOS.
ppm
IE
b
OXIDATION
REDUCTION
POTENTIAL.mV
max. -43.OOO ppm» ACETIC AGIO
salts solubillzed at law
pH
AEROBIC
PHASE
by
decomposition
~-200
FIRST STA3S SECOND 3TAG6
ANAERGSIC ANAEROBIC DEGRADATION
PHASE
TIME
Figure
Theoretical degradation curves of a theoretical
landfill. From (6)
41
-------
stage of anaerobic degradation, large amounts of volatile
fatty acids (e.g., acetic acid) and carbon dioxide are
produced. These acids reduce the pH to the range of 4.5 to
5. The low pH helps to solubilize inorganic materials
which, along with the high volatile acid concentrations,
produce a high ionic strength (specific conductance). The
high volatile acid concentrations also contribute to the
high Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) often found during this
phase. The oxidation-reduction potential (redox)is reduced
to below 0 mv (with respect to a Standard Calomel Electrode))
such that reducing conditions prevail.
The second stage of anaerobic decomposition occurs when
methane producing bacteria complement the facultative anaer-
obes. Methane bacteria-are strict anaerobes~.and.j:equjL,re,
neutral pH levels. Volatile acids produced by facultative
anaerobes and other organic matter are converted to methane
and carbon dioxide. Thus, the volatile acid concentration
is reduced and the gas composition becomes a mixture of
carbon dioxide and methane. With the neutral pH necessary
for the bacteria to live, fewer inorganic materials will be
solubilized, and specific conductance will fall. The redox
potential should be lower than the potential during the
first stage of anaerobic processes, reflecting the low
potential needed for methane production and the higher pH.
Eventually, bacterial action may decrease as the substrate
42
-------
is depleted of oxygen and higher redox potentials may be
reestablished by oxygenated water.
Environmental conditions may considerably alter the
degradation pattern. The amount of water input has a very
important effect on the rate of degradation. Obviously, the
composition of the refuse landfilled also has important
effects as do landfilling practices and seasonal variations
in temperature. To complicate matters further, different
microenvironments in the landfill may undergo different
stages of decomposition at the same time. For example,
Emcon Associates found high volatile acid production, low
pH, and methane production occurring simultaneously.
Since the low pH is toxic to the methane producing bacteria,
it is apparent- that diff erent~areas~ o£~the,, landfill^had..--^,.. —
different and mutually exclusive conditions, with the
leachate reflecting both.
The data used in evaluating the parameters of interest
come primarily from either the relatively few studies that
have conducted detailed analyses of leachates from a single
landfill (7,8), or from work by Chian et al. (9) relating
leachate composition from different landfills to landfill
age. Analysis of a single leachate sample from a landfill
is generally not very useful, since the concentration of a
given parameter can^not be related to the aging process in
the landfill.
43
-------
Chian et al. (9) analyzed several classes of organic
compounds and related variations in their concentrations to
landfill age. Figure 5, based on their work, shows the
variations of these classes as a percentage of the total
organic carbon with landfill age. The age axis should be
regarded as approximate, since landfill degradation rates
vary with environmental conditions.
There are two factors of importance in modeling pH and
redox potential; the measured value and the buffering capacity
that maintains that value. The buffering capacity indicates
how resistant the measured value will be to change. The
minimum pH found in leachate occurs during the period of
volatile acid production in first stage anaerobic decomposi-
tion. Chian et al. (.9) show that the pH and volatile acid
trends in real landfills follow the theoretical trends
fairly closely. The pH commonly reaches four or five and is
heavily buffered by volatile acids. Table 6 gives the pH
ranges reported by various authors in literature reviews.
As can be seen from the table, a pH of 4.5 is not uncommon
in leachates. Furthermore, both the carbon dioxide and the
volatile acids achieve maximum buffering capacity near this
pH. An "average" landfill probably does not maintain this
•
low a pH for an extended period of time, but, rather, main-
tains a pH of between 5 and 5.5. The emphasis here,is
leachate aggressiveness, which warrants the use of the low
pH value.
44
-------
IOO
o
o*
H
CURVE Key
I TOTALS OF TOC ICENTrFlSO
2 VOLATILE AC!OS
3 PROTEINS & AMtNO. AGIOS
4 CARBOHYDRATES
3 AROMATIC HYOROXYL. COMPOt^OS
TIME, YEARS
Figure 5 The trends in the identified fractions of leachate TOC
• vs. the age of the landfill. (From Reference f65.-)
45
-------
TABLE 6. pH RANGES REPORTED BY VARIOUS AUTHORS FROM
LANDFILL OR LITERATURE SURVEYS
Source Range
Chian et al. 19) 3.7-8.5
Steiner et al. (10) 4.0 - 8.5
Clark et al. (11) 1-5*- 9.5
Encom Associates (7) 3.0-8.5
Pohland (12) 4.9 - 8.4
*Site received acidic industrial wastes
46
-------
In developing the extraction procedure (EP) it was
necessary to devise a procedure for operationally maintain-
ing the pH at the selected value while taking into account
that a given disposal environment has only a finite buffering
capacity. An additional factor which complicated the
development of the EP was the need to keep the toxicity of
the extractant liquid low to permit the use of bioassay
$p*-ct-e£
procedures to evaluate the toxicity of the migrating from
s*.
the waste.
The ultimate buffering capacity of real world leachates
is a question which has received little attention from the
research community. However, data gathered at EPA's Boone
County Field Site (3) over a period of 7 years indicates
that leachate generated by decomposing municipal refuse
generates approximately 0.14 equivalents of acidity per kilo-
gram of dry refuse. Furthermore the acidity is composed of
a mixture of volatile organic acids/ in which the predominant
species are acetic and propanoic acids.
For modeling purposes acetic acid has been selected as
the acidification agent. Since it is predominantly pH that
is being modeled, use of a single acid presents no problem.
In order to calculate the buffering capacity of the
hypothetical disposal environment used in the improper dis-
posal model a site was modeled in which the waste in ques-
tion comprised 5% of the material in the site.
Furthermore the remaining 95% of the material would be
47
-------
organic in nature and would decompose to produce acids in a
manner similar to municipal refuse. This is a conservative
model but not a worst case model, since co-disposal with
highly acid waste is not accounted for.
Using the above relationships one finds that: 1 gram of
waste could be exposed to approximately 2 milliequivalent of
acid. Thus pH control and buffering capacity have been
accounted for in the EP by using a titration procedure to
maintain the extraction fluid at pH 5 with a limit on total
acid to be added set at 2.0 milliequavelents per gram of
solid material. Using acetic acid as the acidulant this
calculates to 4 ml of 0.5N acetic acid per gram of waste
being extracted.
Extractant to Sample r ^ ............
The ratio of waste to extractant used in a standardized
extraction procedure is important when the procedure is used
for waste characterization purposes. The ratio selected,
coupled with the extractant-solid contact time, determines
whether saturated or unsaturated conditions will exist. in
addition excessive extractant to solid ratios can lead to
dilution of migrating species thereby resulting in unreason-
ably low toxicant concentrations.
The disposal model, since it is not based on any speci-
fic disposal site, does not offer any basis on which to set
a ratio. However there are scientific and practical consider
ations which can be used to arrive at a ratio.
The three factors which received primary consideration
are:
48
-------
a. If the sample:extractant ratio is very low, then
sampling and analytical errors will be magnified.
b. If the sample:extractant ratio is very high it
leads to problems with suppression of sparingly soluble
species as well as difficulties in agitation and in
separation of liquid from solid.
c. Evaluation of the extract using biological tests
requires, in some cases, fairly large volumes of extract,
Thus a procedure which maximizes the quantity of extract
is desirable.
As Table 2 shows, existing leaching tests use sample:
extract ratios anywhere from 1:1 to Is500. Data (6) indicate
that in most cases the experimental results at ratio between
1:5 and-l.:20,,are, close»to_.thQse_calculajted_assuiniiig a direct
concentration dependence on ratio. Thus since no one ratio,
within this range, appeared to offer any particular advantage
relative to factors a and b, a 1:20 ratio was selected to
maximize factor c.
Agitation Methods
In order to obtain reproducible results indicative of
the maximum toxicant concentration which might be expected
to occur, it is important that a uniform, nondestructive,
efficient agitation method be employed. Ham (6) evaluated
five agitation methods. These were:
1. Continuous shaking using an oscillating
shaker;
49
-------
2. Continuous mechanical stirring with a
flat paddle;
3. Intermittent shaking by hand;
4. Swing type shaking (Pig. 6) and
5. A rotating bottle agitator (Pig. 6).
Ham found that none of the first three methods provided
an optimal solid-liquid contact for all wastes. In the
continuous shaker (employed in the ASTM procedures) the
solids often remained at the bottom of the flasks, particu-
larly if a slow shake speed was chosen, with the result that
those solids on the bottom did not get continuously exposed
to "fresh" extractant. Ham also expressed concerns with
using continuous mechanical stirring with a flat paddle
because of its potential for causing abrasion especially
with granular materials. He observed that the waste and
liquid tended to move at the same speed as the stirrer in
the continuously stirred flask, with the result that less
than optimal mixing occurred.
Observation of the mixing action using a swing type
shaker led to the conclusion that this form of agitation
does not seem to provide good mixing. The solid often
remained on the bottom and on the side walls of the flask
without mixing.
Their conclusion was that in general the different
agitation methods provide nearly equivalent results when
cumulative release using a series of extractions is the
50
-------
180° SWING SHAKER
SLOWLY
ROTATING DISK SHAKER
Figure 6 Diagram.of the swinq shaker and the rotating disc
device
51
-------
parameter measured. However, the rotator method seemed to
be the most effective agitation method both from visual
observations with different wastes and from some what higher
release rates.
Thus in order to allow a waste tester to use available
equipment whenever possible, agitation has been defined in a
generic way, as follows:
"an extractor which while preventing
stratification of sample and extraction
fluid also insures that all sample
surfaces are continuously brought into
contact with well mixed extraction
fluid."
During the development--of--*he -proposed regulations..™!*
was necessary to select an agitiation method which satisfied
the following criteria:
1. Was usable on a wide variety
of waste types.
2. Permitted the pH of the solution to
be continuously monitored and adjusted.
3. Resulted in minimum abrasion of
particulate material.
4. Did not add to or remove any materials
from the extraction solution.
In order to satisfy these requirements an agitator of
the design shown in Figure 7 has been developed. Adequate
52
-------
Figure 7
k\\\\\\\\\\vji
/
t
t
c
1
4
j
.1
•«
JU -=—
\\^\\\\\\^
[ 1 J
.0
,
*
j
•
9.
.
'
1
i
,0
WON CLOGGING SUPPORT BUSHING
1 inch BLADE AT 30° TO HORIZONTAL
EXTRACTOR
53
-------
agitation is obtained at rotational speeds of >_ 40 rpm.
Materials of construction that are being evaluated for their
acceptability for a variety of wastes types are 316 stain-
less steel and polytetrafluoroethylene.
Extraction Contact Time
The liquid-solid contact time is important because it
must be long enough to insure the extraction of contaminants
which might be mobilized under environmental conditions.
However it also must not be overly long since this will
increase the testing costs.
The Mitre survey (3) of existing leaching test methods,
indicates that there is no consensus within the environ-
mental community as to an appropriate contact time. Their
data indicated - that~the--contac t~ .times ~ in „use.
can be broken down into:
less than 24 hours 39%
24 hours 39%
longer than 24 hours 21%
54
-------
We have thus elected to use a 24 hour contact time
since the available test procedures indicated it would be
cost effective from the standpoint both of efficiency of
extraction and testing costs*
The objective of the extraction procedure is to prepare
an extract of the waste in which the concentration of the
mobile contaminants simulates the maximum concentration
likely to occur in the real world. Furthermore, since the
initial extraction usually results in the maximum contami-
nant concentrations, only a single extraction is required.
During the development of the extraction procedure, a
48 hour procedure using two extractions was studied in
order to minimize surface contamination effects. Comments
.received from, various JLnduatry. groups. and i
a major concern and that a more important consideration
would be to lower testing costs. Therefore the second
extraction was dropped.
post-Extraction Sample Handling .-
The contamination scenario on which the extraction
procedure is based uses transport of contaminants through
the soil to an underlying aquifer as a model. As was
discussed under "Sample Preparation" only those particles
less than 0.45 microns are likely to reach the aquifer.
Thus as in the initial separation the solids are removed
from the extract. Since in a disposal environment the liquid
likely to reach the aquifer would be a combination of the
liquid portion of the waste and the extract of the solid
55
-------
portion, the original liquid phase is added to the solid
phase extract prior to use in toxicity evaluations. It
is this combined liquid which is defined as the extract.
However, when analytical characterization is to be
employed, there may be times when it is easier to analyze
the two phases separately then combine them mathematically.
As has been discussed earlier, the contamination model
selected for developing control threshold values is based
on leaking or leaching of toxicants from the disposal site
to a drinking water aquifer. In order to set a threshold
level of a contaminant in the extraction procedure extract,
it is necessary to develop a numerical relationship between
the concentration of a toxicant in the liquid entering the
aquifer and the concentration--at- the point' of-••humanr-or—••—•
environmental exposure.
Groundwater Dilution.
Because the movement of a pollutant below the surface
of the land is governed by ground water flow, an understand-
ing of ground water behavior is essential to the determina-
tion of contaminant migration in an aquifer. Generally,
recharge to an aquifer is provided by natural sources such
as rainfall and subsurface inflow or by artificial sources
such as seepage from liquid waste impoundments. Water
entering the ground moves vertically through the unsaturated
zone then enters the saturated zone and travels in a pre-
dominantly horizontal manner in the direction of
56
-------
decreasing hydraulic gradient. The flow pattern can be
altered by induced changes in gradient (e.g. a pumping
well). A pollutant entrained in ground water flow may persist
throughout the entire sequence of travel but will undergo
/The
attenuation, degree of attenuation depends on the properties
of the pollutant and the hydrogeologic conditions in the
aquifer.
Change in the composition of leachate from a landfill
is usually achieved through a series of reactions. The
quality of leachate depends on the form and quantity of the
wastes from which it originates, the disposal conditions,
and the physical and chemical properties of its constituents.
As the leachate migrates, constituent concentration may be
-affected .by-passage-through ..various media.
During percolation through the landfill interior, some
components will be removed by adsorptive and complexing
reactions, while others will be added by waste solubilization.
At the interface between the landfill and the underlying
strata, potential attenuating processes include precipitation,
filtration of particles, and adsorption on gel precipitates.
The existence below the landfill of an unsaturated zone with
a liquid and a gas phase increases the possiblity of attenua-
tion or delay of contaminants. Permeability is lower than
that of an all liquid environment, and flow rates will probably
not be uniform, thereby allowing some solute dispersion.
Dilution is not significant, but attentuation by chemical
57
-------
and biochemical processes may occur. The thickness of the
unsaturated zone is important in this regard.
At the interface between the unsaturated and .saturated
zones, leachate movement changes from vertical flow to
predominantly horizontal flow. Ground water flow is normally
laminar, i.e., characterized by parallel streamlines with/no^^1® or
mixing taking place between adjacent flow paths, although
turbulent flow involving mixing can occur during movement
through large fissures or in the immediate vicinity of a
pumping well. The extent of vertical flow in the saturated
zone will depend on leachate density and the presence of
vertical fissures or superimposed beds of varying permeabilities.
Leachate does not mix readily with ground water; it may
move as a slug/ a- plume-or*a-tnass-of'-xaegraded-vater. "The
ground water flow pattern governs leachate migration, although
differences in density and miscibility can cause variation
in behavior between the plume of contaminated water and
native water. The velocity of contaminant travel may be
less than, equal to, or greater than that of ground water.
Pollutants entrained in ground water flow tend to
become attenuated with time and distance. Mechanisms involved.
include adsorption, dispersion, diffusion, precipitation,
and degradation. The most significant means of attenuation
in the saturated zone may be dilution of the leachate as it
follows tortuous flow paths through the aquifer. Constitu-
ents of the leachate will be reduced at rates dependent on
the individual properties of each.
the local hydrogeologic framework andAlaachate will tend to
58
-------
be contained at sites
underlain by fine grained, compact materials with low hydraulic
conductivities (slate, shale, soft clays). Migration with
attenuation is favored in formations exhibiting intergranular
flow (sands, sandstones, sandy clays, gravels) and formations
displaying marked fissure flow with an element of inter-
granular storage (chalk) if the intergranular conductivity
is greater than the maximum recharge rate. Rapid leachate
migration through coarse, unconsolidated gravel formations
and fissured rocks such as limestone and granite allows
little attentuation of pollutants.
Distribution of contamination underground also varies
according to local aquifer conditions and the nature of the
pollutant. -Where groundwater *£lowHLs Tirapidv^ ^3?eachate--€rom-a"—
point source will form a long thin plume. Low flow rate
will contribute to lateral dispersion. Distortion of the
shape of the plume can be caused by variations in permea-
bility and by the operation of pumping wells. A plume
supported by a constant input of waste will ordinarily
stabilize. The tendency of the enclave to become enlarged
with addition and dispersion of contaminants is counter-
balanced by attenuation mechanisms or discharge to surface
waters. Changes in the groundwater flow, recharge and waste
disposal rates can cause the plume to expand or contract.
The plume of a leachate constituent with greater suscepti-
bility to attenuation will be smaller than that of a persis-
tent contaminant in the same zone.
59
-------
Degree of pollutant attenuation within an aquifer is
basically dependent on site specific conditions/ but a
reasonable scenario utilizing an attenuation factor can be
constructed.
The following assumptions have been made:
1. Disposal takes place in a "nonsecure"
landfill.
2. The landfill is situated over a fresh water
aquifer and in proximity to life-bearing surface
waters.
4. A pumping well is located 500 feet downgradient
from the landfill. (States with landfill design
criteria specify landfill to water well distances
ranging-frpm--500-feet to-1-mile. The more con-.
servative number was chosen for the purposes of
this scenario.)
Some insight into the process of pollutant dilution in
groundwater for the purposes of scenario construction can be
provided by modeling techniques. A model is a simplified
representation of a real system, and difficulties are often
encountered in quantifying parameters and testing and verify-.
ing results under field conditions. Modeling concepts must
be applied to a given situation with caution, but a model
can supply information on potential groundwater effects. A
model to estimate leachate dilution in groundwater and down*
gradient well discharge has been devised at the Water Research
(14)
Center of Medmenham Laboratory in England. The model is
60
-------
based on the following assumptions:
1. Leachate of consistent composition is discharged
from the entire landfill at a constant rate.
2. There is no chemical change in the leachate as it
migrates through the aquifer.
3. The unsaturated zone is considered a delay
mechanism only.
4. In the saturated zone, the aquifer is uniform and
the natural groundwater gradient is constant.
5. Steady-state conditions exist.
Dilution factors have been calculated using the equation:
C (cfroundwater) = I Where C = pollutant concentration
C (Leacnate)I = UB/L
I ss leachate infiltration rate, U = groundwater flow rate,
B «* depth of mixing and L = -length-of-landfill->iir the direc—-->- -
tion of groundwater flow. Employing average aquifer character-
istics and assuming a constant leachate production rate of
0.3 meter/annum, dilution factors beneath a landfill were
calculated for 3 types of aquifers. Results are given
below:
Dilution Factors
Distance from Landfill
50 Meters 300 Meters
AQUIFER (164 ft.) (984 ft.)
Chalk 15 - 50 100 - 250
Sandstone 3-10 15-50
Gravel 100 -200 250 - 500
61
-------
The lowest dilution factor, 3x, has been calculated for
a contaminant migrating through a sandstone aquifer beneath
a landfill 50 meters in length. Discharge of the contami-
nant to a well directly downgradient should result in this
degree of attenuation. Any additional dilution would be
I
dependent upon how ast water was withdrawn from the well. if
A
high pumping rates are employed water from outside the plume
may be drawn into the well thus diluting the contaminated
water.
As previously mentioned, models depict idealized situa-
tions. Actual field analyses reveal considerable variability
in pollutant dilution factors in ground water. To illustrate
this, we have chosen to examine the behavior of chloride.
The chloride ion is a highly mobile and persistent contaminant-.
It is readily leached from waste and is resistant to ion
exchange, chemical reactions and sorption. Attenuation of
chloride during migration is due to dispersion and dilution.
Some observed dilution factors for chloride at various dis-
tances from waste disposal sites are listed in Table 7.
62
-------
Table 7 - Chloride Dilution Factors
SITE
Illinois landfill (15)
Llangollen, Del. landfill (15)
Conn, landfill (1)
Fly ash settling pond (16)
DuPage County, 111. landfill (17)
Winnetka, 111. landfill (17)
Tythegston landfill, England (14)
DISTANCE DILUTION FACTORS
650 ft.
650 ft.
200 ft.
500 ft.
32 ft.
800 ft.
4-5
27
2.3
8-9
2
13
2-3
330 ft.
Approximate attenuation factors for hazardous constituents
of leachate also vary widely. Table 8 illustrates data from
field analysis of several waste disposal sites.
Table 8 - Pollutant Attenuation Factors
SITE
Iowa landfill (18)
Fly ash settling pond (16)
Kings Kettle landfill,
England (14)
Coatham Stob landfill,
England (14)
Pollutant Distance
Attenuation
Factor
Arsenic
Arsenic
400 ft.
500 ft.
12-13
4
Cyanide
430 ft.
50
Chromium 500 ft.
Phenol adjacent
Nickel adjacent
Phenol adjacent
Zinc adjacent
Because of the variability in observed attenuation factors, a
conservative approach has been taken in choosing a factor of
Mitco (14)
Mi too (14)
Mitco (14)
Mitco (14)
100
>23
>170
>1000
63
-------
10 over a distance of 500 feet. This factor does not
appear to be unreasonable when compared with available data.
However, the value of 10 does not represent the minimal
amount of dilution that can be expected. For instance,
leachate migrating from a disposal site in Islip, New York
was not attenuated by that amount until it had migrated a
CIS)
half mile . Hydrogeologic conditions in the aquifer
permitted rapid flow, thereby discouraging dilution. Although
it is emphasized that there will always be instances of
lesser and greater attenuation, a factor of 10 should provide
a reasonable degree of protection to public health and the
environment while taking into consideration the broad range
of hydrogeologic conditions at waste disposal sites across
the country and the variety of contaminants likely to be
released to the environment as a result of land disposal.
In addition to the health and environmental problems which
result from contamination of groundwater, an additional area
of concern is potential damage to aquatic resources caused
by contamination of surface water supplies.
Documentation of surface water degradation caused by
groundwater which became contaminated as a consequence of
improper land disposal of wastes is readily available. in
once instance, a producer of organic arsenicals disposed of
various sludges and untreated solid wastes in a landfill.
Field analyses later revealed high levels of arsenic in the
sludge and soil at the disposal site and lower arsenic
64
-------
levels in both the underlying aquifers and the nearby
river. Groundwater samples taken from a monitoring well
close to the landfill exhibited arsenic levels as high as
178 mg/1, while water samples taken from the river immediately
downstream from the site contained 150 ug/1. Data gathered •
by the State geological survey indicate that movement of
shallow groundwater is carrying the pollutant from the
(18)
landfill to the river • In Maine, contamination has been
detected in residential wells near a hazardous waste disposal
facility. Pollution has also been found in a local stream,
and available hydrogeologic data suggest that it resulted
from migration of the substance through the shallow aquifer
(19)
to the surface water • Other studies describe incidents
of a similar nature. Liquids and sludges deposited in an
unlined surface impoundment at a chemical plant site caused
groundwater degradation, and the plume reached a stream
adjacent to the site. At this site arsenic levels of 10,000
ppm were found in the groundwater, and 40 ppm were detected
in the stream. Phenolic waste water placed in clay-lined
lagoons in Maryland migrated to groundwater which then
traveled downslope and discharged to a freshwater pond and
small stream. In another instance, high concentrations of
copper, chromium, and lithium were found in a lagoon con-
taining untreated industrial sludge and liquid wastes. A
f
nearby stream showed signs of contamination due to discharge
(20)
of groundwater tainted by material from the lagoon
65
-------
Dilution factors for certain substances or specialized
situations have been determined by other groups. EPA has
previously recognized the existence of such factors in the
establishment of effluent standards for endrin, toxaphene,
and benzidine. The concentration of benzidine allowed in an
"end of pipe" discharge is lOOx the ambient water criterion.
Effluent may contain 30Ox the amount of toxaphene specified
by the ambient water criterion, and the expected dilution
(21)
factor for endrin is 375x upon discharge to surface waters.
A
A discharge location for an aquifer may be a point source, so
the effluent guidelines are applicable in part to the develop-
ment of a dilution factor for this contamination scenario.
Information from a study on ocean dumping of dredged
material for the Army Corps of—Engineers indicates~tha,t^.
material discarded in that manner should be diluted by a
' (22)
factor of 10 within a few minu-tes. Leachage contaminated
groundwater will enter surface waters at a slower rate
than dredged material dumped into the ocean and, in most
circumstances, should undergo greater dilution.
(11)
In an Illinois landfill study, dilution factors were
calculated for ground to surface water discharge at several
locations. Discharge from one landfill to a nearby drainage
ditch was diluted an estimated 45x. This factor was considered
low because it did not take into account the water moving
downward below the landfill or the amount of dilution in the
area between the landfill and the ditch. At another location.
66
-------
it was calculated tha chlorides migrating from a fill would
be reduced by a factor of 39 upon discharge to a creek.
Contaminated groundwater from a third landfill was expected
to be diluted 120x when discharged into a river with a low
flow rate; much greater dilution would occur at an average
flow rateP3J
The dilution model discussed previously also estimates
the attenuation of leachate discharge from groundwater to a
stream. The model predicts that a pollutant discharged from
a 300 m2 landfill into a stream immediately downgradient
will be diluted 50 fold due to base flow alone over a 1 km
stretch. A "worst case" situation would exist if a surface
body water were fed entirely by contaminated groundwater,
but most groundwater entering surface waters should be diluted
by water already present and by discharge from other aquifers
For the purposes of this scenario, a dilution factor of
100 has been chosen for groundwater discharge to surface
water. The actual amount of dilution is subject to influ-
ences such as the characteristics of the pollutants/ hydro-
geologic conditions in the aquifer and physical and chemical
properties of the mixing zone and receiving waters. For
this reason, establishment of a dilution factor is best
done on a site-specific basis. However, this contamination
scenario is applicable nationwide and therefore must be
designed to protect various environments. Available informa-
tion indicates that 10Ox is a conservative number, but there
will be instances in which less dilution occurs. Additional
background information on groundwater dilution theory was
obtained from references 24 through 31.
-------
Toxicity
Once the extract has been obtained it must be evaluated
to determine if its discharge would result in a human or
environmental health hazard. As Figure 1 indicates a variety
of mechanisms are available for a toxic effect to occur.
The following sections will describe the various properties
of toxicity that will be addressed in either the proposed
regulations, the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
or in future proposals.
Genetic Activity
Chemicals present in the environment have been impli-
cated in the high incidence of cancer in humans. In order
to lessen human exposure to carcinogens it is necessary to
handle and. dispose^f= wastes containing- such .chemicals. in_ a_
manner appropriate for a hazardous material. An additional
danger from which society requires stringent protection is
exposure to chemicals capable of damaging genetic material
(DNA). There are a variety of mechanisms by which chemicals
can act to cause damage to genetic material. A program of
waste control aimed at identifying and eliminating human
exposure to carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic com-
pounds requires rapid, inexpensive screening methods to
pinpoint dangerous materials. In response to this problem,
a number of rapid and potentially inexpensive bacterial and
in yjtro cellular tests have been developed. These tests
are designed to identify mutagenic substances by detecting
68
-------
genetic changes in the test species. Because of the variety
of types of DNA damage that must be looked for, no one
simple test will suffice. Thus a battery of tests will be
employed to screen wastes for their ability to cause DNA
damage. While these tests do not measure carcinogenicity
per se, there exists a correlation between positive responses
in these in vitro assays and ability to cause cancer in
whole organisms.
It should be emphasized that short-term tests are only
indications of toxicological effects which may occur in
whole animals after long induction periods. Their useful-
ness lies in their convenience; compounds demonstrating
activity in selected short-term tests would be expected to
be among the more dangerous threats to human and environ-
mental health. Both economic and time considerations pre-
vent testing of wastes for genetic activity and carcinogen-
icity in whole animal systems. For control purposes, since a
choice must be made between testing in an imperfect system
and no testing at all, the imperfect option was chosen.
In 1975 the Agency published proposed guidelines for
registering pesticides which contained the Agency's first
formal mutagenicity testing protocol. Based on comments
received both in response to this proposal, and as a result
of a study conducted by the Science Advisory Board's Study
Group on Mutagenicity Testing, the 1975 proposal was
redrafted. It is recommended that these new proposals,
69
-------
(32)
published in February 1978 , be consulted for a more in-
depth discussion of the need for including mutagenicity as a
toxic property of concern.
Tests have been selected (Appendix III) on the basis of
low cost, short performance time, and relevance to the task
of characterizing hazardous waste mixtures. A further goal
is to use, wherever possible, test procedures and organisms
that are used in other regulatory activities of EPA, DHEW,
OSHA, and CPSC.
Compounds are often non-mutagenic until acted upon by
the target organism's metabolic system. In addition, the
reverse can occur; mutagenic substances can undergo metabolic
inactivation. For this reason wastes will be tested both
with and without activation. Activation will be conducted
by incubating the waste extracts with organ homogenates
derived from mammallian species (i.e., rat liver).
It is known that the common mutagenicity test may not
respond to several types of known carcinogens. For example,
carcinogenic metals and chlorocarbons are not detected by
the popular Ames Salmonella assay. In addition, while
teratogenicity is a very real concern, it appears that
short-term tests are not available for evaluating the tera-
togenic potential of a complex mixture. To protect against
the danger of exposure to hazardous materials known to pass
through the screening, a "controlled substances list" will
be included in the regulation. Known hazards which are not
caught in the other sections of the criteria net will be
regulated by this section.
70
-------
Bioaccumulation and Persistence:
Bioaccumulation can occur through either a physical or
a chemical process. As a physical process it relies on the
preferential solubility of nonpolar organic compounds in fat
tissue relative to the more polar muscle tissue. Further-
more, once a material becomes deposited in body fat, its
availability, metabolism, and subsequent elimination from
the body slows. While many persistent organic materials
such as DDT, endrin, and PCBs are retained and biomagnified
through this mechanism, other materials such as mercury and
lead are retained through chemical processes. As a chemical
process, bioaccumulation relies on the high affinity of some
metals for sulfhydryl and disulfide groups associated with
proteins. Historically, the former mechanism has accounted
for the majority of environmental contamination problems.
Contamination by halogenated pesticides and flame retardants
has been of special concern. Some recent notable examples
are polybrominated biphenyls, Mirex and Kepone. Recognizing
this, it appears that a partition test may be helpful in
identifying waste extracts containing organic compounds with
substantial bioaccumulative potential.
Though this test procedure (Appendix IV) would miss
materials which bioaccumulate through the chemical bonding
mechanism, this is not thought to be a significant problem.
Metals known to exhibit this type of bonding, but which are
71
-------
not identified by the analytical or the aquatic toxicity
phases of the criteria, could be included on the "controlled
substance list" used to also identify exceptions to the
genetic assay.
While a partition test can indicate a material's pro-
pensity to bioconcentrate in an exposed organism, the
contaminant must be able to persist both in the environment
and in the organism for an appreciably long time. Thus
before a waste is considered to be a hazardous waste because
of its bioaccumulativeness, the components suspected of
being persistent will be evaluated for environmental stab-
ility. This procedure will be conducted by exposing the
extract to a mixture of microorganisms and allowing bio-
degradation to proceed for a specified length of time.
Specific procedures for conducting such a test are under
development in consultation with other EPA regulatory
groups. One such procedure is described in Appendix V.
Other procedures found to give equivalent results will be
made available in the procedures manual to be published upon
promulgation.
72
-------
In order to devise a definition which meets the objec-
tives previously described, namely:
1. is dynamic and applicable to both present and
future wastes,
2. specifies control levels consistent with
environmental goals formulated under other regu-
latory authorities, and
3. does not impose a prohibitive economic burden on
the regulated communityj
twofold definition is desirable. Such a definition would
allow a choice of using either analytical or biological
indicators. The following discussions have been arranged
according to that part of the environment they are designed
to protect.
Human Toxicity:
Bioassay
Classical chronic toxicity testing is a prolonged pro-
cedure. Historically, potential danger to human health has
been determined through chronic feeding studies using whole
animals. Usually this has meant feeding a rat, mouse, or
other mammal the suspected agent for 3 or more years and
73
-------
then examining the animal for histopathological effects.
This type of testing is prohibitively expensive and time
consuming.
Recently a variety of short-term cellular bioassays
have been developed for assessing toxicological activity.
These short-term tests are still in the infancy of their
development. The basis for these in vitro bioassays is the
general observation that toxic events which occur in single
cell tests have been found to also occur in the whole animal.
These In vitro bioassays are reported to correlate qualitatively
with in vivo bioassays. Materials potent in one system gener-
ally are potent in the other, just as compounds which are
weakly active in one are weakly active in the other.
The two major difficulties in defining a bioassay proto-
col using cellular bioassays are:
1. the lack of a quantitative correlation between
cellular and whole animal toxicity, and
2. the fact that cellular bioassays are still in
their infancy and there is scientific doubt as to
whether the results are meaningful.
Whole animal tests, by virtue of their completeness,
have an advantage because they take into account pharma-
codynamic distribution and metabolism in the organism. This
is especially true with respect to transport of toxicants to
the active site in the body. Cell cultures, on the other hand
can employ human cells and therefore iftight model some aspects of
human toxicity more accurately than a rodent bioassay.
74
-------
Because of the prohibitive cost of whole animal testing
coupled with the uncertainty of the meaning of cytotoxicity
testing, bioassays suitable for RCRA use in indicating
potential human toxicity are not currently available.
Analytical
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-523),
was passed in order to assure that the public is provided
with an adequate supply of safe drinking water. The Act
authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to establish
Federal standards to protect water supply systems from harm-
ful contaminants. Under this authority the National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR) were promulgated
on December 24, 1975. These regulations went into effect on
June 24, 1977 and became the standards by which to judge
whether or not a given water is safe to drink. The levels
specified are based on the Public Health Service Drinking
Water Standards of 1962, as revised by the EPA Advisory
Committee on the Revision and Application of the Drinking
Water Standards. Thus if through improper disposal, suffi-
cient contamination of an aquifer occurs such that drinking
water supplies exceed the above standards, sufficient damage
will have occurred so as to constitute a health hazard.
Exceeding the drinking water standards definitely indicates
degradation of water quality sufficient to constitute a
health hazard.
75
-------
Based on the groundwater
dilution model/ leachate reaching a drinking water aquifer
is expected to undergo a tenfold dilution. Thus if the
extract from the waste contains any substance for which a
standard has been issued at a concentration ten times greater
than the standard the waste would be a hazardous waste.
However for the vast majority of organic chemicals
drinking water standards based on long-term in-depth toxicity
studies are not available. In order to arrive at an appropri-
ate threshold value for these substances it is first necessary
to determine what level of chronic exposure would not result
in a health hazard. While such a task is beyond the ability
of science to accomplish, a consideration of the hazardous
waste definition protocol can simplify the problem.
The initial simplification occurs by removal from con-
sideration of chemicals which are either mutagenic, terato-
genic, or oncogenic. A second simplification results from
removal of bioaccumulative hazards. These types of hazards
are identified through use of specific tests performed on
all extracts. Finally, a third simplification can be made
by separating inorganic chemicals from organic species.
Inorganics can then be controlled through values based on
the aforementioned drinking water standards and soon to be
issued Water Quality Criteria.
McNamara (33) has studied the problem of calculating
chronic no-effect levels using acute toxicity data such as
76
-------
LD50 values. He found that, though it will err on the safe
side for many compounds, a reasonable approximation can be
obtained using the relationship:
no effect value «* Oral LD50/1000
A similar relationship was found for 90 day no-effect
dosages. In this case the lifetime no-effect value can be
arrived at by dividing the 90 day value by ten. These rela-
tionships developed by McNamara have been incorporated in the
delisting mechanism as well as being under consideration for .
use in future characteristics (see ANPR). Since in some
cases lifetime feeding studies have determined no effect
dosages directly, these values could then be used without
any application factor.
Using this mechanism it is then possible to calculate a
threshold value for any organic compound for which the human
no effect value is either known or can be calculated. This
•then creates another problem; that of obtaining human LD50
values.
Experiences obtained during pharmacological studies
with drugs indicate that dose-effect relationships are
related to organism surface area. Thus to approximate the
human oral LD50, given LD50 values for common laboratory
species, a relationship based on surface to weight ratios of
rats and mice to humans has been considered. For rats and
mice the appropriate conversion factors become:
human = rat x 0.16
mouse » x 0.066
77
-------
In order to arrive at the threshold values to use in
assessing the extract toxicity the following considerations
have been employed.
1. Assume a 70 kg human consumes two liters of
water a day, and that the water contains a substance
with an oral human LD50 of a mg/kg.
2. In the event drinking water became contaminanted
it is conceivable that persons could be drinking this
water for much of their life. Thus for safety the
water would be considered to be hazardous if it con-
tained a contaminant at a level greater than the
lifetime no effect value for that compound. This
value is given by the McNamara relationship as .001
times the LD50 value or .OOla mg/kg.
3. Furthermore since the person consumes 2 liters
of water a day and weighs 70 kg it follows that the
water could contain as much as:
(70)(.00100 mg/1 - .035a mg/1
2
without being dangerous.
4. But, as described previously, since the leachate
undergoes a 10 fold dilution before reaching the well,
the extract could contain as much as 10 times this
amount, or (.35a mg/1) without exceeding the safe
level.
5. Finally to obtain a one uses the relationships
previously mentioned:
a - oral rat LD50 times 0.16, or
a = oral mouse LD50 times 0.066
where all LD50 values are expressed in units of mg/lcg.
78
-------
Aquatic Toxicity
Degradation of surface water quality has been found to
have occurred, in a number of instances, as a consequence of
improper land disposal of wastes. Thus for the definition of
a- hazardous waste to be complete, it must address protection
of aquatic ecosystems.
Bioassay
In order to do this using a bioassay approach,one or
more tests are needed which identify wastes posing a danger
both to the existing organisms in the exposed community as
well as to the ecosystem productivity. Toward this end a
program is under way at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to
develop such an assay using the water flea, Daphnia Magna.
This assay (Appendix VI), which- currently requires. 28-days-to
conduct, measures both survival of the exposed organisms as
well as how well they reproduce. Daphnids are exposed to an
extract of the waste at several stages of their life cycle,
including the sensitive primiparous (or first egg-bearing)
instar.
While our experience in using such a procedure has been
favorable, many questions remain which have to be answered
before such a test can be used for regulatory purposes. Some
of these are:
1. What is the intra- and inter- laboratory
reproducibility?
79
-------
2. What is a toxicologically significant
response?
3. Can the present 28 day procedure be shortened
without losing sensitivity? This is important
because a 28 day test is very time consuming and
expensive.
Answers to these questions are under study. In addition,
through contacts with the WPCF, ASTM, and other groups
alternate assays are being evaluated which may offer advantages
in terms of less intensive use of laboratory personnel,
shorter test duration, less variability of response, and
finally cost.
Analytical
Under Section 304 (a) of the Clean Water Act (1977), EPA
can set water quality criteria which reflect the ambient
concentrations of pollutants necessary to protect public
health, the aquatic ecosystem, and aquatic-related values
such as recreation and aesthetics. Such criteria are based
upon chronic toxicity data showing the "no effect" level for
sensitive organisms.
Based on the previous discussions, a leachate to surface
water dilution of 1000 fold is anticipated. Thus extract
control values based on Water Quality Criteria will be set
at 1000 times the criteria. At the present time these
"Criteria" have not been issued and thus these additional
control values have not been included in the present proposal.
80
-------
Phytotoxic ity
Agriculture is one of the most productive resources in
the United States. American farmers produce food for the
growing population of this country, including feed for
livestock, as well as for the people of many other nations
who are dependent on the United States for much of their own
food. It is thus essential that this vital industry be
protected from exposure to materials which could be harmful
to crops.
Many of the chemicals which are used or produced as
wastes by various industries have some effect on plant life.
These effects vary from plant to plant and from species to
species. In most cases, the mechanisms by which chemicals
cause these effects are unknown. Since most of the effects
are harmful ones and are therefore capable of reducing crop
yield or saleability, it is important that an attempt be
made to prevent exposure of plants to as many harmful sub-
stances as possible. It is for this reason that phytotox-
icity, or toxicity to plants, has been considered as a
property of toxicity in the definition of "hazardous waste."
It is impossible to evaluate all of the effects that
just a single chemical may have on each kind of plant under
all of the widely differing conditions in the crop-raising
areas of the United States. However, the potential exists
for great loss from these materials; and given this, it is
apparent that some kind of screening program is essential in
order to safeguard the crops as much as possible.
81
-------
Phytotoxicants present in solid wastes which are improper-
ly managed at disposal can enter the plant environment
through use of groundwater or surface water for irrigation.
During irrigation, the plants absorb the toxicants through
the leaves, stems, or roots. The importance of preventing
chemical contamination of groundwater and surface water can
be seen by realizing how much water from these sources is
used for irrigation. According to the U.S. Geological Survey,
The quantity of water withdrawn for irrigation
in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands in 1975 was estimated at 160
million acre-feet. . . .This was an average
rate of 140 billion gallons per day, and the
water was used on approximately 54 million
acres of farmland. This represents an in-
crease in water use of about 10.9 percent
over the 1970 estimate and an^ncrease in
acreage of about 9.4 percent.
£.£.
Plants may also- be- exposed=*o-£oxicant&- ixuwas.te^. j^-u.^^
specifically sewage, through land spreading. Land spreading
of sewage sludge is becoming increasingly popular as a
method of disposing of waste from sewage treatment plants.
While this method of disposal has many advantages, serious
damage might result if sludge containing phytotoxic agents
is spread on land used for growing crops or for grazing.
Bioassay
The search for new useful agricultural chemicals has
yielded a great deal of information on biologically active
compounds. Some of this information is related to test
methodologies used in investigating the properties of
various chemicals, and some is related to the action of the
82
-------
chemicals themselves. Most previous work has been concerned
with the influence that a single chemical, or a small group
of related chemicals, has on plants of one or two species.
Because the sensitivity of different plant species to
various toxicants varies widely, an attempt has been made to
balance the information available about a species against
its relative sensitivity to various toxicants, and against
the economic importance of the plant in the United States.
In general, there is a fairly good correlation between the
information available and economic importance. The most
popular (and therefore best-known) research plants are also
good field crops. Thus, the choices have been limited to
wheat, tomato, soybean, corn, radish and the like.
There are- two .approaches-.to-rnarrowingi-the.-fdelds:; -size- .v .^-.;.
of seed and classification of seed plants. First, immediately
after germination (emergence of the seedling from the seed),
the main food available to the young plant is what was
stored in the seedling. The less stored food there is, the
sooner the plant must begin uptake of nutrients from the
soil and/or water. For this reason, young small-seeded
plants, such as wheat and other grasses, lettuce, and
radishes, tend to be more sensitive to toxicants in soil and
water than are young large-seeded plants, such as corn,
soybean, kidney bean, and other beans. Once the seedlings
are established, however, this does not apply.
A second approach is a division between monocotyledons
and dicotyledons, plants displaying either one or two "seed leaves,"
83
-------
respectively. There doesn't seem to be a general relation-
ship between degree of sensitivity to toxicants and number
of seed leaves. However/ both groups have economically
important members, and the groups are very different physio-
logically. Therefore, it would be desirable to test both
types. Corn, wheat and other grasses are monocotyledons, •>
while tomatoes, lettuce, soybeans, and other beans are
dicoyledons.
Also affecting the variability of conditions in the
real world are soil conditions such as pH and soil chemistry.
To eliminate these difficulties plants should be grown in
either a nutrient solution or a "standard" combination of
sterile vermiculite and peat moss.
It is assumed that the irrigation water containing the
leachate will reach the plants through some sort of crop
sprinkling system, necessitating the use of a spray method
of application in the tests. This introduces the question
of exposure factors, such as droplet size, which could not
be standarized with respect to actual farm conditions, since
these vary so widely. However, they can and must be stan-
dardized in laboratory tests. Since water-based toxicants
seem to "work better" when the droplets size is large (approxi-
mately 5 mm), this would be a "worst case" assumption and
would be used.
The aim of the phytotoxicity criteria is to determine
if a waste might become a hazard to agriculture if disposal
was not made in an appropriate manner.
04
-------
Such a task is difficult even with extensive resources.
A major consideration in developing the tests, however, must
be cost effectiveness. Thus, while an "ideal" test procedure
should evaluate the plants' responses to exposure throughout
a complete life cycle, the time/cost factors have eliminated
such an approach.
In trying to determine whether a substance is toxic to
plants by exposing plants to that substance, one would have
a better chance if several kinds of plants, each of which is
very sensitive to at least one of the possible modes of
action could be tested. A battery of complementary tests
would provide the most useful information for regulatory
purposes. This is the route that has been selected for
development (Appendix -VI-I)'. " The battery • under^eve'lropmervt-r-
includes both germination and seedling growth assays and
employs three important crop species; soybean, wheat, and
radish. Use of these test procedures though has been delayed
until such time as their reproducibility and utility can be
validated.
Analytical
For purposes of the analytical option a list would be
published of chemicals which are known to be phytotoxic.
This list would include the level of each substance in the
extraction procedure extract at which the waste would enter
the Subtitle C control system.
Regulatory Approach Selected
It is our belief that the toxicity definition outlined
in Figure 1, and described on the previous pages, would
85
-------
substantially meet the goals set forth previously. These
goals are twofold:
1. to have a definition which is dynamic and keyed
to waste properties in such a manner that as new
toxic agents enter the waste disposal network they
are immediately covered.
2. To offer the regulated community a choice of
cost effective testing schemes geared to the wide
variety of waste types produced.
However, we feel that use of this definition is pre-
mature at this time. Two factors account for this decision.
1. The lack of validated bioassay procedures.
2. The lack of adequate data with which to deter-
mine the_iinpact of, the definition .both, in -terms .of ..
the cost of testing and the size of the hazardous
waste class which would be so created. This is
especially important in view of the previously stated
goal to keep testing costs low.
Thus in order to carry out the mandate of RCRA and
implement a hazardous waste control program without further
delay, a modified approach has been proposed. This approach
makes use of the Detraction Procedure to measure toxicant.
availability;combined with use of EPA National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations NIPDWS in order to
determine maximum allowable environmental contamination
levels. Furthermore, since there are many wastes which
86
-------
contain mobile toxic chemicals for which no NIPDWS are
available, an expanded use has been made of lists as identi-
fiers of hazardous waste. These lists are described in a
separate Background Document.
The analytical procedures which have been adopted are
those which have been developed by EPA and others for use in
characterizing industrial effluents and wastewaters. These
methods are currently under active study at the EPA Environ-
mental Monitoring and Support Laboratory. As new or improved
analytical procedures are developed they will be incorporated
into the manual of acceptable procedures to be published prior
to promulgation of these draft rules.
In order to offer a means by which a generator can demon-
strate that a particular listed waste is in fact not hazardous
a means of identifying hazardous wastes other than those
identified through through use of DWS is needed.
While use of the analytical, mutagenic, and bioaccumula-
tive tests have not been included in the hazardous waste
definition for the second of the aforementioned reasons, this
is not a problem when they are used for delisting purposes.
Thus these tests are available for generators to use in demon-
strating that a particular waste, listed because the Agency
has information that it poses a hazard due to its mutagenic,
oncogenic, teratogenic, or bioaccumulative activity, or it
contains mobile toxic organics, should in fact not be listed.
(Appendix VIII).
87
-------
Bibliography
1 Geraghty and Killer, Inc., The .Prevalence of Suh irface
Migration of Hazardous Chenical Substances at Selected
Industrial Waste Land Disposal Sites, USEPA, C\ y, 1977 -
2. Miller, B.K,, F. DeLuca and T. Tessier, Ground Water
Contamination in the Northewast States, Envircnciental"
Protection Technology Series, EPA 660/2-74-C56, 1974
3. Lowenbach, W., Compilation and Evaluation of Leaching Test
Methods, May 1978, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OE 45268, EPA-600/2-78-095
4'^ • tfahlock, J.L., et. al., Pollutant Potential of Raw and
Chemically Fixed Hazardous Industrial Wastes and Flue
Gas Desulfurization Sludge, Interim Report, July 1976,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OK,
EPA 600/2-76/182.
5. Weeler, D.W., and Phillips, H.L., Structural and Leaching
Aspects of Testing Fixed Solid Wastes Via the Toxicant
Extraction Procedure, 1978, Oak Pidge Rational Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
6 Ham, R., Anderson, K.A., Stegnann, R., Stanfcrth, R.,
Backaround Study on the Development of a Standard
Leaching Test, August 1978, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, OH 45268
7. Eracon Associates, "Sonoma County Refuse Stabilization
Study. Third Annual Report," Department of Public Works,
Sonoma County, CA (1974) as reported in (£) >'
8. Qasim, S.R., and Burchinal, J.C., "Leachate from Simulated
Landfills," Jour. Water. Fpll. Control Fed., 42 (3), 371 -
(1970) as reported in CO .< ~~~
45268, EPA-GOO/2-77-18Ga as reported in (!')••
10. Steir.er, R.L., Fungardi, A.A., Schoenberger, P.J., sr^
Purdon, ?.v;., "Criteria for Sanitary Landfill Deve
r.c-r.t,1* Public V.'orks, 102 (3), 77, (1971) as repc-ted
ir U)
88
-------
C-»or>-, T.P. ard Fiskin, P., "Chemical Quality -• id ,
• Tndicator Parana ters for Monitoring Landfill Leau.i.1te
Illinois, " Environ. Geo. 1, 329, (1977) as reported
in (!')-• . ._. _____ . .
Pohland, F.G., "Sanitary Landfill Stabilization with
12- Leachate Recycle and Residual Treatment," (1975), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH 45268,
EPA- 6 00/2-7 5-04 3, as reported in (l')j
Brunner, D., 1978, Personnel Communication
Cooperative Programme of Research on the Behaviour of
14 • Hazardous Waste in Landfill Sites. Final report of the
policy Reviev; Committee, J. Sumner, Chairman, London.,
.Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1S78
Patelle, Northwest Laboratories, Toxicological Criteria
15 * for Defining Hazardous Wastes. Report prepared for
Minnesota Pollution Control, Agency, .Septemoer, 1976
Theis, T.L., The Contamination of Groundwater by Heavy-
16 • Metal4 from the Land Disposal of Fly Ash , Technical
^rogrLs Report, June 1, "^-August 31 1976, Prepared
• f or USERDA Contract * E (11-1) --2727, 197G
»•
22S?.SiSSSS»/"^5o5i6S; SM^M as reported
. in CD.-
18. unpublished Report, 1977 (Iowa)
19. Unpublished Report, 1977 (Gray, Maine)
20 Report to Congress, Waste Disposal Practices and their
Effects on Groundwater, USEPA, OSW/OSWMP, Jan, 1977
21. Federal Register, Wednesday, January 12, 1977
89
-------
22 Lee et al. Research Study for the Development of Iredged
Material Disposal Criteria. Prepared for U.S. Anny Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station. Contract £ DAG'' B9-74-C-0024
Nov. 1975.
23. .Hughes, G.M., R.A. Landon and R.N. FarvoLdsn, EySro-
geology of Solid Waste Disposal Sites in Eortheasfeera
Illinois, CS-EPA, SW-12d, 1971
Perlmutter, N.M. and p.. Lieber, Dispersal of Plating-
Wastes and Sewage Contaminants in Grour.d Water g
Surface Water, South Farmingdaie-Massapegua.Area
Nassau County, New York, U.S. Geological Survey
Supply Paper, 1979-G, 197G
25. Le Grand, H.E., Patterns of Contaminated Zones of Water
in the Ground, Water Resources Research, Vol. 1, Ko. 1.
1965
26. Sealf, M.R., J.W. Keeley and C.J. La Fevers, Groendwater
Poilution in the South• Central States, Environmental
Protection Technology Series, EPA-R2-73-268, 1373
27. Zanoni/~A.E.V Grauhdwater Pollution
Landfills - A Critical Review
28. Pollution Prediction Techniques for-Waste Disposal
Siting, P.cy F. Weston, Inc., Final Report, USE2S. "
"Contract Number 68-01-4368, Feb, 1978
29. Kicmiel, G.E. and O.C. Braids, Preliminary Findings of a
Leachate Study on Two Landfills in Suffolk County> R.Y.,
Journal of Research of -the U.S. Geological Siirvey, Vol. 3,
No. 3, May-June, 1975
30' c^fff5i\' - A;*r' , "P?H^ion of Subsurface W,
fey
31. van.der Leeden, Frits, L.A. Cerrillo and David V7_ Killer,
Ground Water Pollution Problems in the Northwestern
United States Ecological Research Series, EPA 660/3-75-
018, 1975
32. Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 163 - Tuesday, August 22, 1978
Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards.
33. McNamara, B.P., New Concepts in Safety Evaluation,
1976 John Wiley and Sons, New York
on
-------
Appendix I
(d) Toxic Waste
(1) Definition - A solid waste is a hazardous waste
if, according to the methods specified in paragraph
(2), the extract obtained from applying the Extraction
Procedure (EP) cited below to a representative sample
of the waste has concentrations of a contaminant that
exceeds any of the following values:
91
-------
Extract
Level ,
Contaminant Milligrams per Liter
Arsenic ............................... 0.50
Barium ................................ 10 .
Cadmium ............................... 0.10
Chromium. ... ......... . ................. 0.50
Lead ................................... 0.50
Mercury ................................ 0.02
Selenium ............................... 0.10
Silver ................................. 0.50
Endrin (1, 2,3,4,10,10-hexa- 0.002
cloro-6 , 7-epoxy-l , 4 , 4a, 5 ,
6, 7 , 8, 8a-octahydro-l,
4-endo, endo-5, 8-di
methane- naphthalene) .
Lindane (1,2,3,4,5,6- 0.040
hexachlorocyclohexane
gamma isomer) .
Methoxychlor (1,1,1- 1.0
Trichloroethane) .
2,2-bis (p-methoxyphenyl)
Toxaphene (CioH10Cls~ 0.050
technical chlorinated
camphene, GT—fH} percent- jr-.
-------
(2) Identification Method
(i) Extraction Procedure
(A) Take a representative sample (minimum
size 100 gins) of the waste to be tested and
separate it into its component phases using
either the filtration method or the centri-
fugation method described in this section.
Reserve the liquid fraction under refrigera-
tion at 1-5°C (34-41°F) for use as described in
paragraph (F) of this section.
(I) Filtration Method
Equipment:
Millipore YY22 142 30 filter holder
(Millipore Corp., Beford, MA 01730)
equipped with an XX42 142 08 accessory
1.5 liter reservoir, or
Nuclepore 420800 142mm filter holder
(Nuclepore Corp., Pleasanton, CA 94566)
equipped with a 1.5 liter reservoir,
or equivalent filter holder.
Procedure:
1. Using the filter holder place a
0.45 micron filter membrane {Millipore
type HAWP142, Nuclepore type 112007, or
equivalent) on the support screen. On
top of the membrane (upstream) place a
93
-------
prefliter (Millipore AP25124, Nuclepore
P040, or equivalent). Secure filter
holder as directed in manufacturer's
instructions.
2. Fill the reservoir with the
sample to be separated, pressurize to
no more than 75 psi (7 kg/cm2), and
filter until no significant amount
of fluid (<_5 ml) is released during a
30 minute period.
3. After liquid flow stops, de-
pressurize and open the top of the
reservoir, invert the filter unit, re-
place filter pads as in step 1. above,
and resume filtering. Save pads
for later use. Repeat this step
until no more fluid can be removed
from the waste at a pressure of 75 psi
(7 kg/cm2).
4. Take the solid material, and
any pads used in filtration, and
extract as described in paragraph (B) .
Subtract tare weights of filter
pads in calculating the amount of
solid material. -
94
-------
(II) Centrifugation Method
Equipment:
Centrifuge te.g. Damon-IEC catalog no.
7165, Damon-IEC Corp., Needham Heights,
MA, or equivalent) equipped with a
rotor for 600 ml to 1 liter containers
(Damon-IEC catalog no. 976, or equiva-
lent) . For flammable material contain-
ing wastes, explosion proof equipment
is recommended.
:.£• '-•'••
Procedure;
1. Centrifuge sample for 30 minutes
at 2300 rpm. Hold temperature at
20-40°C (68-104eFr.
2. Using a ruler, measure the size
of the liquid and solid layers, to the
nearest mm (0.40 inch). Calculate the
liquid to solid ratio.
3. Repeat 1 and 2 above until the
liquid:solid ratio calculated after
two consecutive 30 minute centrifuga-
tions is within 3%.
4. Decant or siphon off the layers
and extract the solid as described in
paragraph B.
95
-------
(B) Take the solid portion obtained in para-
graph (i)/ and prepare it for extraction
by either grinding it to pass through a
9.5 mm (3/8") standard sieve or by subjecting
it to the following structural integrity
procedure.
Structural Integrity Procedure
Equipment;
Compaction Tester having a 1.25 inch
diameter hammer weighing 0.73 Ibs. and
having a free fall of 6 inches (Figure 1)
Cone suitable device is the Associated
Design and Manufacturing Company,
Alexandria, Va. 22314, catalog no. 125).
Procedure;
1. Fill the sample holder with the
material to be tested. If the waste
sample is a monolithic block/ then cut
out a representive sample from the block
having the dimensions of a 1.3" dia.
X 2.8" cylinder.
2. Place the sample holder into the
Compaction Tester and apply 15 hammer
blows to the sample,
3. Remove the now compacted sample
from the sample holder and transfer it to
the extraction apparatus for extraction.
96
-------
(C) Take the solid material from paragraph (B),
weigh it and place it in an extractor. A suitable
extractor will not only prevent stratification of
sample and extraction fluid but also insure that
all sample surfaces are continuously brought
into contact with well mixed extraction fluid.
(When operated at greater than or equal to
40 rpm, one suitable device is shown in
Figure 2 and available as Part *3736 produced
by the Associated Design and Mfg. Co.,
Alexandria, VA 22314.)
(D) Add to the extractor a weight of
deionized water equal to 16 times the weight
of solid material added to the extractor. This
includes any water used in transferring the
solid material to the extractor.
(E) Begin agitation and adjust the pH of the
solution to 5.0 + 0.2 using 0.5N acetic acid.
Hold the pH at 5.0 + 0.2 and continue agitation
for 24 j^ 0.5 hours. If more than 4 ml of acid
for each gm of solid is required to hold the
pH at 5, then once 4 ml of acid per gm has been
added, complete the 24 hour extraction without
adding any additional acid. Maintain the
extractant at 20-40°C (68-104°F) during
extraction, it is recommended that a device
97
-------
such, as the Type 45-A pH Controller manufac-
tured by Chemtrix, Inc./ Hillsboro, OR 97123,
or equivalent, be used for controlling pH.
If such a device is not available then the
following manual procedure can be employed.
Manual pH adjustment
1. Calibrate pH meter in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications.
2. Add 0.5N acetic acid and adjust
pH of solution to 5.0 + 0.2. If more than
4 ml of acid for each gm of solid is
required to hold the pH at 5, then once
4 ml of acid per gm has been added, complete
the 24 hour extraction without adding any
additional acid. Maintain the extractant
at 20-40°C (68-104°F) during extraction.
3. Manually adjust pH of solution at
15, 30, and 60 minute intervals moving
to the next longer interval if the pH
did not have to be adjusted more than
0.5 pE units since the previous adjustment.
4. Continue adjustment procedure for a
period of not less than 6 hours.
5. Final pH after a 24 hour period
must be within the range 4.9-5.2; unless
4 ml of acid per gram of solid has
already been added.
98
-------
6. If the conditions of 5 are not met,
continue pH adjustment at approximately
one hour intervals for a period of not
less than 4 hours.
(F) At the end of the 24 hour extraction period,
separate the material in the extractor into
solid and liquid phases as in paragraph (A).
Adjust the volume of the resulting liquid phase
with deionized water so that its volume is
20 times that occupied by a quantity of water
at 4°C equal in weight to the initial quantity
of solid material charged to the extractor
(e.g., for an initial weight of 1 gin, dilute
to 20 ml). Combine this solution with the
original liquid phase from paragraph (A).
This combined liquid/ and any precipitate which
may later form, is the Extraction Procedure
Extract*
(ii) Analysis - Analyses conducted to determine
conformance with Section 250.13(d)(1) shall be
made in accordance with the following or equivalent
methods:
(A) Arsenic - Atomic Absorption Method,
"Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes," pp. 95-96, Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Technology Transfer,
Washington, D.C. 20460, 1974.
99
-------
(B) Barium - Atomic Absorption Method/
"Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater," latest edition,
or "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes," pp. 97-98, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Technology
Transfer/ Washington, D.C. 20460, 1974.
(C) Cadmium - Atomic Absorption Method,
"Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater," latest edition, or
"Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes," pp. 101-103, Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Technology Transfer,
Washington, B.C. 20460, 1974.
(D) Chromium - Atomic Absorption Method,"— —>
"Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater," latest edition, or "Methods
for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,"
pp. 112-113, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Technology Transfer, Washington,
D.C. 20460, 1974
(E) Lead - Atomic Absorption Method, "Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater," latest edition, or "Methods
for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,"
pp. 112-113, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Technology Transfer, Washington,
D.C. 20460, 1974.
100
-------
(Fl Mercury - Flameless Atomic Absorption
Method/ "Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes," pp. 118-126, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Technology Transfer,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
(G) Selenium - Atomic Absorption Method,
"Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes," p. 145, Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Technology Transfer,
Washington, D.C. 20460, 1974.
(H) Silver - Atomic Absorption Method,
"Standard Method for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater," latest edition, or
"Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes," p. 146, Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Technology Transfer,
Washington, D.C. 20460, 1974.
(I) Endrin, Lindane, Methoxychlor, or
Toxaphene - as described in "Method for
Organochlorine Pesticides in industrial
Effluents," MDQARL, Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, November 28, 1973.
(J) 2, 4-D and 2, 4,5-TP Silvex - as described
in "Methods for Chlorinated Phenoxy Acid
Herbicides in Industrial Effluents," MDQAEL,
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, November 28, 1973.
101
-------
Appendix u .
A solid waste is a hazardous waste if the extract obtained
from applying the "toxicant extraction procedure" to a repre-
sentative sample of the waste has any of the following proper-
ties, according to the following test protocol.
(1) Contains more than one mg/liter of any compound
on the Controlled Substances List in Appendix IVI or
gives a positive response in any one of a set of required
tests for mutagenic activity. A total of three assays
must be conducted. One shall be chosen from group I,
one from group II, and one from those listed in group
III.
Group I Detection of gene mutations
1. Point mutation in bacteria.
Group II Detection of gene mutations
1. Mammalian somatic cells in
culture.
2. Fungal microorganisms.
Group III Detecting effects of DNA repair or
recombination as an indication of
genetic damage
1. DNA repair in bacteria (including
differential killing of repair
defective strains).
2. Unscheduled DNA synthesis in human
diploid cells.
102
-------
3. Sister-chromatid exchange in
mammalian cells.
4. Mitotic recombination and/or gene
conversion in yeast.
A result shall be considered positive for the mutagenic
activity assays if a ' .reproducible increase is observed over
negative control in the yeast and mammalian cell assays. A
result shall be considered positive for the DNA repair
assay in bacteria if a reproducible difference in killing is
observed between the DNA repair-competent and DNA repair-
deficient strains.
103
-------
Mutagenic Activity Detection
Group I - DETECTION OF GENS MUTATIONS
a. Point Mutations in Bacteria
1. Positive Controls
All assays must be run with a concurrent positive control.
Positive control compounds or mixtures shall be selected to
demonstrate both the sensitivity of the indicator organism and
the functioning of the metabolic activation system.
2. Negative controls
A solvent negative control shall be included.
3. Choice of Organisms
The bacteria used shall include strains capable of detecting
base pair substitutions (both transitions and transversions)
and frame-shift mutations. The known spectrum of chemical
mutagens capable of being detected by the strains shall be
considered when selecting the strains. The strains shall also
be highly sensitive to a wide range of chemical mutagens.
They may include strains whose cell wall, DMA repair, or other
capabilities have been altered to increase sensitivity (Ames,
1975; McCann et al./ 1975). Although sensitive bacterial
assays for forward mutations at specific loci or over some
portion of the entire genome may also be appropriate, at
the present time the most sensitive and best-characterized
bacteria for _mutagenidty__testing are those capable of
indicating reverse mutations at specific loci.
4. Methodology
(i) General. The test shall be performed in all respects
in a manner known to give positive results for a wide ranoe
of chemical mutagens at low concentrations. Tests must be run
with and without metabolic activation. The sensitivity
and reproducibility of the metabolic activation systems and
strains used shall be evaluated both by reference to past work
with the method and by the concurrent use of positive controls
(ii) Plate assays. In general, the EP extract should
be tested by plate incorporation assays at various concentrations
Test conditions should minimize the possible effects due to
extraneous nutrients, contamination by other bacteria, and
high levels of spontaneous mutants.
(iii) Liquid suspension assays. A few chemicals (e.g.
diethylnitrosamine and demethylnitrosamine) will give positive
results only in tests in which the test substance, the bacteria
and the metabolic activation system are incubated together in '
liquid prior to plating, but not in a plate incorporation assav
(Bartsch et al., 1976). Thus, tests shall be conducted in
liquid suspension as well as on agar plates.
(iv) Doses. The highest test dose which does not result
in excessive cell death shall be used.
104
-------
Group II - DETECTION OF GENE MUTATIONS
a. Mammalian Somatic Cells In Culture
1. Choice of cell systems.
A number or tests in mammalian somatic cells in culture
are available in which specific locus effects may be detected in
response to chemical exposure (Shapiro et al. , 1972; Chu, 1971).
The cell line used shall have demonstrated sensitivity of chemical
induction of specific-locus mutations by a variety of chemicals.
The line shall be chosen for ease of cultivation, freedom from
biological contaminants such as mycoplasmas, high and reproducible
cloning efficiencies, definition of genetic detection, loci, and
relative karyotypic stability. The inhirent capabilities of the
test cells for metabolic activation of promutagens to active
mutagens shall also be considered, as, well as the use of metabolic
activation systems similar to those used with microorganisms.
2. Methodology.
(i) General"The test shall be performed in all respects
in a manner known to give positive results for a wide range of
chemical mutagens. The sensitivity of the system, metabolic
activation capability, and its reproducibility must be evaluated
by reference to past work and by the concurrent use of positive
controls. Culture conditions which may affect the detection of
mutations and give falsely high or low figures for reasons
other than chemical induction shall be avoided. Definition of
detected genetic loci studies and verification that the observed
phenotypic changes are indeed genetic alterations should be
presented. ,
b. Mutation In Fungi
1. Controls
All considerations discussed under Group I, a. are
applicable.
2. Choice of Organisms
The fungi used shall include strains capable of detecting
base pair substitutions (both transitions and transversions)
and frame-shift mutations. More inclusive assay systems, such
as those designed to detect recessive lethals, are also accept-
able. The known spectrum of chemical mutagens capable of being
detected by the strains shall be considered when selecting the
strains. The strains shall also be highly sensitive to a wide
range of chemical mutagens. Strains altered in DMA repair or
other capabilities with the intent to increase sensitivity may
be used, subsequent to validation. Either forward or reverse
mutation assays may be applied.
3. Methodology
(i) General; All considerations discussed under Group I
af 4, (i) are applicable. Care should be taken to investigate
stage sensitivity, i.e. replicating versus non-replicating cells
as well as possible requirement for post-treatment growth.
(ii) Plate Assays; While spot tests and plate incorporation
assays are useful for preliminary testing, they shall not be
considered conclusive.
105
-------
Group III - DETECTING EFFECTS ON DNA REPAIR OR RECOMBINATION AS AN
INDICATION OF GENETIC DAMAGE
a. DNA Repair In Bacteria
1. Controls
All considerations discussed under Group I are applicable.
2. General
(i) When the DNA of a cell is damaged by a chemical mutagen,
the cell will utilize its DNA repair enzymes in an attempt to
correct the damage. Cells which have reduced capability of
repairing DNA may be more susceptible to the action of chemical
mutagens, as detected by increased cell death rates. For
suspension tests using DNA repair-deficient bacteria, the
positive control should be similar in toxicity to the test
mixture.
(ii) The DNA repair test in bacteria determine if the
test substance(s) is more toxic to DNA repair-deficient cells
than it is to DNA repair-competent cells. Such differential
toxicity is taken as an indication that the chemical interacts
with the DMA of the exposed cells to produce increased levels
of genetic damage.
3, Choice of organisms
Two bacterial strains, with no known genetic differences
other than DNA repair capability/ shall be used. The strains
selected shall be known to be capable of indicating the activity
of a wide range of chemical mutagens. The spectrum of chemical
mutagens and chemical mixtures capable of being detected by the
strains and procedures used shall be reported.
4. Methodology
(i) Plate test The EP extract should be tested by
spotting a quantity on an agar plate which has had a lawn of the
indicator organisms spread over it. After a suitable incubation
period, the zone of inhibition around the spot shall be measured
for each strain and compared for the DNA repair-competent and DNA
repair-deficient strains. If no discrete zone of inhibition is
seen with either strain/ then the results of the tests are not
meaningful.
(ii) Liquid suspension test. The liquid suspension test
shall also be performed by comparing the rates at which given
concentrations of the test substances will kill each of the two
indicator strains when incubated in liquid suspension. Conditions
should be adjusted so that significant killing of the DNA repair-
competent strain occurs, if this is possible. Methodology is
discussed in Kelly et
-------
(iii) Doses. The dose level of test substances used in
the plate or suspension test shall be adjusted so that signifi-
cant toxicity to the DNA repair-competent strain is measured.
In the plate test, this means that a zone of inhibition must
be visible; in the suspension test/ significant loss of cell
viability must be measured. This may not be possible if the
test substance is not toxic to the bacteria or if, 'in the plate
test/ it does not dissolve in and diffuse through the agar.
The same dose must be used in exposing the DNA repair-competent
and repair-deficient strains.
107
-------
b. Unscheduled DNA Synthesis In Human Diploid Cells
1. General
DNA damage induced by chemical treatment of a cell can be
measured as an increase in unscheduled DNA synthesis which
is an indication of increased DNA repair. Unrepaired or
misrepaired alterations may result in gene mutations or in
breaks or exchanges which can lead to deletion and/or duplication
of larger gene sequences or to translocaticns which may affect
gene function by position effects (Stich, 1970; Stoltz et al. ,
1974).
2.. Methodology
(i) General"Primary or established cell cultures
with normal repair function shall be used. Standardized human
cell strains from repositories are recommended. Controls should
be performed to detect changes in scheduled DNA synthesis at
appropriate sections in the experimental design. The media
conditions shall be optimal for measuring repair synthesis.
(ii) Dose. At least five dose levels shall be used and
the time in the cycle of cynchronour or non-proliferating
cells at which explosure takes place shall be given. The
maximum compound dose shall induce toxicity, and the dosing
period with the test substance shall not be less than sixty
minutes.
c. Sister Chromatid Exchange In Mammalian Cells With And Without
Metabolic Activation
1. Controls; -•• --
All considerations discussed under Group I a. are
applicable.
2. General
Cytological techniques are available to evaluate the genetic
damage induced by chemicals. In the past few years a technique
has been developed for identifying sister chromatid exchanges
much more simply and efficiently than by the autoradiographic
method. The method utilizes the fact that a fluorescent stain
Hoechst 33258 binds to thymidine-containing DNA but not, or
far less efficiently, to BrdUrd-substituted DNA. This means that
the order of fluorescence would be brightest for DNA unreplicated i»
BrdUrd, intermediate for DNA after one round of replication in
BrdUrd, and least for DNA following two rounds of replication in
BrdUrd. Thus a sister chromatid exchange can be seen as a switch
of fluorescence pattern at the point of exchange. Perry and Tftjlff
(Nature 251, 156-158 (1974)) combined Hoechst staining with Gierosa
staining such that the brightly fluorescing regions stain darkly
with Giemsa, and the dully fluorescent regions hardly stain
at all.
3. Choice of Organisms
Chromosomal preparations of human peripheral blood leukocytes
or Chinese hamster ovary cells shall be used.
108
-------
4. Methodology
(i) General"; The test method must be capable of detecting
sister chromatic! exchanges. Procedures reported by Perry and
Wolff (Nature 251, 156-158 (1974) and Moorhead et al. (Exp. cell
Res. 20, 613-616 (I960)) are recommended. Metabolic activation
with rat liver S-9 mix should be incorporated whenever it is
appropriate.
(ii) Doses; Test substances shall be tested to the highest
dose where toxicity does not interfere with the test procedure.
109
-------
d. Mitotic Recombination and/or Gene Conversion In Yeast
1. Controls
All considerations discussed under Group I are applicable.
2, General
One can effectively study the chromosomes of eukaryotic
microorganisms by employing classical genetic methodologies
which depend upon the behavior and interaction of specific
markers spaced judiciously within the genome. These methods
have been developed over several decades and have been applied
in recent years to the study of induced genetic damage
(Zimmerman, 1971, 1973/ 1975; Brusick and Andrews, 1974).
3. Choice of organisms
Diploid strains of yeasts that detect mitotic crossing-
over and/or mitotic gene conversion shall be used. Additionally
as appropriate strains are developed, monitoring for induced
non-disjunction and other effects may be possible. Mitotic
crossing-over shall be detected in a strain of organism in
which it is possible, by genetic means, to determine with
reasonable certainty that reciprocal exchange of genetic
information has occurred.
Strains employed for genetic testing shall be of proven
sensitivity to a wide range of mutagens.
4. Methodology^
(i) General.
In general/ wastes shall be tested in liquid suspension
tests.
110
-------
Appendix in
Controlled Substance List
NOTE: Compounds and classes which have been reported to be
either mutagenic, carcinogenic, or teratogenic and which would
not give a positive indication of activity using the prescribed
tests. Where a class of compounds is listed, inclusion on this
list does not mean that all members of the class have been shown
to be either mutagenic, carcinogenic, or teratogenic. Demon-
stration that specific, class members contained in the waste
have not been shown to be either mutagenic, carcinogenic, or
teratogenic/ will be sufficient for a demonstration of non-
hazard by reason of mutagenic activity (M).
Aloperidin
Amantadine
4-Aminoantipyrin acetamide
Aminopterin
3-Amino-l,2,4-triazole
6-Azauridine
Azo dyes
Benzene
Bisulfan
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroquine
Chlorambucil
Cobalt salts
Colchicine
Coumarin derivatives
Cycasin
Cyclophosophamide
Dextroamphetamine sulfate
Diazepam (Valium)
Diethylstilbesterol
D ime thy 1 ami no a zob e n ze ne
DimethyInitrosamine
Diphenylhydantoin
Ethionine
Grisefulvin
1-Hydroxysafrole
Maleic Hydrazide
Methotrexate
Methylthiouracil
Mytomycin-C
d-Penicillamine
Phenylalanine
Phorbol esters
Quinine
Resperine
p-Rosanilin
Safrole
Serotonin
Streptomycin
Testosterone
Thioacetamide thiourea
Trimethadione
d-Tubocurarine
111
-------
Appendix IV
Bioaccumulation Potential Test
(a) General
Reverse-phase liquid chromatography is a separation process
in which chemicals are injected onto a column of fine
particles coated with a nonpolar (water insoluble) oil and
then eluted along the column with a polar solvent such as
water or methar.ol. Recent developments in this field have
produced a permanently bonded reverse-phase column in which
long-chain hydrocarbon groups are chemically bonded to the
column packing material which leads to a more reproducible
separation. The chemicals injected are moved along the
column by partitioning between the mobile water phase and
the stationary hydrocarbon phase. Mixtures of chemicals can
be eluted in _order_of, tbeix^hydrophobicity,.,. with.vate resoluble
chemicals eluted first and the oil soluble chemicals last
in proportion to their hydrocarbon/water partition coeffici
Calibration of the instrument using compounds of known oc-t 1'
water partition coefficient allows this procedure to be u
to determine whether an unknown mixture contains compound
with octanol/water partition coefficients above a designat
level.
Specific correlations exist between octanol/water partiti
coefficients and bioconcentration in fish. This test thu
offers a rapid, inexpensive method of identifying those
mixtures which contain compounds which pose a potential
bioaccurr.ulative hazard.
112
-------
Compounds with log P 3.5, but which readily biodegrade
would not be expected to persist in the environment long
enough for accumulation to occur. Thus a degradation
option has been included in order to exempt these sub-
stances from the hazardous waste control system.
(b) Chromatography Conditions
A liquid chromatograph equipped with a high pressure
stopflow injector and a 254 nm ultraviolet detector with
an 8 ul cell volume and 1 cm path length is employed. The
column is a Varian Preparative Micropak C-H (Catalog number
07-000181-00), or its equivalent, consisting of a 250 mm
X 8 mm (i.d.) stainless steel cylinder filled with 10
micron lichrosorb to which octadecylsilane is permanently
bonded.
The column is operated at ambient temperature. The solvent
consists of a mixture of water and methanol (15:85, v/v)
which is pumped through the column at 2.0 ml/minute.
(c) Retention Volume Calibration
Chemicals are dissolved in a mixture of acetone and cyclohexane
(3:1, v/v). For preparing the calibration curve the quantity
of individual chemicals in the solution is adjusted to give
a chromatographic peak of at least 25 percent of the recorder
scale. Acetone produces a large peak at approximately 2.6
minutes.
113
-------
Six chemicals for which Log P has been reported are used
to calibrate the elution time in units of Log P. The
calibration mixture is summarized in Table 1 and includes
benzene/ bromobenzene, biphenyl, bibenzyl, p,pf-DDE, and
2,4,5,2',5'-pentachlorobipheny1.
(d) Sensitivity Calibration
The mixture is chromatographed and a calibration curve prepared
daily to eliminate small differences due to flow rate or
temperature and to follow the retention properties of the
column during prolonged use. The calibration is made by
plotting Log P vs the logarithm of the absolute retention
time (log RT). Figure 1 is an example of such a calibration
curve.
(e) Test Procedure
(1) Prepare a calibration curve as described above.
(2) Calculate the geometric mean of the instrumental
response to the chemicals listed in Table 1 with
the exception of the acetone. This value, expressed
in ug/25% full scale deflection, is designated
the Instrumental Sensitivity (IS).
(3) Extract X liters of the Extraction Procedure
extract to be tested, using dichloroir.ethane,
and concentrate the extract to a quantity
suitable for•injection onto the column.
114
-------
The quantity X is determined by the instrumental
sensitivity and is given by the relationship:
X in liters = IS in raicrograms.
(4) Analyze the extract using the now calibrated
chromatograph. A positive response is defined as
an instrumental response greater than or equal to
25 percent full scale detector response in the
region of Log P greater than or equal to 3.5.
(5) If a positive response is indicated in step (4),
then subject a sample of the waste to a biode-
gradation assay and then retest. If a positive
response with the degraded waste is not obtained,
then the waste is not considered to be hazardous by
reason of bioaccumulativeness.
TABLE I
Partition Coefficients for Chemicals Used for Calibration
Log P
Acetone 0.55
Benzene 2.13
Bromobensene 2.99
Biphenyl 3.76
Eibenzyl • 4.81
p,p''-EDE 5.69
2,4, 5,2',5'-Pentachlorobipheny1 6.11
115
-------
7.or
Figure 1
6.0
S.O
O
c
CD
+*
O
O
4.0 -
O PCS (5-C1)
DDE
Bibenzyl
O /Biphenyl
03
O
3.0
2.0
Bromobeozene
O/ Benzene
1.0
O Acetone
J L
1.0
Log Retention Time (minutes)
2.0
116
-------
Appendix v
Test procedures for biodegration are designed to rapidly
estimate the relative importance of biodegradability as a
persistence factor in natural environments. The tests evaluate
biodegradation rates in comparison with standard reference
compounds.
Methods commonly used include a shake flask procedure
that follows the loss of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) using
organic carbon analysis, a respirometric method with analysis
for either oxygen uptake or carbon dioxide evolution resulting
from microbial activity/ and an activated sludge test.
One shake flask procedure acceptable for use in the screen-
ing test for biodegradability is based on the Presumptive Test
of the Soap and Detergent Association (1965) and the Modified
OECD Screening Test (1971).
The shake flask method is conducted in a mineral salts
basal medium with a weak inoculum and relatively low test
substrate concentration and serves as a simple model of surface
water. The determination of biodegradation is made by measuring
the loss of bioaccumulative response adter allowing degradation
to proceed for 21 days.
Poorly soluble and insoluble materials present special
problems in biodegradability tests. Insoluble materials should
be dispersed into the systems using a minimal volume of organic
solvent if solvent is necessary.
117
-------
(. a) Method Description
Microorganisms are inoculated into flasks that contain
a well-defined microbial growth medium (basal medium) and the
test compound. Aeration is accomplished by continuous shaking
of the flask. Following four adaptive transfers, biodegra-
dation is determined by measuring the reduction (if any) in
V.
concentration of bioaccumulative species at the end of the test:
period.
( b) Basal Medium
The composition of the basal medium shall be as follows.
o Water: High-quality (ASTM Type II or better, ASTM,
1974) water, from a block tin or an all-glass still, containing
less than 1 mg/1 total organic carbon (TOG).
Phosphate Buffer Solution: Dissolve 8.5 g potassium
dihydrogen phosphate, KK^PC^; 21.75 g dipotassium hydrogen
phosphate, K2HPC>4; 33.4 g disodium hydrogen phosphate
heptahydrate, Na2HP04*7H20; and 10 g ammonium chloride,
NH4C1, in about 500 ml of distilled water and dilute to 1 1.
Magesium sulfate solution: Dissolve 22.5 g MgS04*7H2O
in distilled water and dilute to 1 1.
Calcium Chloride Solution: Dissolve 27.5 g anhydrous
Cacl2 in distilled water and dilute to 1 1.
Ferric Chloride Solution: Dissolve 0.25 g FeCl3*6H2o
in distilled water and dilute to 1 1.
118
-------
Trace Element Solution: Dissolve 39.9 mg
57.2 mg H3B03/ 42.8 mg ZnS04'7H2O and 34.7 mg (NH4)6Mo7024
in distilled water and dilute to 1 1.
Yeast Extract Solution: Dissolve 15 mg of Difco yeast
extract in 100 ml distilled water. Prepare immediately
before use.
To each liter of water add 1 ml of each above solution
except the yeast extract solution. Dispense in 500 ml or
1000 ml portions into 1-liter or 2-liter narrow mouth
Erlenmeyer flasks. Stopper the flasks with cotton plugs or
the eqivalent to reduce evaporation and contamination. Flasks
and contents that will not be used on the day of preparation
shall be sterilized by autoclaving at 120°C for 20 minutes.
Immediately before use, 1 ml of yeast extract solution shall
be added to each flask.
( c) Microbial Culture
The microbial culture used as the initial inoculum shall
be prepared as follows:
Secondary Effluent Culture: Obtain a sample of
secondary effluent of good quality from a sewage treatment
plant dealing with a predominantly domestic sewage. Filter
through a glass wool pad. Retain the filtrate.
Soil Culture: Obtain 100 g of garden soil (not sterile)
l,ter
and suspend it in 1 /s of chlorine-free tap water. Do not
sue soils that are largely clay, sand, or humus. Stir the
suspension to thoroughly mix the contents and to break up
any clumps. Allow thesolids to settle for 30 minutes.
119
-------
Filter through a glass wool pad. Retail the filtrate.
Mixed Culture Inoculum: Mix 100 ml of secondary
effluent filtrate with 50 ml of soil suspension filtrate and
use to inculate the shake flasks within 24 hours of the time
of collection of the secondary effluent and soil.
( d) Linear Alkylate Sulfonate (LAS); Obtain a sample
t:,
of LAS (Standard LAS may be obtained from the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency; Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory; Cincinnati/ Ohio 45268.) or n-dodecyl
benzene sulfonate, sodium salt. Based on the percent of
active LAS in the sample, calculate the quantity required to
provide 25mg of organic carbon. For 100% sodium n-dodecyl
benzene sulfonate this value is 40.3 mg.
( e) Test Mixture; Calculate the quantity of test
mixture which will supply 25 mg of organic carbon. If the
test mixture is readily soluble in water, it may be more
convenient to prepare a solution in distilled water con-
taining 25 mg of organic carbon per ml of solution.
( f) Procedure;
A. Add sufficient test compound (or a solution as
described above) to a test flask, containing basal medium, so
that the test compound provides 25 mg of organic carbon per
liter of basal medium.
B. Add sufficient LAS to a control flask to provide 25 mg
of organic carbon per liter of basal medium.
120
-------
C. Using the mixed microbial inoculum, inoculate flask
with 1 ml of inoculum per liter of basal medium.
D. Place the flask on a reciprocating shaker operating
at about 128 two-to four-inch strokes per minute or, a
gyratory shaker operating at 225 to 250 one-to two-inch re-
volutions per minute. Incubate in the dark at 22±.3°C.
E. Adaptation: The first flask (as described above)
normally will be prepared on a Tuesday. Adaptive transfers
shall be made on the following Friday and again on Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday of the following week. This schedule
is set up for the convenience of laboratories not operating
on weekends. On each transfer day, transfer 1 ml of the 48-
to 72-hour culture into each liter of fresh basal medium,
plus test compound, and basal medium plus reference compound.
Growth of culture within each flask will-be-Indicated —
by an increasingly hazy or cloudy appearance in the liquid
medium and also may be indicated by the deposit of microbial
cellular matter along the upper walls of the shake flasks,
at the "high water" mark. If the test medium stays clear in
the test mixture flask, this may indicate that the test
compound is present at a toxic or an inhibitory concentration.
In this case, the test procedures should be restarted with
the test compound at a lower concentration. If both the
test compound and control flasks remain unclouded, it may
indicate a defective inoculum or the possibility that "some
other toxic material was introduced inadvertently.
121
-------
F. On the thirteenth day following the initial inoculation,
and approximately 72 hours after the final adaptive transfer,
another transfer shall be made into the test flasks. The
procedure is the same as for the adaptive transfers, except
that there now will be duplicate preparations for controls
and test flasks. There also will be two flasks with basal
medium plus test compound but with no inoculum.
G. Following the transfer of inoculum from blank to blanks
and test flask to test flask, the flasks shall be incubated
for 21 days. At the end of the incubation period the contents
of the blank and test flask shall be analyzed.
H. Homogenize the material in the flask to be analyzed
and remove an aligust sufficient to contain the same amount of
waste extract as used in the original evaluation of the waste
using the partition coefficient-test.•-
I. Evaluate the sample as described in the Bioaccumulation
Potential Test Appendix IV If a positive result is obtained
then the waste is considered to be a hazardous waste. If after
analyzing the blanks, a positive result in the BPT is not
obtained then the assay for persistence is invalid and must be
rerun.
122
-------
Appendix VI
Daphnia Magna Reproduction Assay
(a) Method
(1) Tests are run at only one dilution of the neutralized
extract.
(2) First instar £. magna, 12 hours + 12 hours old are
utilized.
(3) One D. magna is placed in 50 ml of extract solution
in a 100 ml glass beaker with a watch glass.
(4) Temperature is maintained at 20.0 + 0.5°C in an
environmental chamber under 12-hour light/dark
lighting regime.
(5) Dilution water is either filtered spring or well
water (pH 7.8; alkalinity, 119 mg/1; hardness, 140
mg/1).
(6) All tests are run with ten replicates, and a set
of ten controls. Test organisms are transferred
to freshly prepared test solution in clear beakers
•
and fed two ml of prepared food every Monday, Wednesday,
and Friday, and the number of young in each beaker
are counted.
(7) Test duration is 28 days or until all animals have
died, whichever comes first.
(b) Handling
(1) Organisms should be handled as little as possible.
123
-------
(2) Smooth glass tubes with rubber bulbs should be used
for transferring daphnids.
(3) Food should be added to freshly prepared test
solution in 100 ml beakers before animals are
transferred.
(c) Food
(1) Food mixture of 1 mg/ml per animal used.
(2) 1 mg/ml preparation:
(i) Enough Ralston Purina Micro-Mixed Trout
Chow is ground and then mixed at high
speed with distilled water in a blender
to produce 10 mg/ml concentration.
(ii) The mixture is then screened to remove
unground particles, and refrigerated.
(iii) The mixture is diluted with distilled
water to 1 mg/ml when needed.
(d) Results
Comment is specifically requested concerning what bio-
logical measures to use in defining a significant change
•
't '
growth or reproduction. Currently under study are the
following indicators:
1. Average survival time during test period (days) .
2. Average age at first brood release (days).
3. Average number of broods of young per adult.
4. Average number of young produced per adult.
5. Average number of young per brood.
124
-------
Appendix vil
Terrestrial Plant Assays
(a) Seed Germination Bioassay Protocol
(1) Seeds (radish, Raphanus sativus 'Early Scarlet Globe1)
sieved to reduce germination and growth variability.
Mesh size: 2.36 mm, 2.00 mm, 1.70 mm (U.S.A. stand-
ard testing sieves). One size category used per
bioassay.
(2) 100 ml extract solution diluted 1:10 put in chamber
(Figure 2), blotter paper placed upright to absorb
solution.
(3) 150 radish seeds placed in position; saturated paper
laid over them and gently pressed until impression
seen.
(4) Second Plexiglas sheet positioned so seeds and
blotter paper sandwiched between; Plexiglas taped
securely on sides and top (see Figure 2).
(5) Unit then put in germination chamber.
(6) Environmental chamber (temperature 25* C, no ilium-
*'
ination) houses germination chamber for 48 hrs.
(7) Length of hypocotyl measure after incubation.
(8) Standard T-test used to compare dosed seeds to
control.
125
-------
(b) Seedling Growth Study Protocols
(1) Seedling growth studies are run using wheat
(Triticum aestivum) and soybean (Glycine max) .
(2) The seeds are soaked for approximately 3 hours in
deionized water.
(3) 200 ml of soluble plant food with trace elements
(1 tblsp per gal water) is added to approximately
one liter of sand (acid-washed quartz sand to pass
60 mesh sieve, leached by triple rinse in distilled
water) in which the seeds are planted, 25 soybean
and 50 wheat seeds per container.
(4) When the seeds have sprouted (about 72 hrs) the
extract diluted 1:10 is added in droplets. Constant
pressure is applied via compressed air tank to test:
solution in a plastic bottle. Solution is forced
through tygon tubing to a polyethylene nozzle
(inverted buchner funnel) . The volume is regulated
with a screw clamp adjusted to a flow rate of 6
ml/sec. This design is simple and disposable or
acid washable in order to assure ready availability
of component parts which are easily cleaned between
test runs.
(5) Seedlings are exposed daily to a dose sufficient
to restore loss by evapotranspiration.
126
-------
(6) At the end of 2 weeks of exposure, plants are
harvested and the following parameters are measured:
(i) root biomass
(ii) shoot biomass
(iii) gross pathology (i.e., necrosis, chlorosis)
(c) Results
Comments are specifically requested concerning the sig-
nificance of these indicators as measures of damage.
127
-------
Figure 2
COVER
INDENTATION
FOR SEEDS
SEED
BLOTTER PAPER
PLEXIGLAS
PLEXIGLAS
TROUGH
LEACHATE
128
-------
Appendix VIII
Demonstration of Non-Inclusion in the
Hazardous Waste System
(a) Any person wishing to demonstrate to EPA that a solid
waste from an individual facility, whose waste is listed in
Section 250.14(a) or (b), is not a hazardous waste may do so
by performing the tests described below on a representative
sample of the waste for those characteristics or properties
indicated by the codes (i,e., (I), (C), (R), (N), (T), (A),
(O), CM) , (B)) following the waste listing. A certification
of the test results shall be submitted to the EPA Administra-
tor by certified mail with return receipt requested. The
results of the tests must show the waste is non-hazardous
for each characteristic or property indicated.
(1) Waste designated as ignitable (I) must be shown by
the Section 250.13(a) ignitable characteristic method
not to meet the Section 250.13(a) definition.
(2) Waste designated as corrosive (C) must be shown
by the Section 250.13(b) corrosive characteristic
method not to meet the Section 250.13 (b) definition.
(3) Waste designated as reactive (R) must be shown by
the Section 250.13(c) reactive characteristic method
not to meet the Section 250.13 to) definition.
(4) Waste designated as toxic (T) must be shown by
the Section 250.13(d) toxic characteristic method
not to meet the Section 250.13 (d) definition.
(5) Waste designated as radioactive (A) must be
shown to have either of the following properties:
129
-------
(i) An average radium-226 concentration less
than 5 picocuries per gram for solid waste or
50 picocuries (radium-226 and radium-228 combined)
per liter for liquid waste as determined by
either of the methods cited in Appendix VIII
of this Subpart; or
(ii) A total radium-226 activity less than
10 microcuries for any single discrete source.
(6) Waste designated as mutagenic (M), bioaccumula-
tive (B), or toxic organic (O) must be shewn to have
an Extraction Procedure extract (see Section 250.13(<2) (2))
with none of the following properties:
(i) Mutagenic (M) : Contains more than one mg/liter
of any compound on the Controlled Substances List
in Appendix IX of this Subpart or gives a positive
response in any one of a set of required tests for
mutagenic activity. A total of three assays must
be conducted. One shall be chosen from group I,
one from group II, and one from those listed in
group III. Test protocols are defined in
Appendix X of this Subpart.
Group I Detection of gene mutations
1. Point mutation in bacteria.
Group II Detection of gene mutations
1. Mammalian somatic cells in
culture.
2. Fungal microorganisms.
130
-------
Group III Detecting effects of DNA repair or
recombination as an indication of
genetic damage
1. DNA repair in bacteria (including
differential killing of repair
defective strains).
2. Unscheduled DNA synthesis in human
diploid cells.
3. Sister-chromatid exchange in
mammalian cells.
4. Mitotic recombination and/or gene
conversion in yeast.
(ii) Bioaccumulative (B): Gives a positive result
in the Bioaccumulation Potential Test, defined in
Appendix XI of this Subpart; •---•-..
131
-------
(ill) Toxic Organic (O }: Contains any organic
substance which has a calculated human LD50* of
less than 800 nig/kg, at a concentration in mg/1
greater than or equal to 0.35 times its LD50
expressed in units of mg/kg. For purposes of
this Subpart, metallic salts of organic acids
containing 3 or fewer carbon atoms are considered
not to be organic substances.
"Procedure for Calculating Human LD50 Value:
The LD50 value to be used will be that for oral exposure
to rats. Where a value for the rat is not available/ mouse
oral LD50 data may be employed. Where an appropriate LD50
value for the rat or mouse is listed in the NIOSH Registry
of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances ("Registry"), this
value may be used without validation.If other values are
used, they must be supported by specific and verified labora-
tory reports. The appropriate conversion factors to use in
calculating LDSOs are:
Rat x .16 = human
Mouse x .066 = human
Example: Tetraethylenepentaraine
Listed oral rat LD50 is 3990 mg/kg
calculated human LD50 is 3990 x 0.16
= 638 mg/kg; 638 x 0.35 = 223 mg/1
Thus if the EP extract contains more
than 223 mg/1 of tetraethylenepentamine
the waste is hazardous.
132
-------
-------
BD-5
DRAFT
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
SECTION 3001 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE
SECTION 250.14 - HAZARDOUS WASTE LISTS
DECEMBER 15, 1978
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
-------
This document provides background information and
support for regulations which have been designed to identify
and list hazardous waste pursuant to Section 3001 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. It is being
made available as a draft to support the proposed regulations.
As new information is obtained, changes may be made in the
background information and used as support for the regulations
when promulgated.
This document was first drafted many months ago and has
been revised to reflect information received and Agency
decisions made since then. EPA made some changes in the
proposed regulations shortly before their publication in the
Federal Register. We have tried to ensure that all of those
Decisions are reflected in this document. If there are any
inconsistencies between the proposal (the preamble and the
regulation) and this background document, however, the
Proposal is controlling.
Comments in writing may be made to:
Alan S. Corson
Hazardous Waste Management Division (WH-565)
Office of Solid Waste
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
Waste Listing Background Document
Introduction
Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended
by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 referred
to herein as (Pub. L. 94-580 or") the "Act" , creates a regulatory
framework to control hazardous waste. Congress has found
that such waste presents "special dangers to health and
requires a greater degree of regulation than does non-hazardous
solid waste" (Section 1002 (b)(5) of the Act).
This rule is one of a series of seven being developed
and proposed under Subtitle C to implement the hazardous
waste management program. It is important to note that
the definition of solid waste (Section 1004(27) of the Act)
encompasses garbage, refuse, sludges, and other discarded
materials including liquids, semi-solids, and contained gases
(with a few exceptions) from both municipal and industrial
sources. Hazardous wastes, which are a sub-set of all solid
wastes and which will be defined by regulations under
Section 3001 of the Act, are those which have particularly
significant impacts on public health and the environment.
*
Subtitle C creates a management control system which,
*~r those wastes defined as hazardous, requires "cradle-
-------
-2-
to-grave" cognizance including appropriate monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting throughout the system.
Section 3001 of the Act requires EPA to define criteria
and methods for identifying and listing hazardous wastes.
Those wastes which are identified as hazardous by these
means are then included in the management control system
constructed under Sections 3002 - 3006 and 3010. Those
that are excluded will be subject to the requirements for
non-hazardous solid waste being carried out by States
under subtitle D under which open dumping is prohibited
and environmentally acceptable practices are required.
Section 1004(5) defines a hazardous waste as that
which may -
"(A) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase
in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible,
or incapacitating reversible, illness; or
(B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to
human health or the environment when improperly treated
stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise
managed."
• Section 3001(b) requires EPA to promulgate regulations
identifying those characteristics of hazardous waste and
to list particular hazardous wastes.
1
-------
-3-
The Problem
The purpose of the hazardous waste list as required
by Section 3001 of the Act is to identify those wastes
which present a hazard to human health and the environment,
The wastes so identified are considered hazardous (unless
demonstrated otherwise as specified in Section 250.15 of
the proposed regulation) and subject to the Subtitle C
regulations. A solid waste, or source or class of solid
waste is listed if the waste:
(1) possesses any of the characteristics
identified in proposed 40 CFR S250.13,
and/or
(2) meets the statutory definition of
hazardous waste: "The term 'hazardous
waste1 means a solid waste, or
combination of solid wastes, which
because of its quantity, concentration,
or physical, chemical, or infectious
characteristics may-
: *(A) cause, or significantly
contribute to an increase in mortality
or an increase in serious irreversible,
or incapacitating reversible, illness; or
• ~(B) pose a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the
-------
-4-
environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, or disposed of,
or otherwise managed."
As may be noted, one branch of the statutory definition
of hazardous waste relies on judgments of the overall character
and risk of the waste when improperly managed. Over the
past several years, EPA has documented several hundred cases
of damage to human health or the environment resulting from
improper management of waste. Damage cases such as these
can be, and in many cases have been, used as the basis for
listing of certain hazardous waste.
i
fhe agency considered several approaches for formulating
the list. The approaches can be broken down into three
main types:
o Substance Lists (such as dioxin, beta
5 — ••'
napthalamine, etc.)
o Process Waste Stream Lists (these can ranqe
from the very specific: e.g. 1,1 - dichlorV-
ethylene distillation residues, to the
more general', e.g. chlorinated organic
distillation residues, to the very broad-
e.g. chlorinated solvents).
-------
-5-
o Chemical Class Lists (these can range from
the specific: e.g. polynuclear aromatic,
to the more general: e.g. alkylating agents).
Testing of pure substances or commercial products is
the traditional approach used by regulatory agencies which
control these pure substances or commercial products. The
purpose of the Act, however, is to control waste materials.
These are not normally pure substances (except in the case
of spoiled or contaminated batches). Wastes may come from
several stages within a production process, or a plant may
mix wastes from several processes prior to deposition.
Pure substance listings work well for many agencies,
since their responsibilities lie with some aspect of the
pure substance. The Department of Transportation, (DOT)
for example, uses this approach. Benzene, is listed by
DOT as a flammable liquid. A transporter knows, after
consulting the DOT listing, that benzene must be handled
according to the DOT flammable liquid regulations. Benzene,
however, is rarely disposed as benzene. Rather, it might
be contained in still bottoms or heavy ends.
In order for a regulation to be effective, it should b*
structured so that it reflects the organization of the regulated
community. Since waste process streams are often the units
-------
-6-
of the solid waste regulated by the Act, these same waste
process streams can be used to provide a ready means of
identification.
. c
v. -It is more informative (for identification purposes)
to list "still bottoms from XYZ process - flammable" than
it would to list "benzene - flammable". Likewise, there
are certain waste classes, such as chlorinated solvents
which, if classified as wastes, could be unambiguously
identified by such a designation. If these classes also
meet the criteria" T for listing then the
classes have also been included.
Finally, there are certain pure substances selected for
listing, but only for those cases where the substance
(or container) is being discarded. (This includes spin
clean-up debris or material from any of the tested
substances.) The pure substances on the list were chosen
from the DOT poison A, poison B and ORM-A lists, the priority
pollutants, and the cancelled and selected RPAR pesticides
Those compounds which are included by the hazardous waste
characteristics in Section 250.13 of the proposed
or
regulation ^regulated by the Agency under other authority
were not included; similarly the three lists were screened
-------
-7-
to minimize duplication.
For background information concerning the listed
wastes the Agency is relying on several sources of data.
These include industry studies undertaken by the Agency/
damage incidents compiled by the Agency, and waste infor-
mation compiled by State Agencies. Most of these sources
^
give information concerning the chemical and physical
properties of the wastes and the identity and sometimes
concentration of the constituents of the wastes. For the
ignitable, reactive and corrosive characteristics, this
information is adequate to assess, with high degree of
certainty, that the waste stream will meet the 3001
characteristics and thus pose a hazard to the public
health and the environment.
For toxicity, however, the situation is much more
complex. As has been discussed in the Section 3001 preamble
to the regulation and in the toxicity background document,
the Agency is not so much concerned about the concentration
and identity of the toxic constituents in the waste as it
is about the identity and concentration of the toxic
constituents which might be expected to be available to
the environment under improper management conditions. The
-------
-8-
primary pathway by which toxics are made available to
the environment is through leachate and run-off under
storage and disposal conditions. The specific identity
and concentration of the toxics found in the leachate
or run-off is highly dependent upon the conditions of
storage and disposal/ as well as climatological and other
such factors. In fact, these can only be precisely assessed
empirically (i.e. the exact conditions (which may vary
widely) must be reproduced and the leachate and run-off
continually analyzed); any other type of assessment is
only an approximation.
Therefore, it is not possible to determine with
absolute certainty from the qualitative and quantitative
information available whether the wastes will leach
toxic contaminants under actual waste management conditions
or in some cases, even if they will fail the toxicity
characteristic . However, the Agency does have evidence
to indicate that industrial wastes as presently managed
and disposed often leach into and contaminate the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report indicated
that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial
waste diposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
-------
-9-
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of
the sites and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more
monitoring wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even
after taking into account the upstream (beyond the site)
groundwater concentrations/
Geraghty and Miller also found that, in a majority of
the 50 sites examined, organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. (Specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
however, other incidents and reports (2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater.)
Since leaching can only confidently be assessed
empirically and because this work gives empirical evidence
that most industrial sites do leach toxic, mutagenic or
carcinogenic substances in substantial quantities, the
II
-------
-10-
Agency has used these source documents so that if they
indicate a particular waste has high concentrations of
toxic, mutagenic or carcenogenic constituents, the
waste was listed as hazardous. (This assumes that the
toxicants will be released if the waste is improperly
managed.)
II
-------
IS
The following discussions of each of the wastes l««Ated in Section 250.14
of the Act will seem repetitious if read together. The discussions
were organized so that each separate one could be read separately
without reference to the other listings.
ft
-------
General References
(1) "The Prevalence of Subsurface Migration of Hazardous Chemical
Substances at selected Industrial Waste Disposal Sites", Geraghty
and Miller, SW-634, Office of Solid Waste, USEPA, 1978.
(2) "Hazardous Waste Disposal Damage Report", SW-151.2, Office of
Solid Waste, USEPA 1977
(3) "Hazardous Wastes in Landfill Sites" Dept of the Environment.
Great Britain ISBN 0 11 751257 5.
(4) "Effects of Disposal of Industrial Waste within a Sanitary Landfill
Environment" D.R. Streng-Residual Management by Land Disposal
EPA - 600/9 76-015.
(5) "Problems Associated with the Land Disposal of an Organic Industrial
Waste Containing HCB" W.J. Farmer et. al, ibid.
(6) "Pilot-Scale Studies of the Leaching of Industrial Wastes in'
Simulated Landfills' Jr. R. Newton - Water Pollution Control,
468, (1977)
(7) Great Britain, Department of Environment, NATO/CCMS, Report on
landfill Research and Practice.
"Effect pf pH on Removal of Heavy Metals from Leachate by
Clay Minerals" - R.A. Griffin et. al, ibid.
-------
Waste chlorinated hydrocarbons from degreasing
operations (I,T,Q)
.This waste is classified as hazardous because of' its
ignitable and toxic characteristic. According to the informatioa
EPA has on this waste stream it meets the RCRA §250.13a and
§250.13d characteristics identifying ignitable and toxic waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
«*«ora Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
* " Special Machinery Manufacturing
256-981 Contract # 68-01-3193 Mar '77
-------
TABLE 'I'
LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF DEGREASER SOLVENT SAMPLES
FROM SIC 355 MACHINE SHOPS
Sample
"1
13.2
11.8
5.5
6.0
Water
93
<0.2
Flash
Point
No
Flash
27(1)
(81)
Heave Metals Concentration, ppm
Cd
0.02
0.06
Cr .
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.04
Cu
2.8
1.4
1.1
0.2
Fe
55
20
40
1.0
Pb
1.2
1.0
1.3
4.0
Zn
3.6
1.6
3.0
As Received
As Water Leached
Ae Received
As Water Leached
1 This is the flash point of a solvent which accounted for about 55 percent of the sample; trichloro-
ethylene, which made up the balances of the sample, does not flash.
2
This is within margin of error of analysis oiethod.
Source:
W,apora, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practices - Special Machinery Manufacturing
Industries PB 256-981 Contract # 68-01-3193 Mar '77
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking r.~ater regulations
(NIPDWF.) set limits for chemical cor.tair.inati.on of Drinking VTat
I
The 'substances listed represent hazards to human health.
In arriving at these specific -limits, the total environ-
mental exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has
been considered. (For a complete treatment of the data
and reasoning used in choosing the substances and specified
limits please refer to the NIPDWF. Appendix A-C
.Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminents is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminate, the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected en-site industrial waste
disposal sites, toxic heavy metals had migrated from, the disposal
sites "in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 6C% of the sites.
• At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic
riadmiuia etc.) in the groundwater from one cr more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water liniit.s (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyor.d the site) ground vreter
concentrations) .
-------
Gerhity and Miller"" also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of th^ ground-water
above background levels was observed. In 28 C56S) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal .
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identifi-
cation of these organics was not always undertaken, in. t-fris
work, (other incidents and reports 2 through. S <3o c^ualitativd
identify leached organic contaminants in gronndwater) it
certainly serves to demonstrate that organic contamination
of groundvater frequently results from industrial waste
disposal. Since the Administrator has determined "that th
•presence in drinking water of chloroform and other trihala
-and synthetic organic chemicals may have an. adverse effect
the health of persons..."* and, as noted above, because mt
drinking water finds its source as groundwater, the preseni
of available toxic organics in waste as a critical factor;
determining if a waste presents a hazard when ntartaged. (Pi
a discussion of how the toxicity and concentration of orga
contaminants in waste are considered in the hazard determi
tion see Toxicity background document.)
-------
Because of the toxic inorganics and organics which may be in this
waste/ and the potential of these to migrate as explained above.
And because- of the potential flammability of this waste, this
waste is hazardous.
-------
VTas.te non-halo-genated solvent (such as nothanol,
acetone, isopropyl alcohol, polyvinyl alcohol,
stodcard solvent ar.d methyl ethyl ketone) and
solvent sludges fron cleaning, compounding mill- . .
iitg and other processes (I/O)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its
at\
-------
•As is evident from above this waste stream has a flash
o \
point:of 14C0F or below. Ignitables with flash poxnts less
than'140°F can become a problem while they are landfilled.
During and after the disposal of an ignitable waste, there
are many available external and internal energy sources
which can provide an impetus for combustion, raising
temperatures of waste to their flash points. Disposal of
ignitable wastes may result in fire that will cause damage directly
from heat and smoke production or may provide a vector
by which other hazardous waste can be dispersed.
Ignitable waste tend to be highly volatile and the
evaporation of these volatiles contribute to poor air quality.
(Refer to ignitability background document for further
detail). „.-,•.'..,.
The following examples of such wastes have been described in
*
The Handbook of Industrial Waste Composition in California-1978;
I* semiconductor manufacture solvent containing
20% toluene, 50% isopropyl alcohol, 10% xylene,
10% methyl ethyl ketone, and 10% tetra ethyl ketone
3.- wash solvents containing 5% freon TE, 5% freon
TF, 1% isopropyl alcohol, 2% acetone, 10% methyl
ethyl ketone, and 10% paint thinner.
D Handbook of Industrial Waste Composition in California 1978
'^California Department of Health.
^\
-------
3. semi conductor wash solvent containing 60-80%
alcohol, J-100, xylene, hexamethyl disilazane,
bu±ylalcohol, acetone, and water
wash solvents containing 30% freon TMS, 10%
«
acetone, and 10% alcohol
'5; v;ash solvent containing 25% water, 30% VG-solvent,
20% alcohol, and 25% J-100 stripper
2000 gal
* cleaning solvent containing 30% "photo material",
15% freon X, 15% acetone, 10% solder oil,
10% MC955, and 20% Trico III (2-propanol)'
VX.
-------
A primary exposure route to the public for -toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater- EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach •.«• into and contaminate. • the
T.
groundwater. The Gerhity and Miller report indicated, that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial, waste dis-
posal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and
that these heavy metals had migrated frora the disposal, sites
in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides
were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from, one or more monitoring
Wells 'exceeded EPA drinking water limits (event after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations)..
- . Gerhity and Miller also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the> groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identifi-
cation of these organics was not always undertaken in this
work, (other incidents and reports 2 through 8 do qualitatively
identify leached organic contaminants in groundwater} it
certainly serves to demonstrate that organic contamination,
of groundwater frequently results from industrial' waste
-------
disposal. Since the Administrator has determined r ' .iat the
•presence in drinking water of chloroform and other trilisiloraethanes
and synthetic organic chemicals may have an adverse effect on
the health of persons..."* and, as noted above, because much
drinking water finds its source as groundwatex, the presence
of available toxic organics in waste as a critical factor in.
determining if a waste presents a hazard when managed. (Foir
a -discussion of how the toxicity and concentration of organic
contaminants in waste are considered in the hazard detencina—
tion see Toxicity background document.)
Because of the toxicity of many of the organics (e.g.
acetone, paint thinners, strippers) listed above and the toxicity
of other non-halogenated organic solvents, and the potential of
these to migrate, this waste is hazardous.
-------
Waste lubricating oil (T,0)
This, waste is classified as hazardous because of' its
\
ignitable and toxic characteristic. According to the information
EPA has on this waste stream it meets the RCRA §250.13a and
§250.13d characteristics identifying ignitable and toxic waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
Lubricating oils are similiar to hydraulic oils and may likewise
be contaminated with toxic heavy metals(see section "Hydraulic
or cutting oil waste" this document) . Also these may contain
toxic organic additives- and contaminants s.a. phenols.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Crater P.eg-o.
3WFO set limits for chemical contamination of ft finking vrate^.
i • V
The substances listed represent hazards to human hJaltii.
In arriving at these specific -limits, the total environ—
Cental exposure of man'to a stated specific toxicant has'
been considered. (For a complete treatment of the data
and reasoning used in choosing the substances and specified
limits please refer to the NIPDWF. Appendix A-C
•'.Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 -'76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. .A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwator. EPA, has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaroincCtc the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected en-site industrial vaste
disposal sites, toxic heavy metals had migrated froci the disposal
sites'in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides vere found to be present at 74% of the sites? and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
• At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic
' -ca.dir.iuia etc.) in the groundwater from one cr more ir.onitorir.g
veils exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after tskincr
into account the upstream (beyond the site) grouncTvrater
concentrations).
-------
Gerhity and Miller also found that in. a. xaajoritry or
fifty sites examined organic contamination o£ tih^ grotindwatercr
above background levels was observed. In 22 C56^> "of tliese-
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waster disposal.
were observed in the groundwater. While specific iderttifi—
cation of these organics was not always undertaJcen In.
vork, (other incidents and reports 2 through. S <3o
identify leached organic contaminants in grotmolwater} £
certainly serves to demonstrate that organic coataminatLort
of groundvrater frequently results from industrial v
disposal. Since the Administrator has deterctizieci ^
* • • . •
•presence in. drinking water of chloroform, and oth.es:
and synthetic organic chemicals may have -an, adverse; effect: orx
•the health of persons..."* and, as noted ahove> because ruach.
drinking v;ater finds its source as groundwaterv thes presence
of available toxic organics in waste as a critical factor1 in
determining if a waste presents, a hazard %x7hen, xcraiiagecl« CS^oor
a discussion of how the toxicity and concentration, of organic
contaminants in waste are considered in the IiazarcL cLetensina.—
tion see Toxicity background document.)
-------
Beoause of the toxic inorganics and organics which may be in. this
waste, and the potential of these to migrate as explained above.
waste is hazardous.
-------
I* T
6
Vlaste hydraulic or cutting oil (T>0)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its
toxic characteristic. According to the information EPA has
on this waste stream it meets the RCRA §250.13d
characteristic identifying toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
Data
Lapping compound mineral seal oil based
Contaminant Cone, mg/1
Cd 0.30
Cu 2,570.0
Fe 105.0
Pb 73.0
Zn 458.0
Lapping compound kerosene base
f.p. = 128*F
Contaminants Cone, mcr/1
Pb 0.5
Fe 270.0
Also these oils may contain toxic organic additives and
contaminents ,such as phenols,bactericides and chlorinated
organics.
The data presented are available from:
Wapora, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practices - Special Machinery Manufacturing
"industries PB 256-981 Contract £ 68-01-3193 Mar '77
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking vrater Regulations
.(KIPDWF.) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human hJalth.
In arriving at these specific -limits, the total environ-
mental exposure of man'to a stated specific toxicant has'
been considered. (For a complete treatment of the data
and reasoning used in choosing the substances and specified
limits please refer to the NIPDWF. Appendix A-C
''.Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toscic
contarainents is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently-
managed and disposed often leach into and contaEiincxuL
groundx*ater. The Geraghfcy and Miller report indicated
in 98% of 50 randoialy selected en-site industrial vaste
disposal sites, toxic heavy metals had migrated from the disposal
sites*in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
• At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic
•cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one cr nore son
veils exceeded EPA drinking water lin-its (even after
into account the upstream (beyond the site) grour.dvrater
concentrations) .
-------
Gerhity and Miller also found that in. a majority o£
fifty sites examined organic contamination of
^
above background levels was observed. In 28 C5o4> of; tnese-
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waster disposal. .
were observed in the groundwater. While specifics identifi-
cation of these organics was not always undertaken, in. E^^S,
work, (other incidents and reports 2 through, ff clo qualitatively*
identify leached organic contaminants in grotmoVwater} it
certainly serves to demonstrate that organic contamination,
of. groundwater frequently results front industrial v/aste
disposal. Since the Administrator has determined, *-t!iat
-presence in drinking water of chloroform and other
and synthetic organic chemicals may have an. adverse^ effect on.
the health of persons..."* and, as noted above-, because mach.
drinking vrater finds its source as groundwater;^ tb.es presence
of available toxic organics in waste as a critical, factor- izr
determining if a waste presents a hazard .when, roanasea.- (Far-
a discussion of how the toxicity and: concentration, o£ organic
contaminants in waste are considered in the- Iiazard. determina-
tion see Toxicity background document.)
-------
Because of the toxic inorganics and organics which may- be in. this
waste, and the potential of these to migrate as explained above-.
waste is hazardous.
31-
-------
Paint wastes (such as used rags, slops, latex •
sludge/ spent solvent) (T,I,O)
This waste is classified as hazardous because ot its
ignitable and toxic characteristic. According to the information
EPA has on this waste stream it meets the RCRA §250.13a and
§250.13d characteristics identifying ignitable and toxic waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
(1) Wapora Inc. has tested a sample of lacquer equipment
clean-up waste acetone base and drip varnishing equipment clean-
up waste/ xylene base and found the following:
(Acetone based lacquer equipment cleanup wastes)
contaminant cone. mg/1
Pb 178.00
f .p = 70°F
(xylene base drip varnishing equipment clean-up waste)
contaminant cone. mg/1
Cr 390.00
Cu 37.00
Fe 360.00
Pb 582.00
Zn 1996.00
f.p = 80-100°F
The data presented are available from:
Wapora. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices:
Paint and Allied Products Industry, Contract Solvent Reclaiming
Operations, and Factory Application of Coatings. OSW. PB - 251
699. 1976.
j ~
-------
As is evident from above this waste stream has a flash
point of below 140°F. Ignitables with flash points less than
140°F can become a problem while they are landfilled.
During and after the disposal of an ignitable waste, there are
many available external and internal energy sources which can
provide an impetus for combustion, raising temperatures of waste
to their flash points. Disposal of ignitable wastes may result
in fire that will cause damage directly from heat and smoke
production or may provide a vector by which hazardous substances
can be dispersed.
Ignitable waste tend to be highly volatile and the evaporation
e
of volatiles themselves contribut- • to poor air quality. (Refer
to.ignitability background document for further detail).
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water
The substances listed represented hazard to human health. in.
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental exposur
of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a
complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing th
substances and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR
Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminent
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds it source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate th
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leach
into and comtaminents the groundwater. The Geraghty and Milie
report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found *
-------
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead mercury, selenium,
and silver are toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at concentrations
of 0.05, 1.00, 0.010. 0.05, 0.05, 0.002, 0.01, and 0.05, mg/1
respectively because of their toxicity. As explained in the RCRA
toxicity background documents these concentrations convert to
0.5, 10.0, 0.1, 0.5, 0.5, 0.02, 0.01, and 0.5, mg/1 respectively
in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain chromium and lead at
concentrations of 390.0 and 582.0 mg/1 respectively, according to
PB - 251 - 669, Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices:
Paint and Allied Products Industry, Contract Solvent Reclamining
Operations, and Factory Application of Coatings.
Also the "Handbook of Industrial Waste Compositions in
California" - 1978 (Reference 9) indicated the fol^ojlng composi-
tions for these types wastes:
-------
California manifest (Ref. 9, p. 40)
equipment cleaning solvent and paint sludge
containing 90% pigments, 3% water, and 7%
alcohols, aromatics, and aliphatic hydrocarbons,
ketones
California manifest (Ref. 9, p. 40)
solvent and paint sludge containing 62%
aromatic hydrocarbons, 32% epoxy resins,
6% urea - formaldehyde
California manifest (Ref. 9, p. 41)
solvent and paint sludge containing 0-30% ketones,
0-4% polymer alkyd acrylic resin, 0-40% aliphatic
and aromatis hydrocarbons, 25-45% extenders and
inert organic solids, & Ti 02
California manifest (Ref. 9, p. 41)
waste solvent containing 0.1 - 12% cobalt salts,
0.1 - 9% manganese salts, and 0.1 - 12% zirconium
naphenic acid
California manifest (Ref. 9, p. 10)
waste cleaning solvent containing 50%
naphtha and 50% acetone
-------
California manifest (Ref. 9, p. 10)
waste solvent containing toluene, methyl
ethylketone, acetone; and xylene
California manifest (Ref. 9, p. 40)
solvent and paint sludge containing 2%
methylethyl ketone and NaOH
California manifest (Ref. 9, p. 40)
waste solvent containing 30% acetone/
20% isophorone, and 20% ethyl amyl
ketone
California manifest (Ref. 9, p. 40)
paint sludge containing 10% cuprous oxide, 2.5%
iron oxide, 2.5% lead pigment, 0.5% chromium
pigment, 10% titanium pigments and talc, and 68% xylene,
ketones, mineral spirits, alkyl/Epoxy resins
California manifest (Ref. 9, p. 40)
paint sludge and solvent containing 2% methyl
ethyl ketone & NaOH
California manifest (Ref. 9, p. 41)
waste solvent containing 30-50% epoxy resin &
50-70% amine type solvents
-------
These wastes contain significant amounts of the following
ignitible substances:
Naphtha - flash point = 0°F.
Acetone - flash point = 0°P.
Toluene - flash point = 40°F.
Methyl ethyl ketone - flash point = 21°F.
Reference: Fire Protection Handbook, National
Fire Protection Association, 1962.
Because of the flash points of many of the solvents and
the toxicity of the pigments and solvents typically used (benzene
xylene etc.) in paint manufacture, this waste is to be considered
hazardous.
-------
Water - based paint wastes (T)
This waste stream is classified as hazardous because of its
toxic properties. According to the data EPA has on this waste
stream it meet the RCRA §250.13d characteristic identifying
a toxic hazardous waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
(1) Wapora Inc. has tested a sample of water-based paint
waste and has found the following.
contaminent cone.
Inorganic pigment* 2.5%
Ti02 4.5%
Binders 20.0%
Fungicides, Germicides,
Mildewcides
100-150 mg/1
*hazardous pigments used in paint industry include:
lead carbonate, lead silicate, red lead, antimony
oxide, zinc oxide, cadmium lithopone, chrome yellow,
molybdate orange, strotium chromate, chrome green,
chromium oxide and phthalocyanine green.
The data presented above are available from:
Wapora Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices: Paint and Allied Products Industry, Contract Solvent
Reclamining Operations, and Factory Application of Coatings.
PB - 251 669. 1976
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving
at these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man
to a stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds it source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leaches into and contaminents the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report^ indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected
on-site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from
the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic
and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells
exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account
the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
and 9olot>U*4 oF wi*»«i
Because of the toxicity*of the pigments used by the
paint industry* and the toxicity of many biocides this waste is to
be considered hazardous.
-------
Because of the toxicity and solubility of many of the
pigments commonly used in water based paints, this waste is to
be considered hazardous.
*Versar, Inc Assessment of Industrials Hazardous
waste Practices, Inorganic Chemicals Industrys
wContract # 68-01-2246 and references cited therein, and
Wapora, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practices-Paint and Allied Products Industry
Contract Solvent Reclamining Operations and Factory
Application of Coatings. 1976 and refernces cited therein.
-------
Tank Bottoms, leaded (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristic. According to the information EPA has on this
waste stream it meets RCRA §250.13d characteristic identifying
toxic waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
According to "The Handbook of Industrial waste compositions
in California" - 1978, this waste stream has been shown to have
the following chemical characteristic
WASTE COMPONENTS PAGE
Tank Bottom Sediment
load size: 100 bbl
Tank Bottom Sediment
400 ppm ammonia 54
258 ppm sulfide
2% phenol
water, pH 10
5% gasoline 141
traces inorganic, organic
lead,: Balance: water, dirt,
iron oxide
load size: 100 bbl
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered.
(For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in
choosing the substances and specified limits please refer to the
NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contami-
nants is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking
water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to
indicate that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed
often leaches into and contaminents the groundwater. The
Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly
selected on-site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy
metals were found to be present, and that these heavy metals
had migrated from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances.
Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at
74% of the sites and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the
sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium etc), in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into
account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
Lead is one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at a
concentration of .05mg/l because of its toxicity. As explained
in the RCRA toxicity background document this converts to a .5mg/l
-------
level in the EP extract.
As demonstrated earlier this waste has been shown to contain
both organic and inorganic lead.
Because of the toxicity of lead this waste stream is to be
considered hazardous.
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leaches into and contaminates the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-
site industrial waste disposal sites/ toxic heavy metals were found
to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyandies were found to be present at 74% of the sites and con-
firmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations)..
Geraghty and Miller also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In- 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal were
observed in the groundwater. While specfic identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
(other incidents and reports (Reference 2 through 8) do qualitative
-------
identify leached organic contaminants in groundwater) it
certainly serves to demonstrate that organic contamination
of groundwater frequently results from industrial waste disposal.
Since the Administrator has determined "that the presence in
drinking water of chloroform and other trihalomethanes and
synthetic organic chemicals may have an adverse effect on the
health of persons..."* and, as noted above, because much drinking
water finds its source as groundwater, the presence of available
toxic organics in waste as a criterical factor in determining if
a waste presents a hazard when managed. (For a discussion of how
the toxicity and concentration of organic contaminants in waste
are considered in the hazard determination see Toxicity
background document.)
Tank bottom sediments have been found to contain 2% phenol -
oral rate LD50 = 414 mg/kg. Because of the toxicity of phenols
"is
this waste* considered hazardous.
n
Tank bottom sediments also have been found to contain 5%
gasoline, a DOT flammable liquid with a flash point of ~45° F.
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations,"
p. 5756, Federal Register, 2/9/78
-------
Ignitables with flash points less than 140°F can become
a problem while they are landfilled. During and after the disposal
of an ignitable waste, there are many available external and
internal energy sources which can provide and impetus for
combustion, raising temperatures of waste to their flash points.
Disposal of igitable wastes may result in fire that will cause
damage directly from heat and smoke production or may provide
a vector by which other hazardous waste can be dispersed.
Ignitible wastes tend to be highly volatile and the
evaporation of these volatiles contributes poor air quality.
(Refer to ignitability background document for further detail) .
-------
Spent or waste cyanide solutions or sludges (R,T)
Reactive wastes as defined by Section 250.14 of RCRA pose a threat
to human health and the environment, either through the physical
consequences of their reaction (i.e., high pressure and/or heat generation)
or through the chemical consequences of their reaction (i.e., generation
of toxic fumes).
Wastes containing cyanide salts may undergo solvolysis, under mildly
acid conditions to generate HCN gas. HCN gas* is an intensly poisonous
gas even when mixed with air. High concentration produces tachypnea
(causing increased intake of cyanide); then dyspnea, paralysis, unconsciousness,
convulsions and respiratory arrest. Exposure to 150 ppm for 1/2 to 1
hour may endanger life. Death may result from a few minutes exposure
to 300 ppm. Average fatal dose: 50 to 60 mg.
Bequ\a^e of this potential danger cyanide bearing wastes are considered
hazardous wastes.
*Merck Index, Eighth Edition, p. 544
-------
Etching Acid solutions or sludges (T,C)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its corrosive
and toxic characteristics. According to the information EPA has
about this waste stream it meets both the RCRA S250.13a.2 and
S250.13a.4 characteristics identifying corrosive and toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the chemical compositions indicated
by the listings from the California Manifest System:
-------
Etching Acid
Industrial Waste Descriptions
Industry
Process
Generic Name
Components and Typical Load. Size
3674
Semi-
conductors
3674
Semi-
conductors
3674
Semi-
conductors
Photo
Resist
Stripping
Photo
Resist
Stripping
Cleaning
Acid
Solution
Acid
Solution
Unused
Photo Resist
Stripper,
Acid Solution
sulfuric acid
1% chromic acid
1% perchloric acid
5 cu. yds.
(cartons)
712 D Photo Resist Stripper
172 gal.
30-50% sulfuric acid
3-5 % chromic acid 185 gal.
*From
Handbook of Industrial Waste Compositions
in California 1978
Storm, D, Dept. of Health California
-------
Industry
Process
Generic Name
Components and Typical Load Size
3679
Microwave
Components
3679
Circuit
Boards
3679
Microwave
Components
3679
Printed
Circuits
3661
Telephone
and Tele-
graph
Apparatus ,
Telephones
Unspecified
PCB
Chemical
Etching
Circuit
board
fabrication
Chemical
machinery
PCB etching
(printed
circuit
board
etching)
Copper
etching
Copper
Acid
Solution
Acid
Solution
Acid solution
and solvent
Acid solution
Acid
Solution
Acid
40-60% water
15-30% sulfuric acid
10-20% chromic acid
3-5 % copper
Balance: other metals,
proprietary
PH 2 i dry.
5-8% Nitric acid
sulfuric acid
5-8% Fluorboric acid 2310 gal.
a) Aluminum etch i drtB
b) Trichlorecethane 5 drums
c) Machine oil 9 drums
90-95% ferric chloride
Balance: water
PH 0 4700 ».
^
7-13% chromic acid
13-20% sulfuric acid
water 1000 gal.
sodium chloride
hydochloric acid
Sodium chlorate
c°PPer 180 gal.
-------
Industry
Process
Generic Name
Components and Typical Load Size
3361
Cameras
Unspecified
3711
Automobile
Assembly
Unspecified
3721
Aircraft
Unspecified
Etching
Photo-
graphic
Etching
Etching
Metal
etching
and
finishing
Metal
Etching
Titanium
chemical
milling
Acid
Solution
Alkaline
Solution
Alkaline
Solution
Acid
Solution
Acid
Solution
Acid
Solution
5-15% hydroflouric acid 4800 gal,
2700 ppm potassium
potassium ferricyanide
ferric cyanide
water
pH 10-11 400 gal,
sodium hydroxide
Alodine 1200 and 1000
pH 10 1500 gal.
Iridate #14
Deoxidizer Al-901
Etchlaume #14 1400 gal,
3 % hydrofl|pjlric and nitric
acid
97 % water 100 bbl.
5-15 % nitric acid
1- 8% hydrofXgpric acid
1- 5% titanium
pH 1 2400 gal,
51
-------
As is evident from the California Listings jEtching Acid solutions or sludges
have been shown to have low pH or high pH's (unless neutralized). Liquid
waste streams with such acidic. (caustic) character present an environmental
A
risk for several reasons. Very low or high pH liquid waste if disposed in
a sanitary landfill would leach high concentrations of toxic heavy metals
(such as lead) from ordinary municipal trash. These heavy metals would
or
otherwise remain bound in the waste matrix. Highly acidic, (caustic) liquid
wastes also present a handling risk because of their corrosive properties.
OSW has in its files many damage incidents resulting from the mismanagement
of highly acidic or caustic wastes. These include: several deaths and
many serious illnesses resulting from the inhalation of toxic gases
formed by the reaction of acidic wastes with wastes containing sulfide
or cyanide salts, contamination and degradation of groundwater and wells
from improper disposal of acidic and caustic wastes, severe burns from
handling and contact with acidic and caustic wastes and several incidents
of fish kills from discharge of acidic and caustic wastes. (Refer to
corrosivity and reactivity background documents for further information) .
The National Interim Primary Dunking Water Regulations (NIPDWR) set limits
for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The substances listed
represent hazards to human health. In arriving at these specified limits
the total environmental exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant
has been considered. (For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning
used in choosing the substances and specified limits please refer to the
NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9-76-003) .
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants is through
-------
drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water finds its source
in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as
presently managed and disposed often leaches into and contaminates the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that in
98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal sites,
toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that these heavy metals
had migrated from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites
and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium etc.)
in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded EPA
drinking water limits (even after taking into account the upstream
(beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
-------
Waste paint and varnish remover or stripper (I,
O)
This waste stream willbe similiar in composition to "
Paint wastes (such as used rags, slops, latex
sludge, spent solvent) (T,I,0)
and present similiar hazards. Please refer to the section
discussing tnj_s waste streaml
5M
-------
Solvents and solvent recovery still bottoms (non-halogenated)
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water-.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health.
In arriving at these specific limits, the total environ-
mental exposure of man to a started specific toxicant has
been considered. (For a complete treatment of the data
and reasoning used in choosing the substances and specified
limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix AC Chemical
Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leaches into and contaminates the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste
disposal sites, toxic heavy metals had migrated from the disposal
sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Aresenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury
selenium, and silver are toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at
-------
concentrations of 0.05, 1.00, 0.010, 0.05, 0.05, 0.002,
0.01, and 0.05 mg/1 respective because of their toxicity.
As explained in the RCRA toxicity background documents these
concentrations convert to 0.5, 10.0, 0.1, 0.5, 0.5, 0.02,
0.1, and 0.5 mg/1 respective in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain lead and chromium at
1113.5 and 227.5 mg/1 levels, respectively, according to
PB251669, Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices:
Paint and Allied Products Industry, Contact Solvent Reclaiming
Operations, and Factory Application of Coatings. For this
reason it is classified as toxic according to RCRA S250.13(d).
Geraghty and Miller^- also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identifi-
cation of these organics was not always undertaken in this
work, (other incidents and reports (references 2 through 8)
do qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater), it certainly serves to demonstrate that organic
contamination of groundwater frequently results from industrial
7~ waste disposal. Since the Administrator has determined "that
the presence in drinking water of chloroform and other tri-
halomethanes and synthetic organic chemicals may have an adverse
effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted above,
because much drinking water finds its source as groundwater,
the presence of available toxic organics in waste is a critical
-------
factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard when managed.
(For a discussion of how the toxicity and concentration of
organic contaminants in waste are considered in the hazard
determination see Toxicity background document.)
Solvent recovery still bottoms has been found to contain
organic solvents at about 25% of feedstock according to Wapora
Inc. in Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
Paint and Allied Products Industry, Contact Solvent Reclaiming
Operations and Factory Applications of Coatings, PB-251-669
pps 206 to 211. Some of the solvents used in industry have
been shown to be mutagenic.
As is evident from the Wapora information this waste
stream also has a flash point of 140°F or below. Igni tables
with flash points less than 140°F can become a problem
while they are landfilled. During and after the disposal of
an ignitable waste, there are many available external and
internal energy sources which can provide an impetus for
combustion, raising temperatures of waste to their flash
points. Disposal of ignitable waste may result in fire that
will cause damage directly from heat and smoke production or
may provide a vector by which other hazardous waste can be
dispersed.
Ignitable wastes tend to be highly volatile and the
evaporation of volatiles contribute to poor air quality.
(Refer to ignitability background document for further deta'll
-------
WASTE OR OFF-SPEC TOLUENE DIISOCYANATE
The Administrator has determined that this waste is a
hazard to human health and the environment if improperly managed.
Toluene diisocyanate (TDI) is a pressure generating compound that
reacts with water, resulting in evolution of carbon dioxide. Con-
tact with concentrated alkaline compounds such as sodium hydroxide
may cause run-away polymerization. It is also listed as a. DOT
Poison B; it is a strong sensitizing agent and can cause skin
*
irritation, allergic eczema and bronchial asthma in humans.
There have been several damage incidents associated with dis-
posal of toluene diisocyanate. In California in 1978, a drum
containing TDI was picked up by a scavenger waste hauler and
placed in an unprotected storage area. After having been exposed
to rain, the drum was removed to the Simi Class I Landfill where
it exploded, hospitalizing several people. In Detroit in May of
1978, a tank truck waiting to dispose of a quantity of TDI
experienced a boil-over. The resulting fumes caused nine people
to be hospitalized.
These damage incidents illustrate the hazards created by
improper treatment, storage or disposal of waste TDI. in view of
the above information we feel that the waste poses a threat to
human health and the environment.
* The. M*rck
-------
Leachate from hazardous waste landfills (T,0,M,B)
Because of the toxicities of the process wastes, generic wastes and
waste materials listed by Section 250.14 of the Act, (see individual
background section for each waste listed) and the toxicity of those
wastes which meet the 250.12 toxicity characteristics (see toxicity
background document), any leachate resulting from these wastes
is considered a hazardous waste.
-------
ELECTROPLATING
Electroplating Waste Water Treatment Sludge (T)
This waste stream is hazardous because of its toxic properties,
According to data EPA has on this waste stream, it meets the RCRA
§250.13a(4) characteristic identifying a toxic hazardous waste.
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of drinking water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental ex-
posure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered.
(For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choos-
ing the substances and specified limits please refer to the
NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003) .
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
•that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leach into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report^ indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-
site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the
sites and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
Cl
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (s.a. arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater con-
centrations) .
Examples and quantities of toxic constituents of electro-
plating wastewater treatment sludges are listed below.
I. Hydroxides of (1) chromium - 330,000 ppm
(2) cadmium - 20,000 ppm
(3) lead - 20,000 ppm
Reference: Battelle. Cross - Media Impact of the
Disposal of"Hazardous Waste from Metals,
Inorganic Chemicals and Related industries
Vol. 1, p. 13, Nov. 1977. ' "—'
II. (1) Neutralized hydroxide: 0.5-1% chromium hydroxide
sludge (p. 122)
(2) Lime sludge (p. 113) : cadmium - 630 ppm
chromium - 9500 ppm
lead - 770 ppm
(.31 Plating sludge (p.133): chromium - 1-5%
cadmium - 0-1%
Reference: Storm, D.L. Handbook of Industrial Waste
CompositionsTn California - 1978T
California Department of Health ^Services
Hazardous Materials Management Section
Nov. 1978
On the basis of this information we feel that this waste
stream poses a threat to human health and the environment.
-------
Material which is within the scope of Section 250.10(b)
and is normally shipped using a name listed in Appendix III
(Pesticides), Appendix IV (DOT Poison A, Poison B, ORM-A Materials'),
or Appendix v (Priority Pollutants) (T.O.M)
Off-specification material which is within the scope of
Section 2S0.10(b) and, if met specification would
shipped using a name listed in Appendix ill, IV, or
V (T.O.M) ,
Spill clean-up residues and debris from spills of materials which
appear-in Appendix III, IV, or V (T,0,M)
Containers, unless triple rinsed, which have contained materials
normally shipped using a name listed in Appendix III, IV, or
V (T,Q,M)
-------
Introduction: Selected Cancelled and RPAR Pesticides
This listing contains cancelled pesticides and those pesticides with
Rebuttable Presumptions Against Their Registration that have sufficient
data at this time to conclude that they should be disposed of within
the Hazardous Waste Management System. Pesticides that are listed
elsewhere in the Sec. 3001 listing have been excluded from this
listing to minimize duplication. Although this list is made up of
pesticides, our intent was not to regulate pesticides as a class.
Rather we are regulating organic chemicals that are disposed of on
land and have sufficient toxicological data to justify their inclussion
in the Hazardous Waste Management System.
The intended use determines if an organic chemical substance is called
a pesticide. The large number of organic chemicals regulated herein
CO
that are used as pesticides is an artifact of the available toxilogic
data. Pesticides are used on crops for human consumption with the
intent to kill or control the pest while not hurting the human consumer
of the food. Hence, there has been a large volume of toxicological
testing done on these organic chemicals. Because of this relative
abundance of good toxicological data for pesticides and the paucity
of data for other organic chemical substances, we have included what
could appear like a disproportionate number of pesticides on the
Hazardous Waste list.
The listing of Hazardous Wastes is limited by the availability of data
A group of organic chemicals with this much toxicological data cannot
be ignored. Unfortunately although we have a large quantity of toxicologic
data for these chemicals we do not have data on the behavior of these
-------
substances under waste management conditions or their behavior when
subjected to the extraction procedure test. Little information is
available to precisely estimate the amount of a particular chemical
substance that can be expected to be solubilized in the environment.
Although information concerning the behavior of these materials under
waste management is only partially available, the Agency has decided to
regulate these materials because of their toxicity and the long history
of mismanagement of waste pesticide and pesticide containers resulting
in human, animal and fish fatalities; as well as cases of serious
illness. Because of these reported damage incidents (and the inherent
toxicity of the substances) these substances fall within the statutory
definition of hazardous waste (Section 1004 of the Act).
The Agency intends an upgrading and amending 4his listing and
w||l; be investigating the hazards associated with the management
of many other organic chemicals (some of which are classed as pesticides)
as more chemical, toxicologic and physical information becomes available.
Four forms of the listed pesticides are included in the regulation. The
four forms are; the pesticide itself, listed as
Material which is within the scope of Section 250.10(b)
and is normally shipped using a name listed in Appendix III
{Pesticides), Appendix IV (DOT Poison A, Poison B, ORM-A Materials),
or Appendix v (Priority Pollutants) (T,0,M)
The off-specification pesticide, listed as
Off-specification material which is within the scope of
Section 250..10(b) and, if met specification would
shipped using a name listed in Appendix III, IV, or
V (T,0,M)
-------
Spill clean up materials resulting from a spill of the pesticide, listed
as
Spill clean-up residues and debris from spills of materials which
appear in Appendix III, IV, or V (T,0,M)
And the unrinsed containers that contained the pesticide, listed as
Containers, unless triple rinsed, which have contained materials
normally shipped using a name listed in Appendix III, IV, or
V (T,0,M)
Disposal of Pest icicle Material
Remaining stocks of certain cancelled pesticides can only be used for
certain uses. Some holders of the cancelled pesticide who do not
have an approved application for the cancelled pesticide will find
disposal easier than finding some one to use it on an approved application.
Thus, there will be people interested in disposing of pure pesticide.
Our files on damage cases from improper disposal of Hazardous Wastes
include many incidents of damage due to the indiscriminate disposal
of pesticides.
A few examples;
YEAR INJURY CAUSE
1972 3 children hospitalized: mother found old oil can by road
comatose and respiratory poured on ground (methyl na-rai-h-!««->
difficulty in Batesville, F*ratnionj
MS
1972 child ill in Salt Lake, UT found powdered pesticide with
no label, broken, and sat in
spilled powder
-------
YEAR INJURV CAUSE
1975 child comatose in hospital played with bags contained
2 days in Nash Co., NC Di-syston pesticide
organophosphate poisoning spillage pesticide can as
child in Robeson, NC thrown in woods
Disposal of off-specification pesticides
A pesticide batch can be off-specification due to a high concentration of
; I
contaminants or congenerated highly toxic species exceeding the allowable
limits for the materials market as a pesticide. For example 2,4,5,-T
can be produced with varying levels of dioxi|\ depending on temperature
control during the reaction. Bad batches could be bad because of a
high concentration of dioxin in the pesticide. Specific regulation
or analysis of each bad batch to determine if it was toxic enough
to require more costly disposal would be extremely expensive.
For infrequent waste streams such as bad batches, controlling the disposal
by blanket inclusion of all bad batches of these pesticides is prefered
as it has the lowest total resource requirements for industry and EPA.
Our files on damage cases from improper disposal of Hazardous Wastes
include incidents of damage due to the toxic effect of cogenerated
highly toxic species present in the waste.
For example:
YEAR INJURY CAUSE
1971 people ill and 1 waste oil sprayed on arena
hemmoraging of kidney, to keep down dust (contained
60 horses dead, deformed TCDD)
-------
YEAR INJURY CAUSE
foals and dead pets in
Verona, MO
1974 2 girls sick, 1 physically oiling down horse
impaired, 35 exposed in arena (dioxin content)
Bloomfield and Mosco Mills,
MO
Disposal of spill clean up material from a pesticide spill
Spill clean up materials of these substances are included on the
Hazardous Waste list due to the toxic effectsjbf the substance. The
mixing of these substances with earth does not mitigate the effect
of these substances when disposed of on the land. If it is mobile
thru the soil disposal environment, co-disposing of these substances with
the earth picked up at the spill site will not materialy affect the
potential hazard of migration of the substance to ground water.
Disposal of unrinsed containers
Unrinsed containers have the potential for rainfall washing out the
contents into the environment. Triple rinsing removes the water
solvable material and thus reduces significantly the amount of material
available for flushing out by rainfall.
Our files on damage cases from improper disposal of hazardous wastes
include many incidents where the unrinsed, used container has caused
problems.
For example
-------
YEAR
INJURY
CAUSE
1968
1968
1969
1972
1972
1974
1974
2 boys ill and 1 died of
dermal poisoning in
Dunning, NE
old drum top cut out for trash
and filled with water to play
in (Parathion)
abdominal pains, vomitting pesticide container disposal
required hospitalization near well (Lindane)
in Neshanic Station, NJ
14 cattle dead in Jerome
ID
2 yr. old hospitalized
for organophosphate
poisoning in Hughes, AR
2 children die in
Memphis, TN
ate from empty Di-Syston bags
which blew into pasture
playing in empty pesticide
drums, mayor bought for
trash containers (parathion)
emptied container in backyard
(parathion)
2 yr. old ill in Oak City drank from empty can
UT
8 cattle dead in
Elizabeth City, NC
(Furodan)
farmer burned old pesticide
containers
Cas)
Examples of the types of pesticide related materials that are typically
disposed of are illustrated in Figure 1. As is evident from the figure,
this type of material can be extremely toxic.
-------
Figure 1
Sample Pesticide* - related waste material disposed of to
California Class 1 sites (1978)
Industry Process Generic Name
2879
Pesticides
2879
Pesticide
Formulation
2879
Pesticides
2879
Pesticides
2879
Pesticides
Pesticide
production
and research
Pesticide
Blending
Unspecified
Off -spec
Aerosol Cans
Unspecified
Pesticide
wastes
Pesticides
Pesticides
Tomato
Blossom
Fruit
Set
Pesticides
Components $ Typical Load Siz
a) solvents 7 tons
b) off-spec pesticides 17 tons
c) rinse water and
pesticides 5 tons
d) empty unrinsed .
containers 25 tons
2-50% organo phosphates
2-50% chlorination hydrocarbons
2-50% carbanates
2-30% organic metals
£-60% clays
2-60% solvents 7 cu
yds
22% DBCP
6.5% Malthion
81.5% petroleum oil Q.5 ton
42% beta-naphoxyacetic acid
523 gal.
a) dinitrophenol
solution 46 gal
b) miscellaneous
insecticides 5 tons
*Taken from "Handbook of Industrial Waste Compositions
in California" D.L. Storm, Dept. of Health, California 1978
-------
. astry
Process
Generic Name
Components 5 Typical Laad Size
2879
Pesticides
2879
Pesticides
2879
Pesticides
Intermediates
Production
Floor
Sweeping
Unspecified
Unspecified
Pesticides
Off-spec
Chemicals
2879
Pesticides
Unspecified
Alkaline
Solution
and
Solvent
50-60% tetrahydrophthalamide
40-50% water 37 drums
85-95% difolatan fungicide
5-15% floor sweepings 30 drums
a)
b)
c)
d)
sulfur
empty bottles
paint solvent
mixed pesticides
from dust collector
14 tons
5% methylene chloride
85% water
10% miscellaneous
chemicals and
pesticides 1600 gal.
-------
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants is through
drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water finds its source
in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as
presently managed and disposed often leaches into and contaminates the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50
randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy
metals were found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites
and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium, etc.)
in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded EPA
drinking water limits (even after taking into account the upstream
(beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
Geraghty and Miller also found that in a majority of the fifty sites
examined organic contamination of the groundwater above background
levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these sites chlorinated organics
attributable to waste disposal were observed in the groundwater. While
specific identification of these organics was not always undertaken
in this work, (other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in groundwater),
it certainly serves to demonstrate that organic contamination of
groundwater frequently results from industrial waste disposal. Since
the Administrator has determined "that the presence in drinking water
of chloroform and other trihalomethanes, and synthetic organic chemicals
may have an adverse effect on the health of persons ..."* and, as noted
-------
above, because much drinking water finds its source as groundwater, the
presence of available toxic organics in waste is a critical factor in
determining if a waste presents a hazard when managed. (For a discussion
of how the toxicity and concentration of organic contaminants in waste
are considered in the hazard determination see Toxicity background document)
*•• Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations,"
< 5765, Federal Register, 2/9/78
-------
A brief description of the toxic effects that caused the pesticides to be
listed follows:
Pesticide
Toxic effects
ARAMITE
BAAM (AMITRAZ)
BENOMYL
CHLORANIL
CHLOROBENZILATE
DBCP
DIALLATE
DIMETHOATE
EBDC's
KEPONE
MALEIC HYDRAZIDE
MIREX
MONURON
OMPA (Octamethylpyro-
phosphoramide)
PCNB
Oncogenicity
Oncogenicity in mice.
Reductions in non-target species
(earthworms); mutagenicity (multitest);
teratogenicity in rats; reproductive
effects Cspermatogenic reduction in
rats); hazard to wildlife (aquatic
organisms).
Possible oncogen
(Innes-Bionetic Study)
Oncogenicity in mice
Testicular Effect in Rats
Oncongenictiy in mice and rats;
reproductive effects in test
animals and possibly in humans.
Oncongenicity in mice and rats.
Oncongenicity in rats; mutagenicity
in bacteria, yeast, fungi and mice;
fetotoxicity and reproductive effects
in mice.
Oncongencity in mice and rats; Teratogenicitv
in rats; hazard to wildlife (aquatic organisms).
Oncongenicity in mice and rats.
Oncongenicity in mice, mutagenicity
in plants, flies, rats; reproductive
effects in rats.
None presented pesticide has been cancelled
Oncongenicity in mice and rats.
Oncongencity
Oncongenicity in mice
-------
Pesticide
Toxic effects
PHENARSAZINE CHLORIDE
POLYCHLORINATED TERPHENYLS
PRONAMIDE
STROBANE
2,4,5-T
1080/1081
THIOPHANATE METHYL
TRYSBEN
None presented pesticide was
voluntarily cancelled
None presented pesticide has been
cancelled
Oncongenicity in rats
Possible oncogenicity
Possible oncogenicity and
teratogenic and fetotoxic
effects due to dioxin contaminants
Fatalities in non-target mammalian
species and endangered species.
Mutagenicity and reduction of
non-target species (earthworms)
Oncongenicity due to nitrosamine
contaminants
-------
More complete toxicological descriptions can be found in the Federal
Register Publication. The dates of the Federal Register Notices for
each listed pesticide are given below.
Federal Register Date
Pesticide
Aramite
BAAM
Benomyl
Benzac
Chloranil
Chlorobenzilate
DBCP
Diallate
Dimethoate
EBDC
Kepone
Maleic Hydrazide
MIREX
Monuron
OMPA
PCNB
Phenarzine Chloride
Pol/chlorinated Terphenyls
Pronamide
Strobane
2,4,S-T
4/12/77
4/6/77
12/6/77
8/8/77
1/19/77
5/26/76
9/22/77
5/31/77
9/12/77
8/10/77
7/27/77
10/28/77
Cancelled
8/16/77
5/28/76
10/13/77
11/21/77
Cancelled
5/20/77
6/28/76
4/21/78
-------
1080/1081 12/1/76
Thiophonate Methyl 12/7/77
Trysben 2/9/78
-------
Waste Rock & Overburden From Uranium Mining
In the Administrator's judgment this waste stream poses
a potential radiological hazard. Our information indicates that
waste rock and overburden contain the following:
lOpCi/gr average activity of Radium -226.
Reference: Background document - Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Radioactive Waste
Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976. December, 1978.
Large volume wastes containing elevated Radium -226
concentrations dispersed throughout a non-radioactive medium
present an environmental problem because of potential hazard
to the health of those chronically exposed to such wastes.
Radium-226 is a naturally - occurring radionuclide. The
extraction and processing of certain ores enriched in radium
result in its redistribution, thereby creating opportunities
for environmental contamination and exposure of the public to
hazardous levels of radioactivity. Radium-226 is relatively
abundant and has a half-life of 1620 years. Its radiotoxic
properties have been extensively studied in relation to increased
incidence of occupationally - related bone cancer and aplastic
anemia. The major health hazard is due, however, to inhalation
of the decay products of Radium-226. Radon-222, the first
generation decay product, is a noble gas. Radon-222, decays to
several daughter products which, upon inhalation, deposit
in and irradiate the lung by emission of alpha particles. Studies
link exposure of this nature with an increase in lung cancer
induction. External exposure to gamma radiation emitted by rad
-------
decay products has also been implicated in serious genetic abnormal-
ities and increased incidence of cancer. (See background document
for more information).
of ^***«. rocK and
Radon-222 emanates continuously from the piles. creat-
/»»
ing a hazard to public health.
-------
CHLORINATOR RESIDUES AND CLARIFIER SLUDGE FROM ZIRCONIUM EXTRACTION
If improperly managed, these wastes present a potential
hazard to human health and the environment. The principal hazards
associated with the chlorinator residues and clarifier sludge
from zirconium extraction are direct exposure to gamma radiation
and contamination of surface and ground waters due to high con-
centrations of soluble Radium-226. Our information indicates
that the wastes contain 150-1300 pCi'/gr of Radium-226.
Radium-226 is a naturally-occurring radionuclide with a
half-life of 1620 years. It is relatively abundant in the
environment. The extraction and processing of certain ores
enriched in radium result in the redistribution of the radionuclide
thereby creating opportunities for environmental contamination
and exposure of the public to hazardous levels of radioactivity,
The ratio toxic properties of Radium-226 have been extensively
studied in relation to an increased incidence of occupationally
related cancer. Radium has chemical characteristics similar to
calcium and will concentrate in bone after ingestion. Decay by
alpha emission follows. External exposurer to gamma radiation
emitted by radium decay products has also been implicated in
increased incidences of cancer and serious genetic abnormalities
(See Background Document for additional information)
Reference: Radioactivity Background Document
RCRA §3001. Dec. 1978
-------
Overburden and Slimes From Phosphate Surface Mining
In the Administrator's judgment, these wastes pose a
potential radiological hazard. Our information indicates that
overburden and slimes contain the following:
Mine overburden: 5-10 pCi/gr. average Radium-226 activity
Slimes: 35-45 pCi/gr. average Radium-226 activity
Large volume wastes containing elevated Radium - 226 concen-
tractions dispersed throughout a non-radioactive medium present
an environmental problem because of potential hazard to the health
of those chronically exposed to such wastes.
Radium-226 is a naturally - occurring radionuclide. The
extraction and processing of certain ores enriched in radium result
in its redistribution, thereby creating opportunities for environ-
mental contamination and exposure of the public to hazardous
levels of radioactivity. Radium - 226 is relatively abundant
and has a half-life of 1620 years. Its radiotoxic properties
have been extensively studied in relation to increased
incidence of occupationally - related bone cancer and aplastic
anemia. The major health hazard is due, however, to inhalation
of the decay products of Radium-226. Radon-222, the first
generation decay product, is a noble gas. Radon-222 decays to
several daughter products which, upon inhalation, deposit in and
irradiate the lung by emmission of alpha particles. Studies
link exposures of this nature with an increase in lung cancer
induction. External exposure to gamma radiation emitted by radon
decay products has also been implicated in serious genetic
abnormalities and increased incidence of cancer.
(See background document for more information)
-------
Studies conducted on reclaimed land containing these wastes
reveal the existence of a potential public health problem due to
elevated air concentrations of radon decay products in some
structures built on the reclaimed land. Chronic exposure to the
radiation levels in these structures could result in approximately
doubling the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer to the exposed
person. In Florida, as many as 4000 existing structures may require
evaluation to determine whether remedial action is necessary.
^
The application of radiation control measures is strongly
_£/*-f*
recommended orr*the construction of new buildings, especially
dwellings. These same studies indicate a correlation between a
soil concentration of Radium-226 greater than 5 pCi/gr. and
the elevated radon progeny levels in structures built on such
. (See background for additional information).
Reference: Background document - Indentification
and Listing of Hazardous Radioactive
Waste Pursuant to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976. December, 1978.
-------
Waste Gypsum From Phosphoric Acid Production
In the Administrator's judgment, this waste stream poses
a potential radiological hazard. Our information indicates
that gypsum from phosphoric acid production contains the
following:
20-30 pCi/gr average Radium-226 activity.
Reference: Background document - Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Radioactive Waste Pursuant
to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or
1976. December, 1978.
Large volume wastes containing elevated Radium-226 concentra-
tions dispersed throughout a non-radioactive medium present an
environmental problem because of potential hazard to the
health of those chronically exposed to such wastes.
Radium-226 is a naturally - occurring radionuclide. The
extraction and processing of certain ores enriched in radium result
in its distribution, thereby creating opportunities for environ-
mental contamination and exposure of the public to hazardous
levels of radioactivity. Radium-226 is relatively abundant and has
years
a half life of 1620. Its radiotoxic properties have been
\
extensively studied in relation to increased incidence of
occupationally related bone cancer and aplastic anemia. The major
health hazard is due, however, to inhalation of the decay products
of Radium-226. Radon-222, the first generation decay products^
is a noble gas. Radon-222 decays to several daughter products
which/ upon inhalation, deposit in and irradiate the lung by
emission of alph particles. Studies link exposure of this nature
^
with an increase in lung cancer induction. External exposure to
gamma radiation emitted by radon decay products has also been
-------
implicated in serious genetic abnormalities and increased incidence
of cancer. (See background document for more information).
Because Radon-222 emanates continuously from the gypsum
piles, the waste creates a hazard to human health.
-------
Slag and Fluid Bed Prills From Elemental Phosphorus Production
In the Administrator's judgment, this waste stream poses
a potential radiological hazard. Our information indicates
that slag and fluid bed prills contain the following:
Slag: 20-60 pCi/gr. average Radium-226 activity
Fluid bed prills: 10-15 pCi/gr. average Radium-226 activity.
Large volume wastes containing elevated Radium-226 concentra-
tions dispersed throughout a non-radioactive medium present an
environmental problem because of potential hazard to the health
of those chronically exposed to such waste.
Radium-226 is a naturally - occurring radionuclide. The
extraction and processing of certain ores enriched in radium
result in redistribution, thereby creating opportunities for
environmental contamination and exposure of the public to hazardous
levels of radioactivity. Radium-226 is relatively abundant and has
a half-life of 1620 years. Its radiotoxic properties have been
extensively studied in relation to increased incidence of
occupationally - related bone cancer and aplastic anemia. The
major health hazard is due, however, to inhalation of the decay
products of Radium-226. Radon-222, the first generation decay
product, is a noble gas. Radon-222 decays to several daughter
products which, upon inhalation, deposit in and irradiate the
lung by emission of alpha particles. Studies link exposures
of this nature with an increase in lung cancer induction. External
exposure to gamma radiation emitted by radon decay products has
also been implicated in serious genetic abnormalities and
increased incidece of cancer. (See background document for
A
more information).
-------
Radon-222 emanates continuously from these wastes.
A Radium-226 activity level exceeding 5 pCi/gr in the soil of
land reclaimed from phosphate mining activites correlates with
significant elevation of radon progeny levels inside structures
built on such land and, on that basis, creates a hazard to human
health. (See background document for additional information) .
S
Reference: Background document - I/identification
<~t
and Listing of Hazardous Radioactive
Waste Pursuant to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976. December, 1978.
-------
TEXTILES
Wo°l Fabric Dyeing and Finishing Wastewater Treatment Sludges
This waste stream is hazardous because of its toxic pro-
perties. According to data EPA has on this waste stream, it
meets the RCRA §250.13a(4) characteristic identifying a toxic
hazardous waste.
The .National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of drinking water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental ex-
posure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered.
(For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choos-
ing the substances and specified limits please refer to the
NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leach into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-
site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the
sites and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (s.a. arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater con-
centrations) .
The following table compares the concentrations of con-
taminants found in wool fabric dyeing and finishing wastewater
treatment sludges to the limits established by the NIPDWR.
Drinking Water
Parameter Limit (ppm)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadium
Mercury
Reference:
0.05
1.00
0.01
0.002
Versar, Inc. Assessment
Waste Practices, Textile
June, 1976 p. 3-23.
<170
17
<1.7
of Industrial Hazardous
Industry PB# £li8-9S3, '
The above data suggest that the waste presents a hazard to
human health and the environment.
-------
a, TEXTILES
Woven Fabric Dyeing and Finishing Wastewater Treatment Sludges
This waste stream is classified as hazardous because of its
toxic properties. According to data EPA has on this waste stream,
it meets the RCRA 250.13a{4) characteristic identifying a toxic
hazardous waste.
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental ex-
posure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered.
(For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choos-
ing the substances and specified limits please refer to the
NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003) .
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic con-
taminents is through drinking water. A large percentage of
drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence
to indicate that .industrial wastes as presently managed and dis-
tfc-
posed often leach into and contamina the groundwater. The
Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly
selected on-site industrial waste disposal sites/ toxic heavy
metals were found to be present, and that these heavy metals had
migrated from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the
gites and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (s.a. arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into
account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations) .
The following table compares the concentrations of contaminants
found in woven fabric dyeing and finishing wastewater treatment
sludges to the limits established by the NIPDWR.
Parameter
Drinking Water
Limit (ppm)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Reference:
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.05
0.05
Versar, Inc. Assessment of Industrial
Waste Practices, Textile Industry PB#
June, 1976 p. 3-37
1
39
4.4
1,196
36
Hazardous
2^—953 '"
The above data suggest that the waste presents a hazard to
human health and the environment.
-------
TEXTILES
Knit Fabric Dyeing and Finishing Wastewater Treatment Sludges
This waste stream is classified as hazardous because of its
toxic properties. According to data EPA has on the waste stream,
it meets the RCRA s250.13a(4) characteristic identifying a toxic
hazardous waste.
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental ex-
posure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered.
(For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choos-
ing the substances and specified limits please refer to the
NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003) .
a-
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
-tt.
leach into and contamina tr-. groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-
site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic
and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (s.a. arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater con-
centrations) .
The following table compares the concentrations of con-
taminants found in knit fabric dyeing and finishing wastewater
treatment sludge to the limits established by the NIPDWR.
Drinking Water
Parameter Limit (ppm) Ave. Cone.
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Reference:
0.05 <<4.8
0.01 <4.5
0.05
0.05
0.002
Versar, Inc. Assessment of Industrial
Waste Practices, Textile Industry PB#
June, 1976 p. 3-49.
33
< 52
1.4
Hazardous
^btJ-9^3
The above data suggest that the waste presents a hazard to
human health and the environment.
-------
TEXTILES
Yarn and stock dyeing and finishing wastewater treatment sludges.
This waste stream is classified as hazardous because of its
toxic properties. According to data EPA has on the waste stream,
it meets the RCRA §250.13a(4) characteristic identifying a toxic
hazardous waste.
Our information indicates that the waste contains chromium,
lead and mercury.
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of drinking water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental ex-
posure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered.
(For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in
choosing the substances and specified limits please refer to the
NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leach into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Ciller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-
site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the
sites and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (s.a. arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater con-
centrations) .
The following table compares the concentrations of con-
taminants found in yarn, stock dyeing and finishing wastewater
treatment sludge to the limits established by the NIPDWR.
Parameter
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Drinking Water
Limit (ppm)
0.05
0.05
0.002
Ave. cone, (ppm)
31
1660
0.66
Reference: Versar, Inc. Assessment of Industrial
Hazardous Waste Practices, Textile
Industry!PB#258-953. June 1976
p. 3-73.
The above data suggests that the waste presents a hazard
to human health and the environment.
-------
TEXTILES
Carpet Dyeing and Finishing Wastewater Treatment Sludges
This waste stream is classified as hazardous because of its
toxic properties. According to data EPA has on this waste stream,
it meets the RCRA §250.13a(4) characteristic identifying a toxic
hazardous waste.
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of drinking water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental ex-
posure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered.
(For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in
choosing the substances and specified limits please refer to
the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leach into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-
site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the
sites and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (s.a. arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater con-
centrations) .
The following table compares the concentrations of con-
taminants found in the waste to the limits established by the
NIPDWR.
Drinking Water
Parameter Limit (ppm) Ave. Cone, (ppml
Arsenic 0.05 10
Cadmium 0.01 10
Chromium 0.05 112
Lead 0.05 110
Reference: Versar, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practices. Textile Industry*PB& 956-063-—
June 1976.p.3-61.
The above data suggest that the waste presents a hazard to
human health and the environment.
-------
TEXTILES
WOOL SCOURING WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGES
This waste stream is classified as hazardous because of its
toxic properties. According to data EPA has on this waste stream,
it meets the RCRA §250.13a(4) characteristic identifying a toxic
hazardous waste.
Our information indicates that the waste contains the following
toxic substances: Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead.
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of drinking water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental exposure
of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For
a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing
the substances and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR
Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leach into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-
site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the
sites and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (s.a. arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater con-
centrations) .
The following table compares the concentrations of con-
taminants found in the waste to the limits established by the
NIPDWR. '
Drinking Water
Parameter Limit (ppnp Ave. cone, (ppm)
Barium 1.0 59
Cadmium 0.01 1.2
Chromium 0.05 19
Lead 0.05 28
Reference: Versar, Inc. Assessment of Industrial
Hazardous Waste Practices, Textile
Industry. PB# 258-953. June. 1976 p.3-14.
The above data suggest that the waste presents a hazard
to human health and the environment.
-------
812 Mercury bearing sludges from brine treatment from
mercury cell process in chlorine production (T)
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking
Water. The substances listed represent hazards to human
health. In arriving at these specific limits, the total
x
environmental efposure of man to a stated specific toxicant
has been considered. (For a complete treatment of the data
and reasoning used in choosing the substances and specified
limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical
Quality/ EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic con-
taminents is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently managed
and disposed often leaches into and contaminents the groundwater,
The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50
randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal sites,
toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that these
heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80% of
the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
•to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
••
Mercury is one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at
a concentration of .002mg/l because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this
converts to .02mg/l level in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain as high as lOOppm
(approximately 100mg/l) mercury according to the following
report:
Versar, Inc. "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
waste Practices, Inorganic Chemicals Industry
"Contract # 68-01-2246 p.5-8
Because of this the Agency feels that this waste stream
could pose a threat to human health and the environment.
ICO
-------
j>612 Sodium calcium sludge from production of chlorine by
Down Cell process (R)
Reactive wastes as defined by Section 250.14 of RCRA
pose a threat to human health and the environment, either
through the physical consequences of their reaction (i.e.,
high pressure and/or heat generation) or through the chemical
consequences of their reaction (i.e., generation of toxic
ftomes).
According to "Assessment of Industrials Hazardous
waste Practices, Inorganic Chemicals Industry 'Contract
#68-01-2246 Versar Inc. p. 5-lljthis waste stream contains
a mixture of sodium cal/S^cjum metal. These metals in their
A V
element state react very Vigorously with water to produce
r
hydrogen gas. For this reason this waste is extremely
hazardous and must be disposed of under carefully controlled
conditions to avoid explosions or fires.
I0\
-------
2812 Mercury bearing sludges from brine treatment from
mercury cell process in chlorine production (T)
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking
Water. The substances listed represent hazards to human
health. In arriving at these specific limits, the total
X
environmental exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant
has been considered. (For a complete treatment of the data
and reasoning used in choosing the substances and specified
limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical
Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic con-
taminents is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently managed
and disposed often leaches into and contaminents the groundwater.
The Geraghty and Miller reportl indicated that in 98% of 50
randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal sites,
toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that these
heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80% of
the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic/
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations) .
Mercury is one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR
at a concentration of . 00 2mg/j. because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this
converts to a . 02mg/l level in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain free mercury afld
mercury sulfide*. Because of the extreme toxicity of
mercury this waste stream could be hazardous under management
A
conditions .
*Versar / Inc • Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Inorganic Chemicals Industry "Contract #68-01-2246
p5-8
103
-------
2812 Waste water treatment sludge from diaphragm cell
process in production of chlorine (T)
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking
Water. The substances listed represent hazards to human
health. In arriving at these specific limits, the total
environmental exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant
has been considered. (For a complete treatment of the data
and reasoning used in choosing the substances and specified
limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical
Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic con-
taminents is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently managed
and disposed often leaches into and contaminents the groundwater.
The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50
randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal sites,
toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that these
heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80% of
the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations) .
Lead is one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at
a concentration of .05mg/l because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this
converts to a .5mg/l level in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain lead carbonate
in soluble concentrations to 1.7mg/l*. Because of the
4
toxicity and solubility of these constituents and because of
the ability of lead to bioaccumulate^these waste streams are
considered hazardous.
*Versar/ Inc• Assessment of Industrial.^ Hazardous
waste Practices, Inorganic Chemicals Industry
"Contract # 68-01-2246
-------
2812 Chlorinated hydrocarbon bearing wastes from diaphragm
cell process in chlorine production (0,M)
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic con-
taminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leaches into and contaminates the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste dis-
posal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and
that these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites
in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides
were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to
have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of ^&
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
-------
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work/
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater) it certainly serves to demonstrate that organic
contamination of groundwater frequently results from industrial
waste-disposal. Since the Administrator has determined "that
the presence in drinking water of chloroform and other tri-
halomethanes and synthetic organic chemicals may have an
adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of avialable toxic organics in
waste as a critical factor in determining if a waste presents
a hazard when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity
and concentration of organic contaminants in waste are con-
sidered in the hazard determination see Toxicity background
document.)
This Waste Stream has been found to contain Chlorinated
orpanics in concentrations ranging from,l to l.Omg/1.
Because of the toxicity of this class of organics this waste
stream is to be considered hazardous.
*"Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations,"
p. 5756, Federal Register, 2/1/78
**Versarf Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
waste Practices, Inorganic Chemicals Industry""
^contract # 68-01-2246 p. 5 - 7
(Of
-------
2816 Chromium bearing wastewater treatment sludge from
production of chrome green pigment (T)
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. in
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been con-
sidered. (For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning
used in choosing the substances and specified limits please
refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 -
003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic con-
taminants is through drinking water. A large percentage of
drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leaches into and contaminants the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste
disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present
and that these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal
sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (s.a. arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Chromium is one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR
at a concentration of .05mg/l because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this con-
verts to a .5mg/l level in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain chromium.
Because of the toxicity of chromium, This waste
is considered hazardous.
-------
2816 Chromium bearing wastewater treatment sludge and
other chromium bearing wastes from production of
chrome oxide green pigment (anhydrous & hydrated)
(T)
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. in
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been con-
sidered. (For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning
used in choosing the substances and specified limits please
refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 -
003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic con-
taminants is through drinking water. A large percentage of
drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leaches into and contaminants the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller reportl indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste
disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present
and that these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal
sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
110
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Chromium is of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at a
concentration of .05mg/l because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this
converts to a .5mg/l level in the TEP extract.
These wastes have been shown to contain* chromic
oxidB (0^03) and chromium hydroxide (CrOH3). These
chromium compounds will be soluble under mildly acidic
conditions. For this reason these waste streams are
considered hazardous.
*Versar, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
waste Practices, Inorganic Chemicals Industry
"Contract # 68-01-2246
u\
-------
2816 Ferric ferrocyanide bearing wastewater treatment
sludges from the production of iron blue pigments
(R)
Reactive wastes as defined by Section 250.14 of RCRA pose
a threat to human health and the environment, either through
the physical consequences of their reaction (i.e., high
pressure and/or heat generation) or through the chemical con-
sequence of their reaction (i.e., generation of toxic fumes).
This waste stream contains* ferric ferrocyanides. Upon
action of and this compound will give off hydrocyanic acid. Also
•
acid bailor neutral solutions of this compound will liberate
hydrocyanic acid under strong irradiation.
*Versar, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
waste Practices, Inorganic Chemicals Industry
"Contract #68-01-224b
-------
2816 Mercury bearing wastewater treatment sludges from
the production of mercuric sulfide pigment (T)
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water,
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been con-
sidered. (For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning
used in choosing the substances and specified limits please
refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 -
003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic con-
taminants is through drinking water. A large percentage of
drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leaches into and contaminants the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller reportl indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste
disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present,
and that these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal
sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Mercury is one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR
at a concentration of .002mg/l because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background doucment this
converts to a .02mg/l level in the EP extract.
This waste stream contains* mercuric oxide (HgO) .
Mercuric oxide is soluble in dilute acid. Because of the
extreme toxicity of Mercury and the solubility of this
mercury compound this waste stream is to be considered
hazardous.
*Versar,Inc.Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
waste Practices, Inorganic Chemicals Industry"
"Contract #68-01-2246
MM
-------
816 Chromium bearing wastewater treatment sludges
from the production of Ti02 pigment by the chloride
process (T)
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water,
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been con-
sidered. (For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning
used in choosing the substances and specified limits please
refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 -
003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic con-
taminants is through drinking water. A large percentage of
drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leaches into and contaminants the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller reportl indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste
disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present,
and that these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal
sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
These wastes contain* titanium hydroxide and small
•
amounts of vanadium, copper, chromium, zarconcium and
niobium.
Chromium is one of the toxicants listed in the NIPDWR
at a concentration of .05mg/l because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this
converts to a .5mg/l level in the EP extract.
*Versar, Inc. Asie"ssment of Industrial Hazardous
waste Practices, Inorganic Chemicals Industry
"Contract #68-01-2246
114
-------
According to the "Handbook of Industrial Waste Compositions
in California - 1978" - D.L. Storm, California Department of
Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Section, November
1978, the components of a quantity (4800 gal) of waste acid
solution from the chloride process in the production of titanium
dioxide had the following ranges:
0 - 15% hydrochloric acid
0 - 30% iron
0 - 1.5% chromium
0 - .16% magnesium
0 - .6% vanadium
0 - .25% niobium
with a pH of 1.5
Because of the toxicity of these contaminents this waste
Stream is considered hazardous.
-------
2816 Chromium bearing wastewater treatment sludges from the
production ot Ti02 pigment by sulfate process (T)
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water,
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. in
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been con-
sidered. (For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning
used in choosing the substances and specified limits please
refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 -
003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic con-
taminants is through drinking water. A large percentage of
drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leaches into and contaminants the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller reportl indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste
disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present
and that these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal
sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Chromium is one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR
at a concentration of .05mg/l because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this converts
s
to a .mg/1 level in the EP extract.
*
This waste has been shown* to contain chromium hydroxide
at concentrations of between 0 to 185 ppm in the sludge solids.
This waste stream will also contain a large amount of Calcium
sulfate. The calcium sulfate will tend to keep the pH of any
water (or leachate) percolating through this waste at a pH
of approximately 5.5. At this pH the concentration of trivalent
chromium in the leachate may be as high as 50mg/l.
*Versar, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
t^aate Practices, Inorganic Chemicals Industry
•^Contract f 68-01-2246
-------
2816 Arsenic bearing sludges from purification process
in the production of antimony oxide (T)
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water,
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been con-
sidered. (For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning
used in choosing the substances and specified limits please
refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality/ EPA-6570/9 -
003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic con-
taminants is through drinking water. A large percentage of
drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leaches into and contaminants the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste
disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present
and that these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal
sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
I3o
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Arsenic is one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at
a concentration of ,05mg/l because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this
converts to a .5mg/l level in the EP extract.
These wastes has been shown to contain* Arsenic
compounds such as arsenic trisulfide (AS2S3) Arsenic tri-
sulfide is soluble in alkalfne solutions (e.g. carbonates.)
Because of the toxicity of arsenic and the solubility of
this compound>this waste stream is to be considered hazardous
*Versar,Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
waste Practices, Inorganic Chemicals Industry
"Contract # 68-01-2246
-------
2816 Antimony bearing wastewater treatment sludge from
product of antimony oxide (T)
This waste stream will cont*. (along with the previously
mentioned arsenic Compounds) antimony compounds (e.g. Antimony
Trioxide). Antimony Trioxide is readily soluble in acetic acid
(a typical light violatile a»d found in leachates). Antimony
poisoning closely parrallels arsenic poisoning. Because of the
toxicity and solubility of an^mnony this waste is considered
a hazardous waste.
*Versar, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
waste Practices, Inorganic Chemicals Industry
"Contract # 68-01-2246
-------
«2816 Chromium or lead bearing wastewater treatment sludge
from production of chrome yellows and oranges (lead
chromate) (T)
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been con-
sidered. (For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning
used in choosing the substances and specified limits please
refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 -
003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic con-
taminants is through drinking water. A large percentage of
drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leaches into and contaminants the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste
disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present,
and that these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal
sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Chromium and lead are two of the toxicants listed by
the NIPDWR both at concentration of .05mg/l because of
their toxicity. As explained in the RCRA toxicity back-
ground document this convers to a .5mg/l level in the
EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain* lead salts
(e.g. lead hydroxide, lead chromate, and chromium hydroxide
(Cr 01*3) . Chromium hydroxide is soluble in acidic media.
At pH 5 a saturated solution will contain 5.2X10"1g/l of
trivalent chromium. Under saturated conditions (i.e. if
equilibrium were reached) then there would be 100 time the
.5mg/l concentation limit in solution. Because of the toxicity
of chromium and the solubility of this salt this waste is con-
sidered hazardous. Lead chromate is one of the more insoluble
lead salts, however it will reach a concentration level up to
.2mg/l. Lead hydroxide is soluble however, to concentrations
several order of magnitude greater then the .5mg/l concentration
limit, unded under, neutral, and acidic condition. Because of the
toxicity of lead and the solubility of these salts this
*Versar, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices, Inorganic Chemicals Industry" Contract # 68-01-2246
US
-------
stream is to be considered hazardous.
-------
2816 Chromium or lead bearing wastewater treatement sludge
from production of molybdate orange (lead molybdate
lead chromate) (T)
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water,
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. in
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been con-
sidered. (For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning
used in choosing the substances and specified limits please
refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 -
003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic con-
taminants is through drinking water. A large percentage of
drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leaches into and contaminants the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste
disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present,
and that these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal
sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Chromium and lead are two of the toxicants listed by
the NIPDWR both at concentration of .05mg/l because of
their toxicity. As explained in the RCRA toxicity back-
ground document this convers to a ,5mg/l level in the
EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain* lead salts
(e.g. lead hydroxide, lead chromate, and chromium hydroxide
(Cr OH3). Chromium hydroxide is soluble in acidic media.
At pH 5 a saturated solution will contain S^XlCT^-g/l of
trivalent chromium. Under saturated conditions (i.e. if
equilibrium were reached) then there would be 100 time the
. 5mg/l concentation limit in solution. Because of the toxicity
of chromium and the solubility of this salt, this waste is con-
sidered hazardous. Lead chromate is one of the more insoluble
lead salts, however it will reach a concentration level up to
. 2mg/l« Lead hydroxide is soluble however, to concentrations
several order of magnitude greater then the .5mg/l concentration
limit, under, neutral, and acidic condition. Because of the
toxicity of lead and the solubility of these salts this
*Versar, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
practices, Inorganic Chemicals Industry" Contract # 68-01-2246
-------
waste stream is to be considered hazardous.
-------
816 Zinc and chromium bearing wastewater treatment sludge
from production of zinc yellow pigment (hydrated zinc
potassium chromate) (T)
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water,
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been con-
sidered. (For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning
used in choosing the substances and specified limits please
refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 -
003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic con-
taminants is through drinking water. A large percentage of
drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leaches into and contaminants the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% o» 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste
disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present,
and that these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal
sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Chromium is one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR
at a concentration of .05mg/l because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this
converts to a .5mg/l level in the EP extract. This waste
has been shown to contain* Chromium hydroxide. Chromium
o
hydroxidg,^ OH3) is soluble in acidic media. At pH 5
a saturated solution will contain 5.2X10'^^^ of trivalent
O
chromium. Undersaturated conditions (i.e. if equilibrium were
A
reached), then there would be 100 times the .5mg/l concentration
in solutio^» Because of the toxicity of chromium and the
solubility of this salt, this waste is considered hazardous.
*Versar,Inc.Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
waste Practices/ Inorganic Chemicals Industry
"Contract #68-01-2246
-------
316 Ash from incinerated still bottoms (paint and pigment
production)(T)
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water,
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been con-
sidered. (For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning
used in choosing the substances and specified limits please
refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 -
003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic con-
taminants is through drinking water. A large percentage of
drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leaches into and contaminants the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste
disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present,
and that these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal
sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
TABLE #1*
ANALYTICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STILL BOTTOMS SAMPLES
COLLECTED FROM SOLVENT RECLAIMING OPERATIONS
Sample
Desig-
nation
AI
A2
B!
B2
D!
D2
Jl
J2
J3
J4
Xl
X2
*1
*2
*2
Z
*Wapora ,
Waste Pra
Contract
Percent
Volatile
Carried Percent
off at Trichloro-
103-105°C ethylene
77
79
89
89 6
99
41
14 3
14
61
28
97 45
97 50
59
58
83
61
Lead
mg/1
1700
500
400
100
1200
1200
100
3700
Chro-
mium,
mg/1
280
60
60
10
360
310
10
730
Zinc
mg/1
190
130
130
10
100
990
10
430
Flash
°C
48
44
51
75
40
46
no
58
53
90
84
86
68
82
74
79
Point,
op
118
111
124
167
104
115
flash
136
127
194
183
187
154
180
165
174
Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
ictices-Paint and Allied
Products
Solvent Reclaiming Operations and
Industry
Factory
-------
TABLE 2*
ANALYSIS OF ASH FROM INCINERATED STILL BOTTOMS
Concentration,
Constituent
Ti02
Si022
SrO
A1203
Fe2o3
MgO
BaO
Mo03
PbO
sb2o5
CaO
NiO
Sn02
ZnO
CoO
MnO
CuO
Cr203
Hot Detected in Sample: Cd, As, Te, B,
*ffapnr-a. Inc. Assessment of Industrial
Percent
Major
15.00
2.00
.50
.20
.20
.10
.004
.03
.02
.005
.005
.005
.003
.003
.003
.001
.001
W, Ge, Bi,
Hazardous
Waff*-** Practices-Paint and Allied Products Industry
rnn+ract solvent Reclaiming Operations
and Factory
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Chromium, lead and Barium are three of the toxicants
listed by the NIPDWR at a concentrations of .05, .05, and 1.0
mg/1, respectively, because of their toxicity. As explained
in the RCRA toxicity background document these converts to
concentrations of 0.5, 0.5 and lO.Omg/1, respetively in the
EP extract.
This waste has been shown contain* chromic oxide
(Cr203), lead oxide (PbO) and Barium oxide (BaO) at the
concentration levels indicated in Tables 1 and 2. The
solubility of Barium oxide is 35g/l in cole water, and 900g/l in
hot water) in aquos solution, this is several orders of magnitude
greater then the allowable TEP concentration limit, so that
a saturated solution would certainly meet the toxicity criteria
for barium. Chromic oxide is amphoteric and soluble in acidic
and basic solutions as is lead oxides. The solubility of both
*Wapora,Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
waste Practices-Paint and Allied Products Industry
Contract Solvent Reclamining Operations and Factory
Application of Coating. 1976
-------
as is lead oxides. The solubility of both of these is
such that a saturated solution of either would surpass
the TEP concentration limit by at least an order of
magnitude. Because of the toxicity and solubility of these
salts this waste is considered hazardous.
135-
-------
2819 Arsenic bearing wastewater treatment sludges from
production of boric acid. (T)
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water,
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been con-
sidered. (For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning
used in choosing the substances and specified limits please
refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 -
003) .
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic con-
taminants is through drinking water. A large percentage of
drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leaches into and contaminants the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste
disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present,
and that these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal
sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
- Arsenic is one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR
at a concentration of .05mg/l because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this
converts to a .5mg/l level in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain* Arsenic.
Because of the toxicity of Arsenic this waste is
considered hazardous.
*Versar,Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
waste Practice's, Inorganic Chemicals Industry"
•"Contract #68-01-2246
-------
2834 Arsenic or Organo-Arsenic Containing Wastewater Treatment
Sludges from Production of Veterinary Pharmaceuticals
(T, M, 0)
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking
Water. The substances listed represent hazards to human health.
In arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental-
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been
considered. (For a complete treatment of the data and reason-
ing used in choosing the substances and specified limits please
refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 -
76 - 003) .
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contami-
nants is through drinking water. A large percentage of
drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence
to indicate that industrial wastes as presently managed and
disposed often leaches into and contaminate; the groundwater.
1
The Geraghty and Miller report indicated that in 98% of 50
randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal sites,
toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that these
heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80% of
the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
As stated earlier a primary exposure route to the public
for toxic contaminants is through drinking water. A large
percentage of drinking water finds its source in groundwater.
EPA has evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presen-
tly managed and disposed often leactyeinto and contaminate
the groundwater.
Geraghty and Miller found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined, organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identifica-
tion of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
(other incidents and reports 2 through 8 do qualitatively
identify leached organic contaminants in groundwater) it
certainly serves to demonstrate that organic contamination
of groundwater frequently results from industrial waste
disposal. Since the Administrator has determined "that the
presence in drinking water of chloroform and other trihalo-
methanes and synthetic organic chemicals may have an adverse
effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted above,
because much drinking water finds its source as groundwater,
the presence of available toxic organics in waste is a
critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and
concentration of organic contaminants in waste are considered
in the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.).
This waste has been shown to also contain * 1,1,2-
trichloroethane, phenol, nitrobenzene and o-nitro-aniline
because of the toxicity of these compounds this waste is a
hazardous waste.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Arsenic is one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at
a concentration of .05mg/l because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this converts
to a .5mg/l level in the . EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain Arsenic. According
to several sources*, this arsenic has leached out inot soil
surrounding its disposal site in concentrations from 4-92mg/kg.
Because of the toxicity of Arsenic and the apparent solubility
of its form in this waste, this waste is considered a hazardous
waste.
(1) "Recommendations Secondary Sites" Salsbury Labortories,
Charles City Iowa Dept. of Environmental Quality, Dec. £4 1977
(2) "Report of Investigation of Salsbury Labs., Charles City Iowa"
Region VII, USEPA, Sept. 1977.
(3) "NPDES Compliance, Monitoring and Waste/Water Character-
Salsbury Labs., Charles City, Iowa" 6/19-6/30, 1978 NEIC
-------
2851 Wastewater treatment and air pollution control sludges
from paint production (T)
This waste stream is classified as hazardous because of
its toxic properties. According to the data EPA has on its
waste stream it meets the RCRA §250.13d characteristic
identifying a toxic hazardous waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
(1) Wapora Inc. has tested a sample of wastewater treatment
and air pollution sludges and has found the following.
contaminent cone, (range of samples)
mg/1
Hg 0.2-0.4
Pb 24.0 - 120.0
Cd 2 - 120
Cr 10 - 217
Zinc 28 - 10,840
Ti 52 - 1205
The data presented above are available from:
Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices:
Paint and Allied Products Industry, Contract Solvent Reclaiming
Operations, and Factory Application of Coating. OSW, PB - 251 -
669, 1976.
14!
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. in
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental exposure
of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a
complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the
substances and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix
A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds it source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leaches into and contaminents the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected
on-site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from
the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic
and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadm'
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells
exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into acco
the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations) .
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium
and silver are toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at concentration
of 0.05, 1.00, 0.010, 0.05, 0.05, 0.002, 0.01, and 0.05, mg/1
respectively because of their toxicity. As explained in the RCRA
toxicity background documents these concentrations convert to
ma
-------
0.05, 10.0, 0.1, 0.5, 0.5, 0.02, 0.1, and 0.5, mg/1 respectively
in the "EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain mercury, lead, cadmium,
and chromium at concentrations of 0.2, to 0.4, 24.0 to 120.0,
2.0 to 120.0, and 10.0 to 217.0 mg/1 respectively, according
to PB - 251 669, Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
Paint and Allied Products Industry, Contact Solvent Reclaiming
Operations, and Factory Application of Coating.
Because of the toxicity of these heavy metals this waste
is to be considered hazardous.
IMS
-------
VACUUM STILL BOTTOMS FROM MALEK*"ANHYDRIDE PRODUCTION
The Administrator has determined this waste stream
to be a potential threat to the environment if improperly
managed. Based on available information, we have determined
that this waste is likely to contain the following:
12% Maleic anhydride:
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminate the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller reportl indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
-------
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Millerl also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater)/ it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
Ar»*S
and other trihalometh. and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
-------
The vacuum still bottoms from maleic anhydride production
contain a significant quanity of maleic anhydride which has
an oral rat LD50 of 481mg/kg. Th4sj~still bottoms also
contain tars believed to be carcinogenic.
Reference: 1. TRW. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practices: Organic Chemicals,
Pesticides and Explosives. USEPA SW-118c
Jan. 1976 p.5-46
2. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances, 1977.
me.
-------
STILL BOTTOMS FROM DISTILLATION OP BENZYL CHLORIDE
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to
be a potential threat to the environment if improperly
managed. Based on available information, we have determined
that this waste is likely to contain <3(. - chlorotoluene.
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminate - the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report! indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
-------
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater), it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
g
and other trihalomethaneK and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
The still bottoms from the distillation of benzyl
chloride are likely to contain alpha-chlorotoluene, a
carcinogenic organic.
References 1. TRW- Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices: Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and
Explosives. USEPA,SW-llSc,Jan. 1976 p. 5-49.
2. NIOSH Registry of the Toxic Effects of
Chemical Substances, 1977.
\Ho
-------
DISTILLATION RESIDUES FROM FRACTIONATING
TOWER FOR RECOVERY OF BENZENE AND CHLOROBENZENE
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to
be a potential threat to the environment if improperly managed.
Based on available information, we have determined that this
•
waste is likely to contain polychlornated aromatic.
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminate, the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report^ indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium/ etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Millerl also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
-------
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater), it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
and other trihalomethane* and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
Distillation residues from the fractionating tower
for the recovery of benzene and chlorobenzene contain poly-
chlorinated aromatics which are believed to be toxic and
bioaccumulative.
Reference: TRW. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices: Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and
Explosives .USEPA SW-118c, Jan. 1976 p. 5-14.
ISO
-------
VACUUM DISTILLATION RESIDUES FROM PURIFICATION OF 1-CHLORO- 4
NITROBENZENE
The Administrator has determined this waste stream
to be a potential threat to the environment if improperly
managed. Based on available information, we have determined
that this waste is likely to contain the following:
o
Plyaromatic Tars
Nitro substituted aromatic polymers
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach -- into and contaminate, the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
151
-------
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater), it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
and other trihalomethanes, and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
-------
The vacuum distillation residues contain polyaromatic
and nitro substituted aromatic polymers which are
believed to be
Deference: TRWf Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices: Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and
Explosives Industries. USEPA SW-118c Jan. 1976
p. 5-9.
153
-------
HEAVY ENDS OF METHANOL RECOVERY - METHYL METHACRYLATE PRODUCTION
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to
be a potential threat to the environment if improperly
managed. Based on available information, we have determined
that this waste is likely to contain the following Toxic
organic':
13% Hydroquinone
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminate, the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
154
-------
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work/
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater), it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
and other trihalomethanes, and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
1SS*
-------
The heavy ends from methanol recovery during methyl
methacrylate production contain a large amount of hydro-
quinone. This organic has an oral rat LD 50 of 320mg/kg.
References 1. TRW.Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices: Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and
Explosive .USEPA^W-llSc, Jan. 1976 p. 5-41.
2. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances, 1977.
ISC
-------
STILL BOTTOMS FROM FRACTIONATION IN EPICHLOROHYDRIN PRODUCTION
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to
be a potential threat to the environment if improperly managed,
Based on available information, we have determined that this
waste is likely to contain the following:
10% Dichloropropanol:
Epichlorohydrin:
is?-
-------
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminate the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
IS*
-------
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater) , it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
and other trihalometh. and synthetic organic chemicals may have
A
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
The still bottoms from the fractionation process in
epichlorohydrin production contain a significant amount of
dichloropropanol, a toxic organic. They also contain
epichlorohydrin which is a suspected carcinogen.
References 1. TRW. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous waste
Practices: Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and
Explosives USEPA SW-118c January, 1976 p. 5-20
2. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances, 1977.
-------
HEAVY CHLORINATED ORGANICS PORTION OF FPACTIONATION WASTE FROM
ETHYL CHLORIDE PRODUCTION
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to be
a potential threat to the environment if improperly managed.
Based on available information, we have determined that this
waste is likely to contain the following:
77% Ilexachlorobutadiene
7% Chlorobenzenes
7% Tars and residues
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leach into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected cn-
site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic
and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into
account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations) .
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
ICC
-------
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the grcundwater. While specific identifi-
cation of these organics was not always undertaken in this
work, (other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in ground-
water) , it certainly serves to demonstrate that organic contami-
nation of groundwater frequently results from industrial waste
disposal. Since the Administrator has determined "that the
presence in drinking water of chloroform and other trihalomethan«-s
and synthetic organic chemicals may have an adverse effect on the
health of persons..."* and, as noted above, because much drinking
water finds its source as groundwater, the presence of available
toxic organics in waste is a critical factor in determining if
a waste presents a hazard when managed. (For a discussion of
how the toxicity and concentration of organic contaminants in
waste are considered in the hazard determination see Toxicity
background document.)
This portion of the fractionation waste from ethyl chloride
production contains chlorobenzenes which are carcinogenic and
bioaccumulative, and tars and residues which are believed to be
carcinogenic. The major constituent is hexachlorobutadiene which
is bioaccumulative and toxic (oral rat LD50 of 90 mg/kg).
References: 1. TRW Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practices: Organic Chemicals,
Pesticides and Explosives. USEPA SW-118c.
Jan. 1976 p. .T-Jfr.
2. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances, 1977.
-------
COLUMN BOTTOMS FROM PRODUCTION OF TRICHLOROETHYLENE
AND PERCHLOROETHYLENE
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminate the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Millerl also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identificatio
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
-------
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater) , it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
on4*
and other trihalometh^ and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
77% Hexachlorobutadiene : Toxic and bioaccumulative
organic (oral rat LD50 = 90mg/d»^r
7% Chlorobenzenes: carcinogenic and bioaccumulative
7% Tars and residues: carcinogenic -poHwVv».l
©F Hese. COM poo <*U "Kis. it
Deferences 1. TRW«Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practice Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and
Explosives USEPA SW-118c Jan. 1976 p. 5-6
2. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances, 1977
-------
DIOXIN - BEARING RESIDUES FROM PRODUCTION
HEXACHLOROrilDNB AND 2, -,5-T
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to
be a potential threat to the environment if improperly managed.
Based on available information, we have determined that this
waste is likely to contain the following:
Dioxin -
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminate the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
/CH
-------
concentrations).
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater), it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
and other trihalomethanes, and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
-------
These residues contain significant amounts of tetrachlorodi-
benz«lodioxin, an extremely toxic organic. Its known toxic
effects include anorexia, severe weight loss, hepatototficity,
hepatop«ir'.phyria, vascular -fissions, chloracne, gastric ulcers,
terotogenicity and delayed death.
References: 1. Carter et al_. Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin: An
Accidental Poisoning Episode in Horse Arenas
Science, 188 (4189): 738-740, May 16, 1975
2. Processes Research, Inc. A Study of
Hazard Emergency Alarm Control System EPA
Contract #68-01-4658 July, 1978,
](*(,
-------
HEAVY ENDS FROM DISTILLATION PROCESS IN VINYL CHLORIDE PRODUCTION
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to be
a potential threat to the environment if improperly managed. Based
on available infomation, we have determined that this waste is
likely to contain the following:
97% higher halogenated hydrocarbons
2% e thylene dichloride
1% tars
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminate the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
-------
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Miller-*- also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater), it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
and other trihalomethane^ and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
-------
•fc
The heavy ends from the distillaion process in vinyl
A
chloride production contain higher halogenated hydrocarbons
which are toxic, tars which are carcinogenic and a significant
amount of ethylene dichloride a compound which has an
oral rat LD50 of 600mg/kg and is also bioaccumulative.
References 1. TRW.Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practices: Organic Chemicals, Pesticides
and Explosives.USEPA>SW-118c,Jan. 1976 p. 5-37,
2. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances, 1977.
-------
2869 Heavy Ends or Distillation Residues from Carbon -^f^e-s? s'J-J'
,— — -"""* / ** •
-------
•disposal. Since the Administrator has determined "that the
presence in drinking water of chloroform and other trihaloiae
and synthetic organic chemicals nay have an. adverse effect on
the health of persons...11* and, as noted above, because much.
drinking water finds its source as groundwater, the presence
of available toxic organics in waste as a critical factor in
determining if a waste presents a hazard ween managed. (For
a discussion of how the toxicity and concentration of organic
contaminants in waste are considered in the hazard determina-
tion see Toxicity background document.)
tace*oMorob0t*di**O. Because of
c?
to
TRW. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practices: Organic Chemicals,
Pesticides c.nd Explosives. USRPA
SW-llRc Jan. .1976* p. 5-;11
* .
and Welfare. 1977 9
-------
HEAVY ENDS FROM DISTILLATION OF ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
t>vc.vJiur>e.ve>E
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to
be a potential threat to the environment if improperly managed,
Based on available information, we have determined that this
waste is likely to contain the following:
23% ethylene dichloride
38% 1, 1, 2 - trichloroethan^
38% tetrachloroethane
-------
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminate the
1
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report! indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the^sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
-------
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater) , it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
ejn*&
and other trihalometh and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
The heavy ends from the distillation of ethylene
dichloride. trichloraethane and tetrachloroethans. . These
compounds are bioaccurriulatirfe". Ethylene dischloride has
an oral rat LD50 of 6SOmg/kg, and tetrachloroethane has an
oral rat LD50 of 20Cmg/kg.
References 1. TRW. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practices: Organic Chemicals,
Pesticides and Explosives. USEPA
SW-118c Jan. 1976"p.5-34
2. NIOSH Registry of the Toxic Effects of
Chemical Substances, 1977.
-------
PURIFICATION COLUMN WASTES (STILL BOTTOMS) FROM
NITROBENZENE PRODUCTION
The Administrator has determined this waste stream
to be a potential threat to the environment if improperly
managed. Based on available information, we have
determined that this waste is likely to contain the
following:
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenol
Dinitrophenol
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminate the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report! indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
-------
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater), it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
and other trihalomethanes, and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see'Toxicity background document.)
-------
The purification column wastes have been found to
contain the toxic organics, nitrophenol and dinitrophenol and
nitrobenzene which has an oral rat LD50 of 640mg/kg.
Reference 1. Mitre Corporation, Nitrobenzene/Amiline
Manufacture: Pollutant Prediction and
Abatement,EPA Contract #68-01-3188,May, 1978'
2. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances, 1977.
-------
STILL BOTTOMS FROM PRODUCTION OF FURFURAL
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to
be a potential threat to the environment if improperly
managed. Based on available information, we have determined
that this waste is likely to contain the following:
Furfural - containing tars and polymers:
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminate-- 'the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
-------
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Miller1 aiso found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
(other incidents and report (References 2 through 8)
gualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater), it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
and other trihalomethane^ and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
-------
The still bottoms from furfural production consist of
furfural - containing tars and organics. Furfural is toxic
organic with an oral rat LD50 of 127mg/kg. Furfural also
has a flash point of 140°F and may create a hazard due to
ignitability.
Reference 1. TRW.Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices: Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and
Explosives. USEPA SW-118c Jan. 1976 p. 5-22.
2. NIOSH Registry of the Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances, 1977 .
-------
SPENT CATALYST FROM FLUOROCARBON PRODUCTION
The Administrator has determined this waste stream
to be a potential threat to the environment if improperly
managed. Based on available information, we have determined
that this waste is likely to contain antimony pentachloride.
Antimony pentachloride fumes in air and may cause
•
antimony poisoning in humans. Effects include dermatit
/
keratitis, conjuctiviti s and nasafe, septal uiceration.
References 1. TRW,Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices: Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and
Explosives. USEPA. SW-118c Jan. 1976 p. 5-31
&
2. M$rrck Index, Eighth Edition, p. 90
131
-------
CENTRIFUGE RESIDUE FROM TOLUENE DinbSOCYANATE PRODUCTION
The Administrator has determined this waste stream
to be a potential threat to the environment if improperly
managed. Based on available information, we have determined
that this waste is likely to contain 3% Isocyanates.
-------
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminate the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste dis-
posal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and
that these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites
in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides
were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to
have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identifi-
cation of these organics was not always undertaken in this
work, (other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8)
183
-------
do qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater), it certainly serves to demonstrate that organic
contamination of groundwater frequently results from
industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
and other trihalomethanes, and synthetic organic chemicals
may have an adverse effect on the health of the persons..."*
and, as noted above, because much drinking water finds its source
as groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a
hazard when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity
and concentration of organic contaminants in waste are con-
sidered in the hazard determination see Toxicity background
document.)
Our information indicates that toluene diisoc'jf|"anate is a
pressure generating compound which reacts with water to
release carbon dioxide. Also, when contact by concentrated
alkaline compounds, run-away polymerisation may occur.
Furthermore toluene diisocyanate is listed as a DOT Poison B.
39
References I. TRW. Assement of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices: Organic, Chemicals, Pesticides
and Explosives. USEPA SW-118c Jan. 1976
p. 5-34
2.- Merck Index, Eighth Edition p. 1058
3. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances, 1977
-------
'- LEAD PRECIPITATE FROM LEAD ALKYLS PRODUCTION
This waste stream is hazardous because of its toxic
properties. According to data EPA has on this waste stream,
it meets the RCRA 250.13 a (4) characteristic identifying a
toxic hazardous waste.
Our information indicates that the waste contains the
following toxic substance:
Lead
Reference: TRW, Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practices: Organic Chemicals, Pesticides,
Explosives. USEPA SW-118c Jan. 1976 p. 5-47
i8S
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water,
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been con-
sidered. (For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning
used in choosing the substances and specified limits please
refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 -
003) .
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic con-
taminants is through drinking water. A large percentage of
drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
~VL>
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminantsMihe
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste
disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present,
and that these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal
sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations). Because of the toxicity of lead, this
waste is considered hazardous.
-------
SLUDGE FROM WASTEWATER TREATMENT OF STRIPPING
STILL TAILS - METYLETHYL PYRIDINE PRODUCTION
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to
be a potential threat to the environment if improperly managed.
Based on available information, we have determined that this
waste is likely to contain the following toxic organics:
Paraldehyde
Pyridines
Picolines
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach ' into and contaminate the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
-------
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater), it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
and other trihalomethanes, and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
-------
The sludge from wastewater treatment of stripping still
t
tails contains paraldehyde, ptcolines and pyriraidines which
are toxic organics.
References: TRW, Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices: Organic Chemical, Pesticides and
Explosives Industries. USEPA, SW-118c, Jan. 1976
p. 5-28.
-------
STILL BOTTOMS FROM ANILINE DISTILLATION
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to
be a potential threat to the environment if improperly
managed. Based on available information, we have determined
that this waste is likely to contain nitrobenzene:
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminate the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
-------
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Millerl also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater), it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
and other trihalomethanes, and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
-------
The still bottoms from aniline distillation contain
nitrobenzene, a toxic organic with an oral rat LD50 of
640mg/kg.
References 1. Mitre Corp. Nitrobenzene /Aniline
Manufacture: Pollution Prediction and
Abatement. EPA Contract #68-01-3188, May 1978 .
a. M£>SH 'R/zqisTPii o$ Toxic.
-------
.
AQUEOUS EFFLUENT FROM SCRUBBING OF SPENT
ACID IN NITROBENZENE PRODUCTION
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to
be a potential threat to the environment if improperly
managed. Based on available information, we have determined
that this waste is likely to contain the following:
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophanol
Benzene
Dinitrobenzene
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminate the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller reportl indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
-------
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations) .
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. Wh'ile specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater), it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
and other trihalomethanes, and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
IIS
-------
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
The aqueous effluent grom scrubbing spent acid in
nitrobenzene production contains
(1) nitrobenzene: toxic organic with an
oral rat LD50 of 640mg/kg
(2) nitrophenol: toxic organic
(3) dinitrobenzene: toxic organic
(4) benzene: suspected carciongen
*
References 1. Mttre Corp. Nitrobenzene /Aniline Manufacture!
Pollutant Prediction and Abatement.EPA
Contract # 68-01-3188. May, 1978.
2. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances, 1977.
-------
M
BOTTOM STREAM FROM QUENCH COLUN - ACRYLONITRILE PRODUCTION
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to
be a potential threat to the environment if improperly managed.
Based on available information, we have determined that this
waste is likely to contain the following:
7% Hydrogen cyanide
*
0.1% Acrylamide
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminate the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report-*- indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
-------
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater), it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
and other trihalomethanes, and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
-------
The bottom stream from the quench column in acrylonitrile
production contains a significant amount of HCN, an intensely
poisonous gas which can cause tachypnea followed by dyspnea,
v
paralysis, unconsciousness, convulsions and respiratory arrest.
Death may result in a few minutes from exposure to 300ppm.
This waste stream also contains acrylamide, a toxic organ^
which has an oral rat LD50 170mg/kg.
References 1. Mitre Corp. Acrylonitrile Manufacture:
Pollutant Prediction and Abatement,
USEPA Contract #68-01-3188 p. 133, February, 1978
2. Merck Index, Eighth Edition p. 5-44 ,
3. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances, 1977
-------
BOTTOM STREAM FROM WASTEWATER STRIPPER -
ACRYLONITRILE PRODUCTION
n
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to
be a potential threat to the environment if improperly
managed. Based on available information/ we have determined
that this waste is likely to contain the following:
225ppm HCN
SOOppm Nicotinitrile
540ppm Succinonitrile
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminate, the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic, contaminants in
groundwater), it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
and other trihalomethanes, and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
-------
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
The bottom stream from the wastewater stripper contains
HCN, an intensely poisonous gas which can cause tachypnea followed
^
by dyspnea, paralysis, unconsciousness, convulsions and '"•
respiratory failure. Exposure to ISOppm for 1/2 -' 1 hour may,
endanger life. This stream also contains the toxic organics,
nicotinitrile and succinonitrile.
References 1. Mitre Corp. Acrylonitrile Manufacture Pollutant
Prediction and Abatement USEPA Contract
#68-01-3188 p. 137 February, 1978
2. Merck Index, Eighth Edition
3. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances, 1977.
-------
STILL BOTTOMS FROM FINAL PURIFICATION OF ACRYLONITRILE
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to
be a potential threat to the environment if improperly managed.
Based on available information, we have determined that this
waste is likely to contain the following:
Methacrylonitrile
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach . into and contaminate the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites/ toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
-------
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater), it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
and other trihalomethanes, and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
-------
The still bottoms contain methacrylonitrile (toxic
organic with an oral rat LD50 of 250mg/kg) , acrylamide
(toxic organic with an oral rat LD50 of 170mg/kg) and
acrylic acid (a corrosive and toxic organic with an oral
rat LD50 of 340mg/kg).
References 1. Mitre Corp. Acrylonitrile Manufacture:
Pollutant Prediction and Abatement. USEPA
Contract 168-01-3188 p. 138, Feb. 1978 •
2. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances, 1977.
-------
SOLID WASTE FROM ION EXCHANGE COLUMN - ACRYLONITRILE PRODUCTION
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to
be a potential threat to the environment if improperly managed.
Based on available information, we have determined that this
waste is likely to contain the following:
Acrylonitrile -
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach into and contaminated the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
-------
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater), it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
and other trihalomethanes, and synthetic organic chemicals may have
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted
above, because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater, the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxicity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxicity background document.)
-------
The waste from the ion exchange column contains
acrylonitrile, a toxic/ flammable organic with an oral
rat LD50 of 82mg/kg.
References 1. Mitre Corp. Acrylonitrile Manufacture"Pollutant
Practices Prediction and Abatement, USEPA Contract
#68-01-3188 February, 1978 p. 138.
2. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances, 1977.
-------
WASTE STREAM FROM HCN PURIFICATION - ACRYLONITRILE PRODUCTION
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to
be a potential threat to the environment if improperly
managed. Based on available information, we have determined
that this waste is likely to contain the following:
Propenes, Butenes and Pentenes.
Propenes and butenes are flammable gases. Pentene
has a flash point of 0°F.
As is evident from above this waste stream has a flash
point of 140°F or below. Ignitables with flash points less
than 140°F can become a problem while they are landfilled.
During and after the disposal of an ignitable waste, there
are many available external and internal energy sources
which can provide an impetus for combustion, raising
temperatures of waste to their flash points. Disposal of
ignitable waste may result in fire that will cause damage
directly from heat and smoke production or may provide a
vector bywhich other hazardous waste can be dispersed.
Ignitable wastes tend to be highly volatile and the
evaporation of these volatiles contributes to poor air
quality. (Refer to ignitability background document for
further detail) .
-------
Reference
1. Mitre Corp. Acrylonitrile Manufacture
Pollutant Prediction and Abatement
USEPA contract §68-01-3188 Febu^vbry, 1978 p. 140.
3116
-------
BOTTOMS FROM ACETONITRItfE PURIFICATION - ACRYLONITRILE PRODUCTION
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to be
a potential threat to the environment if improperly managed.
Based on available information, we have determined that this
waste is likely to contain the following:
Acetonitrile:
Benzene:
-------
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leach * into and contaminate the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller reportl indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal
sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present, and that
these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80%
of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found
to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identification
of these organics was not always undertaken in this work,
-------
(other incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do
qualitatively identify leached organic contaminants in
groundwater) , it certainly serves to demonstrate that
organic contamination of groundwater frequently results
from industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has
determined "that the presence in drinking water of chloroform
and other trihalometh and synthetic organic chemicals may have
A
an adverse effect on the health of persons..."* and/ as noted
above/ because much drinking water finds its source as
groundwater/ the presence of available toxic organics in waste
is a critical factor in determining if a waste presents a hazard
when managed. (For a discussion of how the toxic ity and con-
centration of organic contaminants in waste are considered in
the hazard determination see Toxic ity background document.)
The column bottoms from acetonitrile purification contain
acetonitrile/ ana organic substance with a flash point of 42°F,
and benzene/ a suspected carcinogen.
References: 1. Mitre Griop. Acrylonitrile Manufacture'Pollutant
Prediction and Abatement,USEPA Contract
#68-01-3188 February/ 1978 p. 139
2. NIOSH Registry of the Toxic Effects of
Chemical Substances, 1977.
•XV3
-------
2890 Sludges, wastes from tub washes (Ink Formulation) (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its
toxic characteristic. According to the information EPA has
on this waste stream it meets RCRA §250.13d characteristic
indentifying toxic waste.
The Administrator has determined this waste stream to be
a potential threat to the environment if improperly managed.
EPA bases this classification on the following information:
1) An EPA contractor has tested a sample of waste
sludges and has found the following:
Contaminant Cone mg/1
Cr as total Chromium 150
Cd .29
Pb 760
pH = 12.5
The data presented are available from:
Effluent Guidelines for Paint Formulating and the Ink
Formulating Industry. EPA 444/1-75/050.
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of drinking water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health.
In arriving at these specific limits/ the total environ-
mental exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has
been considered. (For a complete treatment of the data
and reasoning used in choosing the substances and specified
-------
limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
managed and disposed often leaches into and contaminate the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller report indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waste
disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be present,
and that these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal
sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater
concentrations.
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury,
selenium, and silver are toxicants listed by the NIPDWR
at concentrations of 0.05, 1.00, 0.010, 0.05, 0.05, 0.002,
O.Ol/ and 0.05 mg/1 respectively because of thier toxicity.
As explained in the RCRA toxicity background documents
these concentrations convert to 0.5, 10.0, 0.1, 0.5,
0.5, 0.02, 0.1, and 0.5 mg/1 respectively in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain chromium, cadmium,
-------
and lead at concentrations of 150.0, 0.29, 760.0 mg/1
respectively, according to EPA 444/1-75/050, Effluent
Guidelines for Paint Formulation and Ink Formulating
Industry.
2) California Manifest
Additional information regarding the composition
of this waste stream was obtained from sample analyses
as shown in Handbook of Waste Composition in California,
1978. Shown below are typical compositions of ink waste
water and equipment cleaning wash water as found on the
California Manifests.
Ink Waste Water 0.16% Zinc
0.10% lead
236ppm suspended solids
1575 gals
Printing Ink Equipment Cleaning
Production Wash water
1-2% lead chromate
5-7% other pigments
4-6% phenolics
3-5% NaOH
balance Water
pH 8
-------
The following section discusses the listed wastes resulting
from the manufacture of those organic chemicals commonly used as
pesticides. The discussions of these has been organized differently
than for those for the other listed waste streams. This has been
done because of the repetitive nature of, and similiarities between
the type of available information on these wastes, and because
of the similiarities between the types of sources of these wastes
(e.g. side reactions hydrolyzed product/ product contamination
of waste).
A general section detailing the hazards posed by these
types of waste will be followed by descriptions of the reactions
undergone in the processes generating these wastes (including
identification of toxicity information on potential contaminents).
PESTICIDES: GENERAL DISCUSSION
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leaches
into and contaminates the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
report^- indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal
sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides
were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have
migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium,
etc.) in tne groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations)..
-------
Geraghty and Miller1 also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these sites
chlorinated orgaincs attributable to waste disposal were observed
in the groundwater. While specific identification of these organics
was not always undertaken in this work, (other incidents and
references 2 through 8 do qualitatively identify leached organic
contaminants in groundwater) it certainly serves to demonstrate
that organic contamination of groundwater frequently results from
industrial waste disposal. Since the Administrator has determined
"that the presence in drinking water of chloroform and other
trihalomethanes and synthetic organic chemicals may have an adverse
effect on the health of persons..."* and, as noted above, because
much drinking water finds its source as groundwater, the presence
of available toxic organics in waste is a critical factor in
determining if a waste presents a hazard when improperly managed.
(For a discussion of how the toxicity and concentration of organic
contaminants in waste are considered in the hazard determination
see Toxicity background document).
*"Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations,"
p. 5756, Federal Register, 2/9/78
-------
The following waste streams:
Wastewater treatment sludges from the production of
dieldrin, chlordane, toxaphen, disulfoton, mala-
thion, phorate, carbarftyj, trifluraline, alachlor,
methyl parathion, parathion, vernolate, methomly,
carbofuran, captan, creosote, dithio carbamates,
pentachlorophenol, bromacil, diuron, dichlorobenzene
and cloroxuron. (O,M,B,)
Wastewater from oxidation of aldrin solution in
production of dieldrin. (O,M,B,)
Wastewater from extraction of dieldrin solution in
production of dieldrin. (0,M,B)
Wastewater and scrub water from chlorination of
cyclopentadiene in production of chlordane.
(0,M,B)
Filter solids from filtration of hexachlorocylopenta-
diene in production of chlordane. (O,M,B)
Filter cake from filtration of toxaphene solution
in production of toxaphene. (O,M,B)
Unrecovered triester from production of disulfoton. (0,M)
Still bottoms from toluene reclamation distillation in
production of disulfoton. (O,M)
Filter cakes from filtration of dimethylphosphoro-
thion and DMTA in production of malathion. (O,M)
Liquid wastes from washing and stripping in production
of malathion. (O,M,)
Liquid and solid wastes from the washing, stripping
and filtration of phorate in phorate production. (0,M)
Filter cake from the filtration of diethylphosphorodi-
thoric acid in the production of phorate. (0,M)
Heavy ends and distillation residues from production
of carbaryl. (0,M)
2, 6-D waste by-product from production of 2,4-D. (O,M,B)
Heavy ends or distillation residues from distillation
of tetrachlorobenzene in production of 2f4,5-T.
(0,M,B)
Scubber and filter wastes from production of
atrazine. (0,M)
-------
Filter cake from production of diazinon. (O,M)
By-product salts in production of MSMA. (0,M)
By-product salts in production of cacodylic acid. (T)
Tars from manufacture of bicycloheptadiene and
cyclopentadiene. (0,M,B)
potentially contain the organic contaminants listed in the following
section under the respective waste stream. The toxicity of these
contaminents is also indicated. Because of the toxicity of these
contaminents and because of the persistance and bioaccumulation
characteristics of many of them,these waste streams are to be
considered hazardous, as noted in the specific listing.
-------
Alachlor
Aiachlor is produced according to the following reaction.
scheme :
C2H5
Diethylauiline
H2CO C2H
Solvent
CICH^ C-CH£C1
C1CH2COC1 C2H^^iv.^C2H5
NH4C1
CH3OH
!? 8-CH2CI
or%
Alachlor-
m^
Alachlor, its hydrolyzed derivaties, solvent, and reaction
tars may be present in the wastestream.
alachlor
- Oral Rat - LD50: 1200 mg/kg
3^: Ref 1, p. 153-156
2. Ref 2
-------
References
1. Lawless, E.W., Pesticide Study Series -5-
The Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing.
Technical Studies Report: TS -00- 72 - 04.
Washington, U.S. GPO, 1972. 250p.
2. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977.
3. Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental Use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2- 77 - 023h,
Technology Series, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, 1977. 232p.
-------
I. *
Aldrin, Dieldrin
Due to the lack of quantitative information on the
contents of the wastestrearas, this report is more detailed
than is customary. Aldrin and Dieldrin will be considered
together since Dieldrin is produced from the epoxidation
of Aldrin. In the first step of the reaction, the freshly
cracked cyclopentadiene is condensed with acetylene to form
bicycloheptadiene.
C5Hg. + C2H2
Bicycloheptadiene
The reaction is either carried out in an organic
solvent or else the acetylene is diluted with a nitrogen
stream. The reaction goes in about 30-60% yield in toluene
•
with the major by-products being tricycline and other
multiple ring compounds . The C-^Hg produced is removed
and the "bottoms" are introduced back into the cracker.
1. ref. 1 pg. 5-88,89
-------
Bicycloheptadiene undergoes a Diels-Alder
condensation with hexachlorocyclopentadiene to form Aldrin.
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene may contain as impuritiesr
trichlorocyclopentene isomers, octachlorocyclopentene,
and pentachlorocyclopentadiene2 formed from incomplete
chlorination. CsHg and C2^2 may also be present in the
diene reactor. Therefore many other chlorinated condensation
products are possible, some of high molecular weights.
Technical grade Aldrin contains about 12-13% analogs
and 5% various other compounds3. A possible source of
hazardous wastes would be in the cleaning of the diene
reactor (for reaction(2)) where chlorinated tars and Aldrin
might be present.
2. ref. 2 pg. 7
3. ref 1 5-88,89
-------
Liquid wastes from spill cleanup or washing go to
an asphalt-lined evaporation basin. During shut down,
the Aldrin unit is washed with toluene and these wastes
4
go into Dieldrin manufacture .
Dieldrin is produced from the epoxidation of Aldrin
with a peracid.
HOAc
Aldrin Dieldrin
In the first stage of the process, a solution of Aldrin
in toluene is filtered and the filter solids are incinerated .
The filter solids contain chlorinated tars and higher molecular
weight condensation products produced from the diene
reaction (2).
4 ref. 3 pg. 80-83
5 ref. 3 pg. 84-87
-------
The filtered Aldrin is oxidized with the peracid
with H2S04 as a catalyst. The aqueous phase is removed,
the Dieldrin solution is extracted with water, and both
these wastewater streams are sent to an evaporation basin .
The waste water is likely to contain sulfuric acid,
acetic acid, toluene, Aldrin, Dieldrin, and Aldrin and
Dieldrin analogs. The waste may also contain side products
from the epoxidation such as glycols, glycol esters and
ketone derivatives of Dieldrin6.
Aldrin is chemically stable but is oxidized by chlorination,
potassium permanganate, ozone and aeration. Incomplete
oxidation leads to Aldrin rather than a nontoxic product
while Dieldrin is chemically stable towards alkali and
mineral acids. Both undergo catalytic decomposition in the
presence of an active metal .
The last stage of the process involves solvent stripping
and recycling. Tars are removed from the equipment by toluene.
5 ref. 3 pg. 80-83 *~
6 ref. 4 pg. 618-619
7 ref. 5 pg. 42
-------
Toxicity Data8
Dieldrin:
oral human - LDLo: 28mg/kg
oral rat - LD50: 46mg/kg
carcinogenic determination: animal positive
Aldrin:
oral human - TCLo: 14mg/kg
oral child - TDLo: 1250/«.g/kg
oral rat - LD50: 67mg/kg
Toxic effects - central nervous system
Carcinogenic detn. - indefinite
Toluene;
oral human - LDLo: 50mg/kg
oral rat - LD50: 5000mg/kg
Aquatic toxicity TLm 96: 100-lOppm
DOT - flammable
Cyclopentadienef Hexachloro;
oral rat - LD50: 113mg/kg
Miscellaneous Information
Aldrin9:
water solubility: 27ppb
persistance in soil: more than 12 months
9
Dieldrin :
.water solubility: 185ppb
persistance in soil: more than 12 months
8 ref. 6
9 ref. 5 pg. 164
-------
References
1. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices:
Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and Explosives.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-118C.
Washington, D.C., U.S. GPO, 1976.
2. Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental Use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2- 77 - 023h,
Technology Series, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, 1977. 232p.
3. Lawless, E.W. Pesticide Study Series -5--
Th e Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing.
Technical Studies Report: TS -00- 72 - 04.
Washington, U.S. GPO , 1972. 250p.
4. March, J. Advanced Organic Chemistry:
Reactions, Mechanisms, and Structure.
New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968. 1098p.
5. Atkins, P. The Pesticide Manufacturing Industry-
Current Waste Treatment and Disposal Practices.
Office of Research and Monitoring, Project 12020FYE.
Washington, U.S. GPO, 1972. 185p.
6. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977.
-------
Atrazine
process
Atrazine is produced by the following four-step
1/2.
Cl2(g) + HCN(g)
CNC1. . + HC1, .
(g) (g)
(i)
300-410°
CNCL
Cl
ci
Cyanuric
chloride
(2)
Cl
Cl
Cyanuric
chloride
Solvent
Cl
JOL
^-^^
HC1
(3)
Cl
H
H
Cl
)-
3 2
HC1 (4)
Atrazine
TIRef 1, p. 14,15,17-20
2. Ref 2, p. 143-147
-------
According to the report by Lowenbach and Schlesinger ,
the following pollutants may be present in the waste streams
generated from Atrazine production:
4*
Cyanuric chloride
Ethyl amine
«
Isopropylamine
Methylethyl Ketone
Diethylamine
Diisopropylamine
Atrazine
2-chloro-4,6-bis-ethyl amino-s-triazine
2-chloro-4,6-bis-isopropyl amino-s-
triazine
LD5Qrat
mg/kg
**
LDLo:400
820 (DOT flammable
liquid)
3400 (DOT flammable
liquid)
540 (DOT flammable
liquid)
700 (DOT flammable
liquid)
1750
5000
5000
Cyanuric acid LDLo:500
2,6-dichloro-4-ethyl amino-s-triazine **
2,6-dichloro-4-isopropyla amino-s-triazine
2-hydroxy-4,6-bis-ethyl amino-s-triazine
**
**
2-hydroxy-4,6-bis-isopropyl amino-s-
triazine
2-hydroxy-4-ethyl araino-6-isopropy1
amino-s-triazine
Other related s-triazines (hydrolyzed and
unhydrolyzed)
3. Ref 1
4. Ref 3 * Except where otherwise stated
** Not available
**
**
**
230
-------
4*
LD5Qrat
mg/kg
Cyanogen polymers **
Cyamelic chloride **
Cyanuric chloride polymers **
Oxalyl chloride **
Cyanogen inn-rat LC50:350 ppm/lH
Cyanides (DOT-Poison B)
Cyanic acid **
Hydrocyanic acid LDLotlO (DOT-Poison A)
l»
N-nitosoamines may also be formed from the reaction of
<*
secondary amines (atrazine and its side products) with
nitrogen oxide .
The calcium chloride and calcium sulfate used to dry
cyanogen before the cyanuric chloride reaction may contain
cyanogen, cyanogen chloride, cyanuric acid, cyanic acid,
6
chlorine, hydrocyanic acid and water .
The spent carbon catalyst used to catalyze the cyanuric
chloride reaction may contain cyanogen chloride, dimers of
cyanogen chloride, cyanuric acid, and cyanuric chloride .
5. Ref l, p.J
6. Ref 1, p. 15,30
7. Ref 1, p. 15,31
-------
References
1. Lowenbach, W., Schlesinger, J., and King, J.
Toxic Pollutant Identification: Atrazine Manufacturing.
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry, Washington, D.C.,
1978. 54p.
2. Lawless, E.W., Pesticide Study Series -5-
The Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing.
Technical Studies Report: TS -00- 72 - 04.
Washington, U.S. GPO, 1972. 250p.
3. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances.
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977
-------
Bicycloheptadiene and Cyclopentadiene
Bicycloheptadiene and cyclopentadiene are used as starting
materials for a variety of diene-based chlorinated pesticides.
Cyclopentadiene is produced from the cracking of the
cyclopentadiene dimer. Bicycloheptadiene is produced from the
condensation of cyclopentadiene and acetylene. Numerous higher
molecular weight condensation products and tars are formed by
this process.
Rat !
Chemical LD50 mg/kg
Bicycloheptadiene 890 (intraperitoneal)
Bicyclopentadiene 353 (oral)
1. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances.
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health/ Education,
and Welfare. 1977 .
-------
Bromacil
Bromacil is produced according to the following
process-*-;
CH3COCH2CO2C2H3 ..
The first step of the process is the formation of sec-butyl urea.
Possible side products are urea and bis- (sec-butyl) urea.
The alkyl urea is next condensed with ethyl-acetoacetate to
produce 3-sec-butyl-6-methyl uracil. Other possible side
products are l-sec-buty-6-methyl-uracil, 6-methyl-uracil,
and 1,3-di (sec-butyl)- 6-methyl-uracil. The uracil is purified
neutralized with I^SC^, and then brominated to yield
Bromacil .
1. Ref 1, p. 77,81
2. Ref 2, p. 52,55,56
-------
Other possible brominated products of the uracils
may also be present. All the above mentioned by-products,
reaction intermediates/ tars, and residues in addition
to Bromacil may be found in the wastewater sludge.
Bromacil oral rat LD50: 5200mg/kg
3. Ref 3
-------
References
1. Parsons,?., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental Use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA-600/2-77-023h,
Technology Series, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, 1977. 232p.
2. Effluent Guidelines Division, Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials. Development Document for Interim
Final Effluent Guidelines for the Pesticide Chemicals
Manufacturing Point Source Category. EPA 440/1-75/
060d Group II. Washington, 1976
3. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977 .
-------
Cacodylic Acid/ MSMA
Cacodylic acid and MSMA will be treated together since
they are manufactured from the same intermediate. The pro-
duction scheme is shown below :
3NaOH
1/2 As203 — • -
-f 3/2
CH3A$O(ONa)2
DSMA
O
CH3AsO
K>
CH3AiO(ONo)OH + NaSO4
MSMA
HC1
NoCt
CoeodylTe
Acid
Discharge at one MSMA plant contains 0.7 to 0.8 ppm arsenic
as well as NaCl and Na2604. The solid waste from the
Cacodylic acid process contains a mixture of NaCl, Na2S04
2
and 1-1 1/2% cacodylate contaminants •
Cacodylic acid and its salts are undergoing pre-RPAR
review due to "oncogenicity; mutagenicity; teratogenicity;
fetotoxicity; male reproductive effects"
TT Ret 1, p. 97-104
2. ibid ;
3. Special Pesticides Review Dvision Status Report, ITov 2, 1978
-------
Reference
1. Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process Profiles for
Environmental Use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA-600/2-77-023h,
Technology Series, Environmental Protection Agency/
Washington, 1977. 232p.
-------
Captan
1
Captan is produced by the following process •
CH-CH2
j • •
CH=CH2
Butadiene
•• •
,,
CH-CO
| ^>Q + NH:
CH-CO
Haleic
" anhydride
HC
j — > !j
HC
CH-CO
j >
CH-CO
1
NH 2
,NaOH
,CC13SC1
•-
XrfJ.*^
Tetrahydrophthalimide
HC
||
HC
v^
NCH-CO
| > NSCC1
CH-CO
NaCl
Captan
I,
CS2 + 3C12 - ^ CC13SC1 + SC12
Perchloromethyl raercaptaa
The wastewater treatment sludge may contain captan/ starting
materials, reaction intermediates, by-products, and tars.
1200 pounds of chemical wastes are generated each year
by +Hi& process.
i" Rei 1, p. 157-162
2. Ref 2, p. 93-94
-------
A few possible side reactions are listed below
o o
RX + ©N
R-N;
il
,c
/
NH +
c
I
c
O
U
c
\
NE
CH,
r
c
I
c >
CH,
H
CH,
to
3. Ref 3, p. 340
-------
Possible ;
Found in Wastewater
Treatment Sludges
Captan
Butadiene
Maleic an .hydride
Tetrahydrophthalic acid anydride
Tetrahydrophthalimide
r
Perchloromethyl melpeaptan
CC13SNH2
4-Vinyl-1-cyclohexene
Tetrahydrophthalate
Misq-condensation products
Tars
Carbon disulfide
Iodides
Misc. sulfides
Solvent
Oral Rat
LD50 mg/kg*
9000
5480
4816
(DOT: corrosive)
**
83
**
3080
(carcinogenic
determination:
indefinite )
**
**
**
(DOT: flammable)
**
**
**
G
i< Unless otherwise indicated
** Data unavailable
. . Ref 4
. (Federal Register - 10/28/77-Maleic Anhydride
Dncogenic in mice, mutagenic in plants,
•flies, rats; reproductive effects in rats])
-------
References
1. Lawless, E.W., Pesticide Study Series -5-
The Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing.
C Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, 1977.., 232p.
T.chMuoJ Stud*** Report
2. Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental Use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2- 77 - 023h,
Technology Series, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, 1977. 232p.
3. March, J. Advanced Organic Chemistry:
Reactions, Mechanisms, and Structure.
New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968. 1098p.
4. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977.
-------
Carbaryl
Carbaryl is manufactured according to the following
production scheme:
Naphthalene
Tetrahydro-
naphthalene
. 0-C(0)NHCH3
,CH3NH2
NaOH
1-Tetralol
1-Tetralone
0-C(0)C1
COCl?
KaOH
Carbarvl
l-Nut;I-thyl-
chloroforraate
1-Iiaphthol
The by-products that may be present from the production of
L,
1—naphthol are: unreacted naphtalene/ tetrahydronaphthalene
A
1-tetralone, 2-tetralone, and 2-naphthol.
T. Ret 1 pg. 118-122
543
-------
The 1-naphthol and its by-products are next reacted
with phosgene (COC1 ) and sodium hydroxide to form 1-naphthyl-
chloroformate and sodium chloride. By-products formed in this
step are: 2-naphthyl chloroformate and 1-1 (or either 1,2 or 2,2)
2
dinaphthylcarbonate . All of these may be present in the
wastewater in small quantities.
The 1-naphthyl-chloroformate is next reacted with
methylamine and sodium hydroxide to produce carbaryl. Unreacted
tetralone (if present) may react with the amine to form an
imine or an enamine ' which could aromatize to form N-methyl—
napthylamine. These would also be present in the wastewater.
Carbaryl is susceptible to basic hydrolysis to yield
1-naphthol' and N-methyl-carbonate.
2. Ref 2, p. 319
3. Ref 3, p. 858
4. Ref 2, p. 667
5. Ref 4, p. 41
-------
Toxicity Data
Carbaryl
Oral rat
Oral man
Oral human
1-naphthol
Oral rat
2-naphthol
Oral rat
- LD50: 400 mg/kg
-ft,
- TDLo: 2800 -»g/kg
- LDLo: 50 mg/kg
- LD50: 2590 mg/kg
- LD50: 2420 mg/kg
1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-naphthalene
Oral rat - LD50: 2860 mg/kg
Oral human - LDLo: 500 mg/kg
Aquatic toxicity rating - TLm 96:100-10 ppm
1-tetralone
Oral rat - LD50: 810 mg/kg
Naphthalene
Oral rat
Oral human
N-methyl-1-naphthylamine
Oral rat
Miscellaneous Information'
Carbaryl solubility in water -
-------
References
Lawless, E.W. Pesticide Study Series -5-
The Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing.
Technical Studies Report: TS -00- 72 - 04.
Washington, U.S. GPO, 1972. 250p.
March, J. Advanced Organic Chemistry:
Reactions, Mechanisms, and Structure.
New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968. 1098p.
Morrison, R.T. and Boyd, R.N. Organic Chemistry.
Boston, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1973. 1258p.
Atkins, P. The Pesticide Manufacturing Industry-
Current Waste Treatment and Disposal Practices.
Office of Research and Monitoring, Project 12020FYE.
Washington, U.S. GPO, 1972. 185p.
NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977.
Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2- 77 -023h,
Technology Series, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, 1977. 232p.
-------
Carbofuran
Very little information is available on this manufactur-
ing process. Carbofuran is produced by the reaction of
2/3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranol and methyl isocyanate
in the presence of ether and trimethylamine. The carbofuran is
*-.
recovered from the products, and the waste stream goes
i
through neutralization, concentration equalization/ and
settling before discharge1. Normally, wastes from aryl and
2
and some heavy residues .
alkyl carbanate production include liquid streams, vents,
e
Carbofuran
Oral rat LD50: 5300 fg/kg
1. Rei i, p. 65
2. Ref 2, p. 50-51
3. Ref 3
-------
-7-
References
1. Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental Use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2- 77 - 023h,
Technology Series/ Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, 1977. 232p.
2. Effluent Guidelines Division, Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials. Development Document for Interim
Final Effluent Guidelines for the Pesticide Chemicals
Manufacturing Point Source Category. EPA 440/1-75/
06Od Group II. Washington, 1976
3. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977
-------
Chlordane
Chlordane is manufactured, according to the following
production scheme:
Ka^tha • -> Cyclopentadiene
C12 + NaOH (aq.) •• *. NaCIO .(aq.)
NaCIO (aq.) + C5H6 ^ C5C16 + NaCI Calk-
C^Cl^ + C5H6 ' —& Chlordene CCioH6C16
Cnlordene -f- C12 —> Tech. chlordane CC1OH6C18 *
' • related epds.)
Cyclopentadiene is produced from the cracking of naphtha.
Tars are a by-product of this process and need to be disposed
of.
The second phase of the process is the free radical
chlorination of Cyclopentadiene with NaCIO to produce
hexachlorocyclopentadiene. Trichlorcyclopentene isouters,
octachlorocyclopentene, and pentachlorocyclopentadiene
2
are possible by-products . The wastewater has about 2%
3,4.
NaOH and 400 ppm C5ci6 The above mentioned by-products
should also be present as should Nad, NaCIO, and NaClOgr
formed from the disproportionation of CIO .
The C_ci- solution is next filtered to remove the tars
-> 6
formed in the reaction.
1. Ref 1, p. 88-93
2. Ref 2f p. 7
3. Ref 1, p. 88-93
4. Ref 2, p. 39-40
-------
CgClg and C,.H are condensed to form chlordene.
Other types of condensation products are possible such as the
condensation of C H with some of the by-products of the
o 6
C5cig production step.
Chlorination of chlordene to produce chlordane yields a
variety of chlorinated epimers, one of which is the pesti-
cide Heptachlor that results from the substitution chlorina-
tion rather than the addition chlorination . Technical
6
grade chlordane contains about 7-8% Heptachlor . Chlordane,
Heptachlor, and related compounds may be present in the
wastewater from periodic equipment cleaning and production
area cleanup.
STRef 3, p. 39
6. Ref 1, p. 88-93
-------
Toxicity Data
Chlordane
Oral rat LD50: 283 rag/kg
Heptachlor
Oral rat LD50: 40 rag/kg
Cyclopentadiene, Hexachloro
Oral rat LD50: 113 mg/kg
Sodium Chlorate
Oral rat LD50: 1200 mg/kg
7. Ref 4
-------
References
1. Lawless, E.W., Pesticide Study Series -5-
The Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing.
Technical Studies Report: TS -00- 72 - 04.
Washington, U.S. GPO, 1972. 25Op.
2. Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental Use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2- 77 - 023H,
Technology Series, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, 1977. 232p.
3. Atkins, P., The Pesticide Manufacturing Industry-
Current Waste Treatment and Disposal Practices.
Office of Research and Monitoring, Project 12020FYE.
Washington, U.S. GPO, 1972. 185p.
4. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977.
-------
*"/" —
Chloroxuron
Chloroxuron is manufactured according to the following
reaction scheme :
cocta
ixj«y) onilin
Heal
-N - C - O
-------
References
1. Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental Use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2- 77 - 023h.
Technology Series, Environmental Protection Agency.
2. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,'
and Welfare. 1977
-------
.-, <•_
> -1
*->
Creosote
Creosote, a distillate of coal tar is used primarily for
wood preservation. Creosote is presently under RPAR review
(FR 10/18/78) due to oncogenic and mutagenic effects. The
RPAR working group determined that the oncogenic criteria
'0M'XiMDWY<1ws''.
had been exceeded by considering occupationally exposed
\
workers who developed tumors, reports of animal experiments
in which mice, rats, or rabbits developed tumors from either
dermal or inhalation studies, and the Carcinogenic Assessment
Group (CAG) conclusions that creosote and coal tars are
o
oncogenic. Creosote and coal tar contain a number of plycyclic
IN
and heterocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons which have been well
established as carcinogens. Some of these are:
benz[a]anthracene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[j]fluor-
anthene, benzo[a]pyrene, etc.
Studies indicate that creosote and coal tar migrate to some
extent from treated wood into the surrounding environment.
For additional information, see Federal Register, "Wood
Preservative Pesticides," October 18, 1978
-------
2,4 - D
2,4 - D is produced according to the following reaction
scheme^:
0-CH2-COONa OCH2COOH " ' *
C1CH2COOH
NaOH
Dichloro- Chloroacetic
phenol acid
Cl
2,4-D Sodium
salt •
Salt:
The waste stream from 2,4-D contains "large amounts of sodium
chloride, hydrochloric acid, some caustic, and organics including
phenols, chlorophenols and chlorophenoxy acids. These
arise from acidification, washing steps, phase seperation
steps, incomplete yields and chlorination of the phenolic
compounds
,,2
17 Ref 1, p. 128-135
2. Ref 2, p. 24-25
-------
According to Parsons, a typical waste stream may be
characterized by:
Total solids - 104,000 mg/1
Suspended Solids - 2,500 mg/1
Chlorides - 52,000 mg/1
Chlorophenols - 112 mg/1
Chlorophenoxy Acids - 235 mg/1
The waste streams vary considerably from plant to plant. A
primary drinking water standard exists for 2,4 - D.
Chemicals Possibly Present
in Waste Stream
2,4 - D
2,4 - Dichlorophenol
2,6 - Dichlorophenol
Chloroacetic acid
2,6 - Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
o - Chlorophenol
m - Chlorophenol
p - Chlorophenol
Oral Rat
LD50 mg/kg
375
580 suspected carcinogen
2940
76
**
670
570
**
data not available
3 Ref 3
-------
References
1. Lawless, E.W. Pesticide Study Series -5-
The Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing
Technical Studies Report: TS -00- 72 - 04.
Washington, U.S. GPO , 1972. 250p.
2. Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for environmental Use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2- 77 - 023h,
Technology Series, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, 1977. 232p.
3. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances.
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977.
4. Atkings, P. The Pesticide Manufacturing Industry-
Current Waste Treatment and Disposal Practices.
Office of Research and Monitoring, Project 12020PYE.
Washington, U.S. GPO, 1972. 185p.
OSS
-------
Diazinon
Diazinon is produced by the reaction of diethylphosphoro-
chloridothionate and 2-isopropyl-4-methyl-6-hydroxypyrimidine
with sodium carbonate in a solvent such as toluene, benzene,
1
or dioxane . The manufacturing process is probably very
similar to that for malathion and methyl parathion and the
2
waste stream should contain the same types of compounds
Some of the organophosphates that may be present in the
waste stream are: triethyldithiophosphate, triethylthio-
phosphate, triethyl trithiophosphate, diethyl thiophosphoric
oric
acid, diethylphosph acid, 2-isopropyl-4-methyl-6-hydro-
xypyrimidine (IMHP) and its ester, diazinon, and other organo
phosphate derivatives of IMHP and ethanol.
piazinon
Oral rat LD50 : 76 mg/kg
1, p. bt>
2. See Methyl Parathion and Malathion Background Document
3. Ref 2, p. 291-299
4. Ref 3
OS"?
-------
References
1. Parsons/ T./ Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental Use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2- 11 - 023h,
Technology Series, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, 1977. 232p.
2. Warner, J. S., etal. Identification of Toxic Impurities
in Technical Grades of Pesticides Designated as Substitute
Chemicals.
Office of Research and Development.
EPA-600/-1-78-031, May, 1978. 387p.
3. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances.
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977
-------
Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene is produced by the chlorination of
benzene over iron turnings in a lead or glass-lined reactor .
2
The wastewater sludge contains mostly polychlorobenzenes •
Iron and lead may also be present in the sludge. Dichloroben-
zene is presently undergoing a pre-RPAR review due to possible
3
oncogenic activity.
Possible Chemicals in
Wastewater Sludge
Benzene
Ortho-dichlorobenzene
Para-dichlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Trichloro~benzene
w
Tetrachloro"lbenzene
Lead
Oral Rat*
LD50 mg/kg •
3800 - suspected human
carcinogen
500 - suspected carcinogen
500 " "
2910
756
1500
1. Rexi, p. iy
2. Ibid
3. Special Pesticide Reviews Division Status Report. Nov 2, 1978
4. Ref 2
-------
References
1. Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental Use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2- 77 - 023h,
Technology Series/ Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, 1977. 232p.
2. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977.
-------
Disulfoton
Due to the lack of quantitive information on the composition
of the waste streams, the following document described ai^cci-
pated by-products of the Disulfoton Process-
Disulfoton is produced according to the following production
scheme:
P2S5+4C2H5OH +2NaOH Toluene^ 2(C2H50)2P(S)Na+H2S (1)
+2H20
"Diethyl Salt" (DES)
PCt3+3HOC2H4-S- C2H5 3 C« C2H4-S-C2H5 +HP(0)(OH)2 (2)
thio alcohol "Choloro Thio Alcohol" (CTA)
P JL
(C2H50)2) (S)SNa + C*C2H4-S-C2H5 (C2 «• 50)2 S-C2H4-S-C2H5
* A
Disulfoton + NaCl (3)
t
The reation between P2S5 and ethanel in toluene occurs under
anhydrous conditions to produce-the dialKyl phospho^dithioic
acid. The major side product of this reaction is the triester.
a r
The dithio acid is next coye^ted to the dithio salt with caustic
soda •
1. ref. I- pg 99 - 103 2. ref. 2. pg 46 - 49
-------
Triester, organic residues, and unreacted ethanol are
contained in the organic phase which goes to burial.
PCl3 and the thio alcohol are combined to form the
chloroethyl thioethyl e ther and phosphorous acid, a white
crystalline solid of melting point 73.6°C. By-products of the
3 *f ?
reaction are fe.o)aT»MO
-------
The third step of the production process involves the
reaction between the dieth^ salt (DES) and the chloroCthio
alcohol (CTA) to form disulfoton and sodium chloride. A
possible side reaction can be represented by the following
general equations:
.i_i-
i s*?on-
This reaction can lead to the following types of products
6. ref. 6 pg. 329, 764.
-------
The process wastewater next goes is a toluene extractor
7,6
and skimmer with a final NaOH/NaOCL treatment. THe wastewater
q
has a high salt content high pH, and contains toxic organics,
and phosphates. Intermediate products, residues, and ta£s
are recovered from the still bottom and reactors and are buried,
7 ref. 7. pg. 51
8 ref. 1 pg. 99-103
9 ref. 2. pg. 84-85
-------
Toxicity Datafi
Disulfoton
oral human LD Lo:5 mg/kg
oral rate: LDLo: 2 mg/kg
unreported rat: LD5O: 2500^ft(g/kg
Phosphorothioic acid, 070,0, - triethyl ester
inhalation rat LCLo: 41~~ppm/4 hours
Sulfide, Chloroethyl ethyl
oral rat LD 50: 252 rag/kg
Ethanol, 2-(ethylthto)-
oral rat LD50: 2320 mg/kg
Phosphorous acid, diethyl ester
oral ratLD50: 5190 mg/kg
-------
References
1. Lawless, E.W. Pesticide Study Series -5-
The Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing.
Technical Studies Report: TS -00- 72-04.
Washington, U.S. GPO , 1972, 250p.
2. Office Water and Hazardous Materials, Effluent Guidelines
Division. Development Document for Interim Final Effluent
Limifctions Guidelines for the Pesticide Chemicals
Manufacturing Point Source Category. Washington,
1976. 331pg.
3. Cotton, F.A. and Wilkinson, G. Advanced Inorganic Chemistry.
New York, Interscience Publishers, 1972. 1145p.
4. Bailer, J.C. Comprehensive INorganic Chemistry, Vol 2.
New York, Pergamon Press, 1973.
5. Fezt, C. and Schmidt, K. -J. The Chemistry of
Organophosphorous Pesticides. New York,
Springer-Verlay, 1973. 339p.
5. March, J. Advanced Organic Chemistry:
Reactions, Mechanisms, and Structure.
New york, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968. 1098p.
7. Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2 77 - 123h,
Technology Series, Enviromental Protection Agency,
g. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances
VOL I and II. U. S. Department of Health, Education "
and Welfare. 1977 <-*tion,
-------
Dithiocarbamates
Very little information is available on the manufacturing
process and waste streams of the dithiocarbamate pesticides.
These pesticides are normally produced by the reaction of
carbon disulfide, an amine, and either a hydroxide or ammonia1.
The major pesticides of this class plus other possible components
in the waste stream are listed below along with available
information.
1. Ref 1, p. 60,62
-------
Pesticide
CDCE
Chemical2
Name
2-chlorMltyl dl«tbyi thlocarb-
•Mian
Chemical2
Structure
Oral Rat3
LD50
850
Comments
sol in water2
lOOppm
Nabam
dlsodlum ethylenebiuiithlo-
carbamate
«
CW2-NH-C-S-;
CH2-NH-C-S-]
Na
Na
395
sold as aqueous4
solution (22%)
Ferbam
Maneb
Zineb
ferric dimethyldlthiocarbamaif
tiLs(dlmethyl'
Iron. .
manganoia ethylcne-1.2-bi»-
dithlocarbamate;
[ethylenebls(dithlocarbaniato)j
manganese
fcthylcnebls (ditbiocarbamatoi)
I zinc;
zinc cthylene-1.2-bi$dithlo-
carbamate
-CS-N(CH3)2
S-CS-N(CH3)2
Approx. formula: (is a polymer)
CH2-NH-CS-S,
Approx. formula: (is a polymer)
En2-NH-CS-S'Zn
ethylene diamine
ethylene thiourea
2,3-dicholoro-propene
2. Ref 2,
3. Ref 3
4. Breakdown product of Maneb - see Ref 2
4000
6750
5200
760
200
320
sol in water2
ISOppm
carcinogen detn:J
indefinite
carcinogen det:3
animal suspected
carcinogen de t:
animal suspected
r*-
rt
carcinogen detn:3
animal positive
-------
References
1. Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental Use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2-77 - 023h,
Technology Series, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, 1977. 232p.
2. Nonogon Index. A Dictionary of Pesticides, 1975*
3. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
Vol I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977.
-------
Diuron
Diuren is produced according to the following reaction
scheme1:
\
3,4-dichlorophenyl iscyanede is reacted with dimethyl amine
in a solvent such as dioxane to produce Diuron. The urea is
insoluble and precipitates. The solvent can then be
t
flash-distilled and recycled. The crude product is washed
with aqueous HCL to remove insolubles and finally water washed
2
a precipitator.
1. Ref 1 p. 11, 82
2. Ref 2 p. 52, 55, 56
-------
The wastewater treatment sludge may contain Diuron, starting
materials, solvent, still bottom and reactor tars and residues,
and other reaction by-products.
Possible Pollutants Oral
Present in Wastestream LD50 mg/ffg*
Diuron 437
3,4 - dichloroaniline 648
N-3,4 - dichlorophenyl-
carbamic acid **
N/N- dimethyl carbamic acid **
Solvent **
Tars **
* unless otherwise noted
** data unavailable
3. ref 3
-------
References
1. Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental Use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2- 77 - 023h,
Technology Series, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, 1977. 232p.
2. Effluent Guidelines Division, Office of Water an
Hazardous Materials. Development Document for
Final Effluent Guidelines for the Pesticide Chemicals
Manufacturing Point Source Category. EPA 440/l-75/060d
Group II. Washington, 1976.
3. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances.
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977.
-------
Malathion
Due to the lack of quantitative information on the
contents of the waste streams, this document indicates the
probable nature of the wastes generated in the manufacturing
process. The first step in the production of Malathion is
the formation of dimethyl dithiophosphoric acid from ?2S5
and methanol in toluene:
4MeOH MeOP + H2S
2 3.
The major by-product of the reaction is the triester '
2PSH + H(|-COOEt > (HeO)2PSCHCOOEt
HC-COOEt
Dimethyl- Diethylmaleate
phosphoro- or futnarate
dithioic (DEM or DEF)
acid (DMTA)
IT Ref 1, p. 104-108
2. Ref 2, p. (5-98)-(5-101)
3. Ref 3, p. 46-48
4. Ref 2, p. (5-98)-(5-101)
5. Ref 1, p. 104-103
-------
After volatile components are stripped off, the stream
is then washed with a basic solution. During the wash pro-
cedure, the following reaction can occur:
j
I -CH-COOCjHj
The dithiophosphate anion can undergo reactions with
triestars and dithio phosphates to yield compounds of the
7
following form:
The waste stream should contain diethyl maleate,
malathion, dimethyl dithiophosphoric acid, dimethyl thiophoa-
phoric acid, dimethyl phosphoric, trimethyl dithiophosphate
other organophosphate derivatives and toluene. Malathion is
p
hydrolyzed and catalytically oxidized by iron salts .
6. Ref 4, p. 28
7. Ref 4, p. 36
8. Ref 5, p. 41
-------
Q
Toxicity Data
Malathion
Oral human - LDLo: 50 mg/kg
Oral human - LDLo: 857 mg/kg
Oral rat - LDLo: 1401 mg/kg
Aquatic toxicity testing - TLm96: 10-under 1 ppm
Maleic Acid, Diethyl Ester
Oral rat - LD50:3200 mg/kg
Maleic Acid/ Sodium Salt
Intraperitoneal rat - LD50:600 mg/kg
Phosphorodithioic Acid, 0,0-Dimethyl Ester
Oral rat - LDLo: 1000 mg/kg
Toluene
Oral human - LDLo: 50 mg/kg
Oral rat - LD50: 4000 mg/kg
Aquatic toxicity rating - TLm96: 166-10 ppm
DOT flammable liquid
Phosphoric Acid
Oral rat - LD5 0:1530 mg/kg
Aquatic toxicity - TLm 96:1000-10 ppm
DOT - corrosive
Phosphoric Acid, Trimethyl Ester
Oral rat - LD50: 840 mg/kg
Phosphor othioic Acid,0, 0,0 -Trimethyl Ester
Inhalation rat - LCLo: 220ppm/4 hours
. Ret b
-------
References
1. Lawless/ E.W. Pesticide Study Series -5-
The Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing.
Technical Studies Report: TS -00- 72 - 04.
Washington, U.S. GPO, 1972. 250p.
2. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices:
Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and Explosives.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-118C.
Washington, D.C./ U.S. GPO, 1976
3. Effluent Guidelines Division, Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials. Development Document for Interim
Final Effluent Guidelines for the Pesticide Chemicals
Manufacturing Point Source Category. EPA 440/1-75/
060d Group II. Washington, 1976
4. Fest, C. and Schmidt, K.-J. The Chemi^stry of Organo-
phosphorus Pesticides. New York, Springer-Verlag, 1973,
339p.
5. Atkins, P. The Pesticide Manufacturing Industry-Current
Waste Treatment and Disposal Practices. Office of
Research and Monitoring, Project 12020FYE.
6. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances.
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977
-------
Methomy1
Methomyl may be manufactured by the following chemical
reaction scheme :
CH3CHO
acetaldehyde
NH2OH
hydroxylaaine
acetaldehyda
CH3CH-NOH
acetaldehyde
oxime
C12
chlorine
BMF
dinethyl-
formaaide
CH3C(C1)-NOH + HC1
N-hydroxyethaninldoyl Bydrogen.
chloride chloride
CH3C(C1)-NOH
K-hydroxyethan-
' chloride
CH3SH
nethyl
jaercaptan
NaOH
sodium
hydroxide
methyl H—hydroscy—
cthaninidothioat
CH3NCO
nethyl
isocyanate
(C2H5)3N
triethyl
anine
CH3C(SCH3)-NOCOSHCH3
nethyl N-
carbonyl]oxy] etLhau—
imidothioate
(nethonyl)
l7~Ref 1 P- 348-352
-------
The following list contains chemicals that may be formed
during the production and storage of diazinon and may
2
therefore be present in the waste streams :
ui.o.j. &.a.\.
Chemicals
Methomyl
Oral Raf
LD50 mg/Kg
17
CH
- N
\
C
O
\\
N
CH-
N -
(
C
CH3
CH3C(C1)=NOCONHCH3
CH3NHCOSCH3
CH3CH=NOCONHCH3
CH3NHCONHCH3
CH3CONHOH
CH3C(SCH3)=NOH
**
**
**
(teratogen)
(teratogen)
**
** data unavailable
2. Ref 1 p. 348-352
3. Ref 2
-------
References
1. Warner et al.
Identification of Toxic Impurities in Technical
Grades of Pesticides Designated as Substitute
Chemicals. EPA - 600/1-78-031. May 1978. 387p.
2. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977.
-------
Methyl Parathion and Parathion
The synthesis of Parathion is essentially the same as
for Methyl Parathion except that methanol is used as a
starting material instead of ethanol. The two will be
treated together. Methyl Parathion is produced according
to the following production scheme':
S
U)
S
II
S
(C2H50)2PC1 -!• HC1 + S
(2)
S
NaO
S
II
(C2H50)2P-0
Nad <3)
Residues and tank bottoms contain large amounts of
2
intermediates and some products . The waste streams may
3 4
contain ' sulfur, NaCl, sodium carbonate, trialkyl thio-
phosphate, dialkydithiophosphoric acid, dialkyl-chlorothio-
phosphate, paranitrophenol, o-alkyl o,o-bis(4-nitrophenyl)
thiophosphate, and other organophosphate derivatives.
1. Ref 1, p. (5-96)-(5-9S)
2. Ref 2, p. 34-35
3. Ref 3, p. 53-55
4. Ref 1, p. (5-96)-(5-99)
-------
5,6
Toxicity Data
Oral Rat
Chemical , LD50 mg/kg*
———— D - • *
A
Methyl parathion 9
B
Parathion 2
AB
para-nitro phenol 350
triethyl thiophosphate inhalation LCLO: 41 ppm/4H
j^
trimethyl thiophosphate inhalation LCLo: 220 ppm/4H
B
diethyldithiophosphoric acid 4510
A
dimethyldithiophosphoric acid LDLo: 1000
B
diethyl-chloro-thiophosphate LDLo: 1000
A
dimethyl-chloro-thiophosphate LDLo: 1000
B
o-ethyl-o,o-bis(4-nitrophenyl)thiophosphate 67
A
o-methyl-ofo-bis(4-nitrophenyl)thiophosphate 312
AB
Sulphur **
funless otherwise indicated
** Data not available
5. Ref 4
6. Chemical followed by A formed in Methyl Parathion Process
Chemical followed by B formed in Parathion Process
-------
References
1. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices:
Organic Chemicals/ Pesticides and Explosives.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-118C.
Washington, D.C., U.S. GPO, 1976.
2. Atkins, P. The Pesticide Manufacturing Industry-
Current Waste Treatment and Disposal Practices.
Office of Research and Monitoring, Project 12020FYE.
Washington, U.S. GPO, 1972. 185p.
3. Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental Use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2- 77 - 023h,
Technology Series, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, 1977. 232p.
4. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977.
5. Lawless, E.W. Pesticide Study Series -5-
The Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing.
Technical Studies Report: TS -00- 72 - 04.
Washington, U.S. GPO, 1972. 250p.
-------
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol is produced by the simple chlorination
of phenol over anhydrous aluminum chloride.
-The wastewater from this process contains lower chlorinated
phenols and possibly pentachlorophenol. Pentachlorophenol and
its
derivatives are under RPAR review due to "fetotoxicity
and teratogenicy."
Chemical
Pentachlorophenol
Trichlorophenol
Tetrachlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,6-dichlorophenol
O-chlorophenol
Oft-chlorophenol
p-chlorophenol
Oral Rat
LD50 mg/kg
50
820
140
580
2940
670
570
**
** Data not available
3. Ref 2
-------
References
1. Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental Use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2- 77 - 023h,
Technology Series, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, 1977. 232p.
2. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances.
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977.
-------
Phorate
Phorate is produced according to the following production
scheme : S
P2S5 + AEtOH : >2(EtO)2PSH + H2S
S S
(EtO)2PSH + H2C=0 >(EtO)2PS-CH2OH
S S
(EtO)2P-SCH2SEt
One of the major byproducts of this reaction is the
234
triester. ' ' The o-o-o-triethyl-thiophosphate can isomerize
to produce o-o-s-triethylphosphate. The filter cake may
contain diethyldithiophosphoric acid, triethylthiophosphate/
unreacted P2S5, and other insoluble reaction products.
The dithiophosphate is condensed with formaldehyde and
ethyl mercaptan to produce Phorate. This is washed, steam
stripped, and filtered. The solid and liquid wastes may
contain Phorate, ethyl mercaptan, formaldehyde, diethyldithio-•
phosphoric acid, and triethylthiophosphate. Additionally,
by-products may be formed by the following reactions:
i. Ret i p. 109-113
2. Ref 1 P. 99-108
3. Malathion Background Document
4] Disulfoton Background Document
5! Ref 2 p. 36
-------
tl
CO
CO
These above mentioned chemicals may also be present
in the wastewater from equipment cleanup.
Toxicity Data?
Chemical
Phorate
Phosphorodithioic Acid,
0,0,-Diethyl Ester
Phosphorothioic Acid,
o,o,o-Triethyl Ester
Formaldehyde
Ethanethiol
Phosphorodithioic Acid,
s,s'-methylene o,o,o',o'-
Tetraethyl Ester
CH3CH2S CH2(OH)
(CH3CH2S)2 CH2
LD50 mg/kg*
Oral Rat
1.1
4510
inhalation 41ppm/4H
800
1960
13
**
**
389
6. Ref 3 p. 665
* unless where otherwise noted
** not available
7. Ref 4
-------
References
Lawless, E.W. Pesticide Study Series -5-
The Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing •
Technical Studies Report: TS -00- 72 - 04.
Washington, U.S. GPO , 1972. 250p.
Pest, C. and Schmidt, K.-J.
The Chemistry of Organophosphorus Pesticides.
New York, Springer-Verlay, 1973. 339p.
March, J. Advanced Organic Chemistry:
Reactions, Mechanisms, and Structure.
New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968. 1098p.
NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977.
-------
2,4,5 - T
2,4,5 - T is manufactured according to the following
reaction scheme :
OH
0-CH2COONa
OCH2COOH
TrichLoro- Chloroacetic 2,4,5-T, sodium
phenol acid salt
ci
2,4,5-T
The waste stream from 2,4,5 - T contains "large amounts of
sodium chloride, hydrochloric acid, some caustic, and
organics including solvents, phenols, chlorophenols, and
chlorophenoxy acids. These wastes arise from acidification
washing steps, phase separation steps, incomplete yields
and chlorination of the phenolic compounds"2. 2,4,5-tri-
chlorophenol may be contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin.
1. Re£ 1 p. 136-142
2t Ref 2 p. 35-37
3. Ref 3 p. 37-39
-------
Atkins reports that a typical waste stream may be
characterized by:
Total solids
Suspended solids
Chlorides
Chlorophenols
Chlorophenoxy acids
104,000 mg/1
2,500
52,000
112
235
The waste streams vary considerably from plant to plant.
Chemicals Possibly
Present in Waste Stream
2,4,5 - T
chloroacetic acid
o-chlorophenol
m-chlorophenol
p-chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,3,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
3,4,5-Trichlorophenol
Tetrachlorophenol
Oral Rat*
LD50 mg/kg
300 +
76
670
570
**
580-suspected carcinogen
2940
**
820
820
**
140
+ - teratogenic due to 2,3,7-8 TCDD contaminant
** data not available
4 Ref 4
-------
References
1. Lawless, E.W. Pesticide Study Series -5-
The Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing.
Technical Studies Report: TS -00- 72 - 04.
Washington, U.S. GPO , 1972. 250p.
2. Atkins, P. The Pesticide Manufacturing Industry-
Current Waste Treatment and Disposal Practices.
Office of Research and Monitoring, Project 12012FYE.
Washington, U.S. GPO, 1972. 185p.
3. Effluent Guidelines Division, Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials. Development Document for Interim
Final Effluent Guidelines for the Pesticide Chemicals
Manufacturing Point Source Category. EPA 440/1-75/
060d Group II. Washington, 1976.
4. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977.
-------
Toxaphene
Toxaphene is produced by the following process
,, C10H10C18 + 6 HC1
Toxaphene (mixed isoaers
and relate
67-697. Cl)
Camphene is chlorinated with chlorine over a catalyst
or by UV radiation and is then filtered and washed with
solvent. The filter cake probably contains tars produced
in the chlorination and possibly suspended a-pinene, camphene,
toxaphene, solvent, and catalyst. Wastewater used in equip-
ment cleanup may also contain the above mentioned chemicals.
Toxicity Data
Toxaphene
Oral rat LD50: 60 mg/kg
1. Rei: 1, p. 94-98
2. Kef 2
-------
References
1. Lawless, E.W., Pesticide Study Series -5-
The Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing.
Technical Studies Report: TS -00- 72 - 04.
Washington, U.S. GPO, 1972. 250p.
2. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977.
3. Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental Use: ckpter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2- *77 - 023h,
Technology Series, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, 1977. 232p.
-------
Trifluralin
Trifluralin is produced according to the following
scheme :
CF3-C6H4-C1 3H2S04> CF3-Q>-C1
N02
_N(C3H7)2 + NaCl
According to the report by Lowenbach, Schlesinger,
2
and King the following chemicals may be present in the
waste streams:
1. Ref 1, p. 148-152
2. Ref 2
-------
Chemical
p-Chlorobenzotrifluoride
o-,m-Chlorobenzotrifluorides
Dichlorobenzotrifluorides
p-Chlorobenzoic acid
p-Chloronitrobenzoic acids
p-Chlorodinitrobenzoic acids
2,6-dinitro-4-a'a'a-trifluororaethyl phenol
Dipropylamine
Hydrogen fluoride (and other fluorides)
Naptha (aromatic)
N-Nitroso di-n-propylamine
Nitrogen oxides
Nitrates
Nitrites
Nitrous acid
Propylamine
Substituted 2,6-dinitroanilines
Substituted nitrochlorobenzotrifluorides
Substituted nitrophenols
Substituted sulfonates
Sulfates
Sulfones
Trifluralin
Xylene
3. Ref 3
ORAL RAT3
LD50 mg/kg*
**
**
**
838flg/kg (sodium salt)
3150
**
**
930
180 (sodium salt)
**
480(carcinogenic &
neoplastic effects
**
**
85 (sodium salt)
**
570
418 (for dinitro)
**
**
**
**
**
500
4300
* except where otherwise noted
** data unavailable
-------
References
1. Lawless, E.W. Pesticide Study Series -5-
The Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing.
Technical Studies Report: TS-00-72 - 04.
Washington, U.S. GPO , 1972. 250p.
2. Lowenbach W., Schlesinger J., and King J.
Toxic Pollutant Identification: Trifluralin
Manufacturing. EPA, Office of Energy,
Minerals, and Industry, 1978. 53p.
3. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
Vol I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. 1977.
4. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices:
Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and Explosives.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-118C.
Washington, D.C., U.S. GPO, 1976.
5. Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Enivronmental Use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2- 77- 023h,
Technology Series, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, 1977. 232p.
-------
Vernolate
Very little information is available on the production
process for this pesticide. Vernolate is probably produced
r
from the reaction of phosgene and di-n-prop .yl amine to give
v^
the intermediate, N,N-di-n-propyl carbamyl chloride. This
can then be combined with n-propyl mer^captan, to give
vernolate • The wastewater treatment sludge may contain:
vernolate, the intermediate carbamyl chloride, n-propyl
mercaptan, N,N-di-n-propylcarbamic acids, tars and residues
O<"5
from react-' and spills, and solvent .
2
Oral Rat
Chemical LD50 mg/kg
Vernolate 320
Propanethiol 1790
1. Ref 1, p. 61
2. Ref 2
-------
References
1. Parsons, T., Editor. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental Use: Chapter 8.
Pesticide Industry. EPA - 600/2- 77 - 023h,
Technology Series, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, 1977. 232P.
2. NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances.
VOL I and II. U.S. Department of Health, Education/
and Welfare. 1977.
3. Effluent Guidelines Division, Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials. Development Document for Interim
Final Effluent Guidelines for the Pesticide Chemicals
Manufacturing Point Source Category. EPA 440/1-75/
060d Group II. Washington, 1976.
-------
2892 Waste water treatment sludges from explosives,
propellants, and initiating compounds manufacture (C,T,R,I).
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its
corrosive, toxic, reactive, and ignitable character-
istics. According to the information EPA has on this
waste stream its meets RCRA Section 250.13 (a), (b), (c),
& (d) characteristics identifying corrosive, toxic,
reactive, and ignitable waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following
information:
TRW has tested a sample of wastewater treatment
sludges from explosives, propellants, and initiating
compounds manufacture and found the following:
Explosive Manufacture
Contaminant Concentration mg/1
Nitroglycerin 1800
TNT 70 to 350
pH=l
Propellants
Contaminant Concentration mg/1
Nitrocellulose fines 1,000 to 10,000
Initiating Compounds
Contaminants Concentration mg/1
Pb (lead azide 200
& lead styphnate)
The data presented are available from:
TRW. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices:
Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and Explosives Industries.
EPA publication PB-251-307. National Technical Information
Service. 1976. and
-------
Development Document for Interim Final Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Proposed New Source Perform-
ance Standards for the Explosives Manufacturing. EPA
440/1-76/060-j. March 1976.
As is evident from the above the waste acid sludge
has a pH of 3 or below. Liquid waste streams with such
acidic character present an environmental risk for
several reasons. Very low pH liquid waste if disposed in
a sanitary landfill would leach high concentrations of
toxic heavy m«.tals (such as lead) from ordinary municipal
trash. These heavy metals would otherwise remain bound
in the waste matrix. Highly acidic liquid wastes also
present a handling risk because of their corrosive
properties. Highly acidic waste streams are also danger-
ous because they have been known to initiate potentially
dangerous reactions when combined with otherwise innocuus
waste.
OSW has in its files many damage incidents resulting
from the mismanagement of highly acidic or caustic
wastes. These include: several deaths and many serious
illnesses resulting from the inhalation of toxic gases
formed by the reaction of acidic wastes with wastes
containing sulfide or cyanide salts, contamination and
degradation of groundwater and wells from improper
disposal of acidic and caustic wastes, severe burns from
handling and contact with acidic and caustic wastes and
several incidents of fish kills from discharge of acidic
and caustic wastes. (Refer to corrosivity and reactivity
bacground documents for further information).
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regula-
tions (NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of
Drinking Water. 'The substances listed represent hazards
Co human health. In arriving at these specific limits,
the total environmental exposure of man to a stated
specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the
substances and specified limits please refer to the
Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 -003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage
of drinking water finds its source in ground water. EPA
has evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently
3<»t
-------
managed and disposed often leaches into contaminates the
groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller^l)report indicated
that in 98% of 50 randomly selected onsite industrial
waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be
present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from
the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
aresenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74%
of the sites and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the
sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceed EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyound the site) groundwater
concentrations).
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury,
selenium, and silver are toxicants listed by the NIPDWR
at concentrations of 0.05, 1.00, 0.010, 0.05, 0.05,
0.002, 0.01, and 0.05 mg/1 respectively because of their
toxicity. As explained in the RCRA toxicity background
documents these concentrations convert to 0.5, 10.0, 0.1,
0.5, 0.5, 0.02, 0.1, and 0.5 mg/1 respectively in the EP
extract.
This waste has been shown to contain Pb at 200 mg/1
according to EPA 440/1-76/060-j, Development Document for
Interim Final Effluent Guidelines and Proposed New Source
Performance Standards for Explosives Manufacturing; and
PB-251-307, Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices:
Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and Explosives Industries.
Reactice wastes as defined by Section 250.14 of RCRA
pose a threat to human health and the environment, either
through the physical consequences of their reaction
(i.e., high pressure and/or heat generation) or through
the chemical consequences of their reaction (i.e.,
generation of toxic fumes),
According to Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practices: Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and
Explosives Industry, EPA PB-251-307, 5-109 to 5-130, this
waste has been shown to contain nitroglycerin (1800 mg/1)
and TNT (70 to 350 mg/1). These contaminants are extremely
unstable to thermal stress. For a more detailed discussion
of the hazard presented by reactive waste see 3001
background document on reactivity.
-------
As is evident from the above information on the make
up of this waste, this waste stream has a flash point of
140* F or below. Ignitables with flash points less than
140* F can become a problem while they are landfilled.
During and after the disposal of an ignitable waste,
there are many available external and internal energy
sources which can provide an Impetus for combustion,
raising temperatures of waste to their flash points.
Disposal of ignitable wastes may result in fire that will
cause damage directly from hea.: and smoke production or
may provide a vector by which other hazardous waste can
be dispersed. Ignitable wastes tend to be highly volatile
and the evaporation of these volatiles contribute to poor
air quality. (Refer to ignitability background document
for further detail).
-------
Red v.ater and pink water from TNT product:* or (O) '*-'"7 • &*'
* ' . ' "//-'•
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage*
of drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has
evidence to indicate that industrial wastes as presently-
managed and disposed often, leaches into and contaminates, the
groundwater. The Gerhity and Miller report indicated that
in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site industrial waster clis— '
posal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to be pre:3«=:i>-fc> -and
that these heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites
in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides,
were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed-
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenio,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from, one or more monitoring-
walls "exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking •
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwa-ter
concentrations)..
Gerhity and Miller also found that in a majority b£ the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the- graioadiwater:
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of! these>
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste* disposal
were observed in the groundwater. While specific identifi-
cation of these organics was not always undertaken in this.
work, (other incidents and reports 2 through 8 do qualitatively
identify leached organic contaminants in groundwater) it
certainly serves to demonstrate that organic contamination
of groundwater frequently results from industrial waste-
-------
disposal. Since the Administrator has determined "that the j
presence in drinking water of chloroform and other tarihalorae
-------
2892 Catch basin materials in RDX/HMX production (C).
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its
corrosive characteristic. According to the information
EPA has on this waste stream it meets RCRA Section 250.13
(b) characteristic identifying corrosive waste.
The Administrator has determined this waste to be a
potential threat to the environment if improperly managed.
EPA bases this classification on the following
information.
1. An EPA contractor has tested a sample of waste
sludges and has found the following:
60% acetic acid
2-3% nitric acid
RDX/HMX
The data presented are available from:
Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and Explosives Industries.
EPA PB-251-307. National Technical Information Service.
1976.
As is evident from the above the waste acid sludge
has a pH of 3 or below. Liquid waste streams with such
acidic character present an environmental risk for several
reasons. Very low pH liquid waste if disposed in a
sanitary landfill would leach high concentrations of
toxic heavy metals (such as lead) from ordinary municipal
trash. These heavy metals would otherwise remain bound
in the waste matrix. Highly acidic liquid wastes also
present a handling risk because of their corrosive
properties. Highly acidic waste streams are also dangerous
because they have been known to initiate potentially
dangerous reactions when combined with otherwise innocuous
waste.
OSW has in its files many damage incidents resulting
from the mismanagement of highly acidic or caustic wastes.
These include: several deaths and many serious illnesses
resulting from the inhalation of toxic gases formed by
the reaction of acidic wastes with wastes containing
sulfide or cyanide salts, contamination and degradation
of groundwater and wells from improper disposal of acidic
and caustic wastes, severe burns from handling and contact
with acidic and caustic wastes and several incidents of
fish kills from discharge of acidic and caustic wastes.
(Refer to corrosivity and reactivity background documents
for further information).
-------
2892 Spent carbon columns used in treatment of wastewater
-LAP operations (R) .
waste is classified as hazardous because of its
characteristic. According to the information EPA
has on this waste stream it meets RCRA Section 250.13 (c)
characteristic identifying reactive waste.
The Administrator has determined this waste stream
to be potential threat to the environment if improperly
managed .
EPA bases this classification on the following
information.
1. An EPA contractor has tested a sample of waste
sludges and has found the following:
Contaminant Concentration
Nitrobodies 0.0132 to 0.0416 Kg
per Kg of explosives
loaded .
The data presented are available from:
Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and Explosives Industries.
EPA publication PB-251-307. National Technical Information
Service .
Reactive wastes as defined by Section 250.14 of RCRA
pose a threat to human health and the environment, either
through the physical consequences of their reaction
(i.e., high pressure and/or heat generation) or through
the chemical consequences of their reaction (i.e.,
generation of toxic fumes). For further information
refer to reactivity background document.
-------
"2892 Wastewater treatment sludges from production of
initiating compounds (T)
See
"2892 Wastewater treatment sludges from explosives,
propellants and initiating compounds manufacture
This document
-------
2911 Petroleum refining, high octane production neutralization
HP alkylation sludge (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristic. According to the information EPA has on this
waste stream it meets the RCRA §250.13d characteristic
identifying toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
(1) Jacobs Engineering has tested a sample of HF alkylation
sludge and found the following:
contaminant cone, mg/kg sludge (dry)
CN 23.10
Se 7.10
As 2.30
Hg sol 0.07
Ni sol 55.20
Cu sol 14.30
Pb sol 7.10
oil 6.9%
The data presented are available from:
Jacobs Engineering Company. Assessment of Hazardous Waste
Practices in the Petroleum Refining Industry. Environmental
Protection Publication PB - 259 097. National Technical Infor-
mation Service. June 1976.
and
Jacobs Engineering Company. Alternative For Hazardous
Waste Management in the Petroleum Refining Industry. OSW Contract
#68-01-4167. unpublished data. July 1977.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of drinking flfeter.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to stated specific toxicant has been considered.
(For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in
choosing the substances and specified limits please refer to the
NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality/ EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003) .
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often Icachoo"^
oTi'
into and contamine****-the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead;mercury, selenium,
and silver are toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at concentrations
y
of 0.05, 1.00, 0.010, 0.05, 0.05, O.J0T002, 0.01, and 0.05, mg/1
respectively because of their toxicity. As explained in the
3lo
-------
RCRA toxicity background documents these concentrations convert
to 0.5, 10.0, 0.1, 0.5, 0.5, 0.02, 0.1, and 0.5, mg/1 respectively
in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain selenium, arsenic,
mercury, and lead at concentrations of 7.10, 2.30, 0.07 and 7.1
sludge (dry) respectively, according to PB-259 097, Assessment of
Hazardous Waste Practices in the Petroleum Refining Industry, p. 103
to 104.
311
-------
2911 Petroleum refining DAF sludge (T)
This waste stream is classified as hazardous because of its
toxic properties. According to the data EPA has on this waste
stream it meets the RCRA §250.13d characteristic identifying a
toxic hazardous waste.
Our information indicates that this waste has the following
properties:
(1) Jacobs Engineering has tested a sample of DAF sludge and
found the following.
contaminant cone, mg/kg sludge (dry)
As as Arsenic 2.00
Hg (aqueous state) 0.27
Cr (OH)3 140.00
Pb (in the oil) 7.50
oil (light & heavy) 12.5%
The data presented are available from:
Jacobs Engineering Company. Assessment of Hazardous Waste
Practices in the Petroleum Refining Industry. Environmental
Protection Publication PB-259 097. National Technical Information
Service. June 1976.
and
Jacobs Engineering Company. Alternatives For Hazardous
Waste Management in the Petroleum Refining Industry. OSW Contract
# 68 - 01 - 4167. unpublished data. July 1977.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental exposure
of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a
complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the
substances and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Apendix
A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contami-
nants is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking
water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial Wastes as presently managed and disposed often
o and contamineaferthe groundwater. The Geraghty and
report^- indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-
site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found
to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic organics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium,
and silver are toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at concentrations
0£ 0.05, 1.00, 0.010, 0.05, 0.05, 0.002, 0.01, and 0.05 mg/1
respectively because of their toxicity. As explained in the RCRA
background documents these concentrations convert to 0.5,
513
-------
10.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.02, 0.1, and 0.5 mg/1 respectively in the EP
extract.
This waste has been shown to contain arsenic, mercury, chromium,
and lead at concentrations of 2,00, 0.27, 140.0, and 7.50, mg/kg
sludge (dry) respectively according to PB - 259 097, Assessment
of Hazardous Waste Practices in the Petroleum Refining Industry,
P103-104.
31 M
-------
2911 Petroleum refining kerosene filter cakes (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristic. According to the information EPA has on this
waste stream it meets the RCRA §250.13d characteristic
identifying toxic waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
(1) Jacobs Engineering has tested a sample of kerosene filter
cake and found the following:
contaminant cone, mg/kg sludge (dry)
As as Arsenic 2.20
oil (light fraction) 3.5%
The data presented are available from:
Jacobs Engineering Company. Assessment of Hazardous Waste
practices in the Petroleum Refining Industry. Environmental
protection Publication PB - 259 097. National Technical
Information Service. June 1976.
and
Jacobs Engineering Company. Alternative For Hazardous
Waste Management in the Petroleum Refining Industry. OSW
Contract* 68- 01 - 4167. unpublished data. July 1977.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental exposure
of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a
complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the
substances and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR
Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 -003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contami-
nants is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking
water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leachaa^into and contamine«4?^the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-
site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals had
migrated from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites
and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium,
s
and silver are toxicant^ listed by the NIPDWR at concentrations of
0.05, 1.00, 0.010, 0.05, 0.05, 0.002, 0.01, and 0.05 mg/1
respectively because of their toxicity. As explained in the RCRA
toxicity background documents these concentrations convert to
0.5, 10.0, 0.1, 0.5, 0.5, 0.02, 0.1, and 0.5, mg/1 respectively
-------
in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain arsenic with a concen-
tration of 2.2 mg/kg sludge (dry), according to PB 259 097.
Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices in the Petroleum Refining
Industry, p. 103-104.
-------
2911 Petroleum refining lube oil filtration clays (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristic. According to the information EPA has on this
waste stream it meets the RCRA §250.13d characteristic
identifying toxic waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
(1) Jacobs Engineering has tested a sample of lube oil
filtration clays and found the following:
contaminent
As as Arsenic
Cd (organically bound)
Ni (organically bound)
Pb (organically bound)
oil
cone, mg/kg sludge (dry)
0.07
0.76
11.10
1.28
21.9%
The data presented are available from:
Jacobs Engineering Company. Assessment of Hazardous Waste
Practices in the Petroleum Refining Industry. Environmental
Protection Publication PB-259 097. National Technical Information
Service. June 1976.
and
Jacobs Engineering Company. Alternatives For Hazardous
Waste Management in the Petroleum Refining Industry. OSW
Contract #68-01-4167. unpublished data. July 1977.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving
at these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man
to a stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the sustances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix
A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570.9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contami-
nants is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking
water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to
indicate that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed
often leaches into and contaminents the groundwater. The Geraghty
and Miller report1 inidicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected
on-site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the
sites and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
pgtream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium,
and silver, toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at concentrations of
0.05/ 1«0°» 0.010, 0.05, 0.05, Q.jtQQ2, 0.01, and 0.05 mg/1
eSpectively because of their toxicity. As explained in the
-------
RCRA toxicity background documents these concentrations convert
to 0.5, 10.0, 0.1, 0.5, 0.5, 0.02, 0.1, and 0.5 mg/1 respectively
in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain arsenic, cadmium, and
lead at concentrations of 0.7, and 1.28 mg/kg sludge (dry)
respectively, according to PB-259 097, Assessment of Hazardous
Waste Practices in the Petroleum Refining Industry, p. 103-104.
-------
2911 Petroleum refining slop oil emulsion solids (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristic. According to the information EPA has on this
waste stream it meets the RCRA §250.13d characteristic
identifying toxic waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
(1) Jacobs Engineering has tested a sample of slop oil emulsion
solids and found the following.
contaminant cone, mg/kg sludge (dry)
As as Arsenic 7.40
Hg (grim crude) 0.59
Cr as Cr(OH)3 525.00
Ni (in oil) 50.00
Cu (in oil) 48.00
Zn as carbonate . 250.00
Cd (in oil) 0.19
Pb as TEL 28.1
oil 48%
The data presented are available from:
Jacobs Engineering Company. Assessement of Hazardous Waste
practices in the Petroleum Refining Industry. Environmental
protection Publication PB - 259 097. National Technical
information Service. June 1976.
and
Jacobs Engineering Company. Alternatives For Hazardous
Waste Management in the Petroleum Refining Industry. OSW
Contract* 68 - 01 - 4167. unpublished data. July 1977.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered.
(For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in
choosing the substances and specified limits please refer to the
NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contami-
nants is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking
water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to
indicate that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed
often leachajB^lnto and contamina&fe-f- the groundwater. The Geraghty
and Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected
<
on-site industrial waste disposal siteT, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from
the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic
and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells
exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account
the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium,
and silver are toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at concentrations
of 0.05, 1.00, 0.010, 0.05, 0.05, 0.002, 0.01, and 0.05, mg/1
respectively because of their toxicity. As explained in the RCRA
-------
toxicity background documents these concentrations convert to
0.5, 10.0, 0.1, 0.5, 0.5, 0.02, 0.1, and 0.5, mg/1 respectively
in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain arsenic, mercury,
chromium, and lead at concentrations of 7.40, 0.59, 525.0,
0.19, and 28.1 mg/kg sludge (dry) respectively, according to
PB - 259 097, Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices in the
Petroleum Refining Industry; p 103 - 104.
323
-------
2911 Petroleum refining exchange bundle cleaning solvent (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristic. According to the information EPA has on this
waste stream it meets RCRA §250.13d characteristic identifying
toxic waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information,
(1) Jacobs Engineering has tested a sample of exchange
bundle cleaning solvent and found the following.
contaminent cone, mg/kg sludge (dry)
Se as Oxide or Silicate 27.20
As as Arsenic 10.60
Cr as Oxide or Silicate 311.00
Zn as Oxide or Silicate 194.00
Pb as TEL 78.00
Mo as Oxide or Silicate 6.50
oil (light & heavy) 10.7%
The data presented are available from:
Jacobs Engineering Company. Assessment of Hazardous Waste
Practices in the Petroleum Refining Industry. Environmental
Protection Publication PB - 259 097. National Technical
Information Service. June 1976.
and
Jacobs Engineering Company. Alternatives For Hazardous
Waste Management in the Petroleum Refining Industry. OSW
Contract* 68 - 01 - 4167. unpublished data. July 1977.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Oteter.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered.
(For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in
choosing the substances and specified limits please refer to the
NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicated
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leacha^into and contaminents the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-
site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic
and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
-) in tne groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
drinking water limits (even after taking into account
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentration).
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium,
silver are toxicants listed be the NIPDWR at concentrations
0.05, 1.00, 0.01, 0.05, 0.05, 0.002, 0.01, and 0.05, mg/1
respectively because of their toxicity. As explained in the RCRA
to3cicity background documents these concentrations convert to
-------
0.05, 10.0, 0.1, 0.5, 0.5, 0.02, 0.1, and 0.5 mg/1 respectively
in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain selenium, arsenic,
chromium, and lead at concentrations of 27.2, 10.6, 311.0, and
78.0 mg/kg sludge (dry) respectively, according to PB - 259 097,
Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices in the Petroleum Refining
Industry, p. 103 - 104.
334
-------
2911 Petroleum refining API separator sludge(T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristic. According to the information EPA has on this
waste stream it meets RCRA §250.13d characteristic identify-
ing toxic waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
(1) Jacobs Engineering has tested a sample of API separator
sludge and found the following: ,
contaminent cone, mg/kg sludge (dry)
As as Arsenic 6.20
Hg as Carbonate or Hydroxide 0.40
Cr as Carbonate or Hydroxide 253.00
Cd as Carbonate or Hydroxide 0.42
Zn as Carbonate or Hydroxide 298.00
pb as TEL 26.00
oil as tar 22.6%
The data presented are available from:
Jacobs Engineering Company. Assessment of Hazardous Waste
practices in the Petroleum Refining Industry. Environmental
protection Publication PB-259 097. National Technical Information
Service. June 1976.
and
Jacobs Engineering Company. Alternatives For Hazardous
Waste Management in the Petroleum Refining Industry. OSW
Contract # 68-01-4167. unpublished data. July 1977.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of rfrinking <
-------
explained in the RCRA toxicity background documents this converts
to 0.5, 0.02, 0.5, 0.1, and 0.5 mg/1 level respectively in the
EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain arsenic, mercury,
chromium, cadmium and lead at 6.20, 0.40, 253.0, 0.42, and 26.0
mg/kg sludge (dry) respectively, according to PB - 259 097,
Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices in the Petroleum Refininj
Industry, p. 103-104.
32?
-------
3111
LEATHER TANNING & FINISHING
Wastewater Treatment Sludge from Chrome Tannery and
Beamhouse/Tanhouse
This waste stream is classified as hazardous because of
its toxic properties. According to data EPA has on these waste
stream, they meet the RCRA §250.13a(4) characteristic identifying
a toxic hazardous waste.
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of drinking water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental ex-
posure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered.
(For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choos-
ing the substances and specified limits please refer to the
NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003) .
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leaches into and contaminants the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-
site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
arsenic and/or'cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the
sites and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
330
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (s.a. arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater con-
centrations) .
Our information indicates that the waste contains the follow-
ing toxic substances in excess of Drinking Water Standards:
• Chromium 24000 - 38800 ppm
Lead 140 - 310 ppm
Reference: SCS Engineering. Assessment of Industrial
Hazardous Waste Practices in Leather Tanning
and Finishing Industry^Nov. 76 PB # 261-0i8
p. 67, 68
hing I
rife
This waste presents an environmental problem because it may
pose a chronic hazard to human health and the environment.
331
-------
LEATHER TANNING & FINISHING
3111
Wastewater Treatment Screenings from Sheepskin Tannery,
Split Tannery/ Retan/Finishers and Chrome Tannery
This waste stream is classified as hazardous because of
*
its toxic properties. According to data EPA has on th'* waste
Vfr s
stream: , '.t j meet* the RCRA s250.13a(4) characteristic identifying
a toxic hazardous waste.
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of drinking water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental ex-
posure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered.
(For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choos-
ing the substances and specified limits please refer to the
NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003) .
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leach into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-
site industrial waste disposal sites/ toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the
sites and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
331
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (s.a. arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater con-
centrations) .
Our information indicates that the waste contains the
following toxic substances in excess of Drinking Water Standards;
Chromium: 4200 - 33,000 ppm
Lead: 175 - 280 ppm
Reference: SCS Engineering Assessment of Industrial
Hazardous Waste Practices in the Leather
Tanning and Finishing IndustryTPB # 261-018
Nov. 1§76. pp. 67, 88, 97, 120.
We believe the waste presents a hazard to human health and
the environment.
333
-------
. LEATHER TANNING & FINISHING
31/1
Trimmings and Shavings from Chrome and Split Tanneries
Beamhouse/Tanhouse and Retan/Finishers
These waste streams are classified as hazardous because of
their toxic properties. According to data EPA has on these waste
streams, they meet the RCRA §250.13a(4) characteristic identifying
a toxic hazardous waste.
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of drinking water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental ex-
posure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered.
(For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choos-
ing the substances and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR
Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leach into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-
site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the
sites and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 5.2% of the sites toxic inorganics (s.a. arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater con-
centrations) .
Our information indicates that this waste stream contains
the following toxic heavy metals in excess of Drinking Water
Standards.
Chromium: 10,000 - 44000 ppm
Lead: 130 - 330 ppm
Reference: SCS Engineering, Assessment of Industrial
Hazardous Waste Practices in the Leather
Tanning and Finishing Industry. PB ft 261-018.
Nov. 1976 pp. 64-66, 88, 96, 117, 119
We feel this waste stream poses a hazard to human health
and the environment.
-------
•5/ . LEATHER TANNING & FINISHING
Wastewater Treatment Sludge From Dehairing and Tanning
This waste stream is classified as hazardous because of
its toxic properties. According to available data, this waste
stream meets the RCRA fJ250.13a(4) characteristic identifying a
toxic hazardous waste.
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental ex-
posure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered.
(For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choos-
ing the substances and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR
Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leach into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-
site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic
and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
-------
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (s.a. arsenic,
cadmium etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking
into account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater con-
centrations) .
This waste stream has been shown to contain chromium. On
that basis we feel it poses a threat to human health and the
environment.
Reference: Storm, Handbook of Industrial Waste Compositions
in California - 1978 California Department of
Health Services, Nov. 1978, p. 66.
-------
3312 Coking; Decanter Tank Pitch/Sludge/Tar (0)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about
this waste stream, it contains phenol in concentrations large
enough to classify the waste stream as a hazardous waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information;
(1) Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of Decanter Tank Pitch/Sludge
and found the following:
pH = 8.9 (Dist H20 leachate)
Dist. H20 Waste
Leachate Sample
Contaminant Cone. ppm Analysis ppm
Cr 0.01 4
Cu 0.03 1
Mn 0.01 44
Ni 0.05 10
Pb 0.2 30
Zn 0.01 20
CN 0.59 1.3 - 9.8
oil and grease 198 144,000 - 297,000
phenol 500 1,711 - 3,127
conductivity 350
-------
(2) Tar Composition %, Weight
Liquor 1.6 - 5.8
Benzol 0.1 - 0.3
Toluol 0.1 - 0.4
Xylol 0.1 - 0.5
Total Tar Acids (phenols, cresols,
xylenols) 2.0 - 3.9
Total Tar Bases (pyridine, picolines,
quinolines) 1.4 - 2.0
Naphtha (coumarone, indene) 0.4 - 2.0
Crude Napthalene 7.7 - 11.7
Methylnaphthalene Oil 2.1-2.9
Biphenyl Oil 0.9 - 1.5
Acenaphthene Oil 1.4 - 2.8
Fluorene Oil (fluorene, diphenyl
oxide) 1.9 - 3.6
Anthracene-Heavy Oil (anthracene,
phenanthrene, carbazole) 9.6 - 12.3
Pitch 60.2 - 64.2
Distillation Losses 0.9 - 2.8
Source: "The Coal Tar Data Book." The Coal Tar Research
AgSociation, 2nd ed., Section AL, 2-4, 1965.
of composition of five typical tars.
35"?
-------
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leach into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and
1
Miller report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-
site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the
sites and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic,
cadmium, etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking in-
to account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concen-
trations) .
1
Geraghty and Miller also found that in a majority of the
fifty sites examined organic contamination of the groundwater
above background levels was observed. In 28 (56%) of these
sites chlorinated organics attributable to waste disposal were
observed in the groundwater. While specific identification of
these organics was not always undertaken in this work, (other
incidents and reports (References 2 through 8) do qualitatively
identify leached organic contaminants in groundwater), it
certainly serves to demonstrate that organic contamination of
-------
groundwater frequently results from industrial waste disposal.
Since the Administrator has determined "that the presence in
drinking water of chloroform and other trihalomethanes and
synthetic organic chemicals may have an adverse effect on the
health of persons..."* and, as noted above, because much drinking
water finds its source as groundwater, the presence of available
toxic organics in waste is a critical factor in determining if a
waste presents a hazard when managed. (For a discussion of how
the toxicity and concentration of organic contaminants in waste
are considered in the hazard determination see Toxicity background
document).
Coking Decanter Tank Sludge has been found to contain
phenol according to Calspan Corp, Vol III, p. 6-69. App. page
121 37. Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain phenol at a 500 ppm concentration, the phenol is not
fixed in the solid matrix. It is therefore available to migrate
down through a disposal site to groundwater. Thus, we feel that
this waste stream poses a threat to human health and the
environment.
*«Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations,"
p. 5756, Federal Register, 2/9/78.
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry Appendices.
April 1977. Contract # 68-01-2604. Vol III, 6-69. App. page
12, 37.
Enviro Control Inc. Hazardous Waste Listings Fully Integrated
Steel Mills. May 1978. Contract # 68-01-3937. Pages 4.1-4.4,
App. table A-l.
NUS Corp. Development Document for Effluent Limitations. (etc,)
Iron and Steel Industries-Hot Forming and Cold Finishing Segment.
July 1974. Contract # 68-01-1507.
Dravo Corp. Managing and Disposing of Residues from Environmental
Control Facilities in the Steel Industry. June 1976. Contract #
R-803C19. Page 26-35.
-------
3312 Coking: Oleum Wash Waste (C)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its
corrosive characteristics. According to the information EPA
has about this waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13b
characteristic identifying corrosive wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
Oleum wash waste is fuming H2S04. The resulting sludge from
the Oleum wash contains up to 50% free acid (Bethlehem Steel
Corp./ 1978) there by causing a highly corrosive waste. Sludge
is expected to contain heterocyclic hydrocarbons and sulfur
containing organics.
Liquid waste streams with such acidic character present
an environmental risk for several reasons. Very low pH liquid
waste if disposed in a sanitary landfill would leach high con-
centrations of toxic heavy metals (such as lead) from or iinary
municipal trash. These heavy metals would otherwise remain
bound in the waste matrix. Highly acidic liquid wastes also
present a handling risk because of their corrosive properties.
Highly acidic waste streams are also dangerous because they have
been known to initiate potentially dangerous reactions when
combined with otherwise innocuous waste.
3M3
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices in the Metaj^ Smelting and Refining Industry
Appendices. April 1977. Contract # 68-01-2604. Vol III,
pages 6-69. App. pages 12, 37.
Enviro Control Inc. Hazardous Waste Listings Fully Integrated
Steel Mills. May 1978. Contract # 68-01-3937. page 4,5.
NUS Corp. Development Document for Effluent Limitations.
etc,) Iron and Steel Industries-Hot Forming and Cold Finishing
Segment. July 1974. Contract # 68-01-1507.
Dravo Corp. Managing and Disposing of Residues from
Environmental Control Facilities in the Steel Industry.
June 1976. Contract # R-803619. pages 26-35.
-------
OSW has in its files many damage incidents resulting
from the mismanagement of highly acidic or caustic wastes.
These include: several deaths and many serious illnesses
resulting from the inhalation of toxic gases formed by the
reaction of acidic wastes with wastes containing sulfide or
cyanide salts, contamination and degradation of groundwater
and wells from improper disposal of acidic and caustic wastes,
severe burns from handling and contact with acidic and caustic
wastes and several incidents of fish kills from discharge of
acidic and caustic wastes. (Refer to corrosivity and reac-
tivity background documents for further information).
-------
3312 Coking; Caustic Neutralization Waste (C)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its
corrosive characteristics. According to the information EPA has
about this waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13b characteris-
tic identifying corrosive wastes.
Crude light oil is recovered from the coke oven off-gas.
This light oil is scrubbed with Oleum (fuming H2S04). The
scrubbed light oil stream is next neutralized with a caustic
wash. This caustic wash generates the sludge that is discussed
here.
Liquid waste streams with such Caustic character present
an environmental risk for several reasons. Very high pH liquid
waste if disposed in a sanitary landfill would leach high con-
centrations of toxic heavy metals from ordinary municipal trash.
These heavy metals would otherwise remain bound in the waste
matrix. Highly caustic liquid wastes also present a handling
risk because of their corrosive properties. Highly caustic
waste streams are also dangerous because they have been known
to initiate potentially dangerous reactions when combined with
otherwise innocuous waste.
-------
OSW has in its files many damage incidents resulting
from the mismanagement of highly acidic or caustic wastes.
These include: several deaths and many serious illnesses
resulting from the inhalation of toxic gases formed by the
reaction of acidic wastes with wastes containing sulfide or
cyanide salts, contamination and degradation of groundwater
and wells from improper disposal of acidic and caustic wastes,
severe burns from handling and contact with acidic and caustic
wastes and several incidents of fish kills from discharge of
acidic and caustic wastes. (Refer to corrosivity and reactivity
background documents for further information).
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry
Appendices. April 1977. Contract # 68-01-2604. Vol III
6-69, App. page 12, 37.
Enviro. Control Inc. Hazardous Waste Listings Fully Integrated
Steel Mills. May 1978. Contract # 68-01-3937, page 4,5.
NUS Corp. Development Document for Effluent Limitations.
(etc,) Iron and Steel Industries-Hot Forming and Cold Finishing
Segment. July 1974. Contract # 68-01-1507.
Dravo Corp. Managing and Disposing of Residues from Environmental
Control Facilities in the Steel Industy. July 1976. Contract #
R-803619. pages 26-35.
-------
3312 Coking; Ammonia Still Lime Sludge (R)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its
toxic characteristics. According to the information EPA has
about this waste stream it meets the RCRA §250.13c characteris-
tic identifying reactive waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information
; ; Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of Ammonia Still Lime
Sludge and found the following:
pH = 11.5
Dist. H20
Leachate
Contaminant
Cr
Cu
Mn
Ni
Pb
Zn
CN
P
oil & grease
phenol
conductivity
Cone, ppm
0.02
0.09
0.05
< 0.05
0.5
< 0.01
198
-
-
20
> 10,000
Waste
Sample
Analysis ppm
43-80
22.5 - 35
500 - 550
5-15
< 10 - 67
550 - 710
0.25 - 1,940
12,100 - 104,000
3.4 - 1,910
-------
Reactive wastes as defined by Section 250.14 of RCRA
pose a threat to human health and the environment, either
through the physical consequences of their reaction (i.e.,
high pressure and/or heat generation) or through the chemical
consequences of their reaction (i.e., generation of toxic
fumes).
According to Calspari Corp, Vol III, pages 6-69, this
waste stream has been shown to contain up to 1940 ppm cyanides,
and to leach 198 ppm cyanides. Under mildly acid and/or basic
conditions these may solubilize to generate HCN gas. HCN gasr
in an intensly poisonous gas even when mixed with air. High
concentration produces tachypnea (causing increased intake of
cyanide); then dyspnea, paralysis, unconsciousness, convulsions
and respiratory arrest. Exposure to 150 ppm for 1/2 to 1 hour
may endanger life. Death may result from a few minutes exposure
to 300 ppm. Average fatal dose: 50 to 60 rag.
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry
Appendices. April 1977. Contract # 68-01-2604 Vol III,
pages 6-69. App. page 12, 37.
Enviro Control Inc. Hazardous Waste Listings Fully
Integrated Steel Mills. May 1978. Contract # 68-01-3937,
pages 4-5. App. table A-2.
NUS Corp. Development Document for Effluent Limitations.
(etc,) Iron and Steel Industries-Hot Forming and Cold
Finishing Segment. July 1974. Contract f 68-01-1507.
Dravo Corp. Managing and Disposing of Residues from
Environmental Control Facilities in the Steel Industry.
June 1976. Contract ft R-803C19. Page 26-35.
-------
3312 Iron Making; Ferromanganese Blast Furnace Dust (T, R)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its
reactive and toxic characteristics. According to the infor-
mation EPA has about this waste stream it meets both the RCRA
S250.13c and S250.13d characteristics identifying reactive
and toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification ori the following information;
(1) Dravo Corp. and Calspan Corp., have tested samples of
Ferromanganese Blast Furnace Dust and found the following:
pH = 9.7 Dist H20 Leach Test
Contaminent
Zn
Pb
Al
K
Mg
Ca
Mn
Na
C
Total fe
Si 02
Cr
Cu
Ni
Sn
Dist. H20
Leachate
Cone, ppm
110
560
7.5
0.2
4.5
0.53
Waste
Sample
Analysis ppm
1,600 - 45,000
100 - 6000
50,500
18,700 - 28,700
2,800
16,800 - 19,100
155,000 - 212,200
500 - 700
71,000 - 95,000
48,000 - 53,000
61,700 - 68,000
32
200
400
-------
Primary treatment dusts have been reported as pyrophoric
(Dravo Corp., 1976). Ferromanganese dust collected in a bag-
house and analyzed by the Calspan solubility test leached
exceedingly high concentrations of lead and zinc.
The lead concentrations is several orders of magnitude
greater than drinking water standards.
Lead is one of the toxicants listed by the N I ? £> W R
at a concentration of .05mg/l because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this
converts to a .5mg/l level in the EP extract.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain lead at a 560 ppm concentration, the heavy metals are
not fixed in the Solid rtiatrix. They are therefore available
to migrate down through a disposal site to groundwater. Thus,
ferromanganese blast furnace dust has been classified as toxic,
and the dust is also classified as reactive due to its
pyrophoric nature.
Reactive wastes as defined by Section 250.14 of RCRA pose
a threat to human health and the environment, either through
the physical consequences of their reaction (i.e., high
pressure and/or heat generation) or through the chemical
consequences of their reaction (i.e., generation of toxic
ftimes) .
1S3
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
«^ /
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003). '
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leache
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
1
report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
354
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry Appendices. April 1977,
Contract # 68-01-2604. Vol III, pages 97-144. App. pages 29, 35.
Enviro Control Inc. Hazardous Waste Listings Fully Integrated
Steel Mills. May 1978. Contract # 68-01-3937. Pages 4.9, 4.13-14,
NUS Corp. Development Document for Effluent Limitations. (etc,)
iron and Steel Industries-Hot Forming and Cold Finishing Segment.
July 1974. Contract ft 68-01-1507.
Dravo Corp. Managing and Disposing of Residues from Environmental
Control Facilities in the Steel Industry. June 1976. Contract #
R-803C19. Page 63-66.
-------
3312 Iron Making Ferromanganese Blast Furnace Sludge (R)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its
toxic characteristics. According to the information EPA has
about this waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13c charac-
teristic identifying reactive waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following informa-
(
tion? (".', Dravo Corp and Bethlehem Steel have tested a sample
of ferromanganese blast furnace sludge and found the following:
pH = 11 Dist. H20 leach test
Contaminent
Zn
Pb
Sn
Al
k
Mg
Ca
Mn
Na
C
Total Fe
Si 02
Cr
Cu
Ni
Cd
Dist. H20
Leachate
Cone, ppm
0.061
0.2
45.8
< 0.07
* 0.05
< 0.08
Waste
Sample
Analysis ppm
1.7 4,100
2 400
400 - 600
35,500 - 36,100
74,900 - 87,400
17,000 - 19,300
63,800 - 69,500
57,500 - 68,600
4,800 - 5,100
74,000 - 76,000
1400 - 24,000
54,200
0.05 -18
0.05
< 0.05
-------
Although the data do not present any alarming concentra-
tions of heavy metals, sources indicate that high levels of
cyanide in the off-gas from these blast furnaces would be
absorbed in scrubber solutions and render the sludge toxic to
human health and the environment.
Reactive wastes as defined by Section 250.14 of RCRA pose
a threat to human health and the environment, either through
the physical consequences of their reaction (i.e., high
pressure and/or heat generation) or through the chemical con-
sequences of their reaction (i.e., generation of toxic fumes).
According to Enviro Control, page 4.9, 4.13-14, this
waste stream has been shown to contain cyanides. Under
mildly acid and/or basic conditions these may solubilize to
generate HCN gas. High concentration produces tachypnea
(causing increased intake of cyanide); then dyspnea, paralysis,
unconsciousness, convulsions and respiratory arrest. Exposure
to 150 ppm for 1/2 to 1 hour may endanger life. Death may
result from a few minutes exposure to 300 ppm. Average fatal
dose: 50 to 60 mg.
*Merck Index, Eighth Edition, p. 544
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry
Appendices. April 1977. Contract # 68-01-2604, Vol III,
pages 97-144. App. pages 29, 35.
Enviro Control Inc. Hazardous Waste Listings Fully
Integrated Steel Mills. May 1978. Contract # 68-01-3937,
Pages 4.9, 4.13-14.
NUS Corp. Development Document for Effluent Limitations.
(etc,) Iron and Steel Industries-Hot Forming and Cold
Finishing Segment. July 1974. Contract # 68-01-1507.
Dravo Corp. Managing and Disposing of Residues from
Environmental Control Facilities in the Steel Industry.
June 1976. Contract # R-803C19, pages 63-66.
3S3
-------
3312 Iron Making, Electric Arc Furnace Dust (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its
toxic characteristics. According to the information EPA has
about this waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13d characteris-
tics identifying toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information
Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of Electric Arc Furnace
Dust and found the following:
Contaminent
Mn
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ni
Zn
F
PH
Dist. H20
Leachate
Cone. ppm
0.26
0.34
0.1
150
< 0.05
0.7
7.6
12.6
Waste
Sample
Analysis ppm
38,000 - 45,000
770 - 1,500
1,800 - 3,400
20,000 - 46,000
170 - 500
54,000 - 240,000
1,700 - 2,940
SSI
-------
According to the Solubility test performed by Calspan
Corp. the leachate derived from Electric Arc Furnace Dust
contains Pb in concentrations which are several orders of
magnitude greater than drinking water standards.
Lead is one of the toxicants listed by the N I p D W R
at a concentration of .05mg/l because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this con-
verts to a .5mg/l level in the EP extract.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain lead at a ISOppm concentration, the heavy metal is
not fixed in the Solid Matrix. It is therefore available to
migrate down through a disposal site to groundwater. Thus,
we feel that this waste stream poses a threat to human health
and the environment.
340
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leache
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
1
report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
Disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
ete.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry Appendices. April 1977,
Contract # 68-01-2604 Vol III, pages 6-69, App. pages 12, 37.
Enviro Control Inc. Hazardous Waste Listings Fully Integrated
Steel Mills. May 1978. Contract # 68-01-3937, pages 4.16, 4.23-
25, App. Table A-14.
NUS Corp. Development Document for Effluent Limitations. (etc,)
Iron and Steel Industries-Hot Forming and Cold Finishing Segment.
July 1974. Contract # 68-01-1507.
Dravo Corp. Managing and Disposing of Residues from Environmental
Control Facilities in the Steel Industry. June 1976. Contract #
R-803619, page 91-99.
-------
3312 Iron Making, Electric Arc Furnace Sludge (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about
•this waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13d characteristic
identifying toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information;
•;".) Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of Electric Arc Furnace
Sludge and found the following:
Contaminent
Mn
Cr
Pb
Cu
Ni
Zn
Dist. H2O
Leachate
Cone. ppm
0.03
94
2.0
0.17
< 0.05
0.06
Waste
Sample
Analysis ppm
48,000 - 55,000
1,800 - 2700
2,000
520 - 550
3,000 - 3,750
2,500 - 3,800
pH
11.5
313
-------
According to the solubility test performed by Calspan
Corp. the leachate derived from Electric Arc Furnace Sludge
contains Cr, and Pb in concentrations which are several orders
of magnitude greater than drinking water standards.
Chromium and Lead are toxicants listed by the N I p.D W R
at a concentration of .05mg/l because of their toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this converts
to a ,5mg/l level in the EP extract.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain chromium and lead at a 94 and 2.0ppm concentration, the
heavy metals are not fixed in the solid matrix. They are
therefore available to migrate down through a disposal site to
groundwater. Thus we feel that this waste stream poses a threat
to human health and the environment.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leache
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
1
report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc-) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
gpA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry
Appendices. April 1977. Contract ft 68-01-2604 Vol III,
pages 6-69, App. pages 12, 37.
Enviro. Control Inc. Hazardous Waste Listings Fully
Integrated Steel Mills. May 1978. Contract f 68-01-3937,
page 4.16, 4.23-25, App. table A-15.
NUS Corp. Development Document for Effluent Limitations.
(etc,) Iron and Steel Industries-Hot Forming and Cold
Finishing Segment. July 1974. Contract # 68-01-1507.
Dravo Corp. Managing and Disposing of Residues from
Environmental Control Facilities in the Steel Industry.
June 1976. Contract R-803619. pages 91-99.
-------
3312 Steel Finishing: Alkaline Cleaning Waste (C)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its
corrosive characteristics. According to the information EPA
has about this waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13a.2 charac-
teristic identifying corrosive wastes.
Prior to electrolytic or hot-dip plating procedures, cold-
reduced steel must be cleaned of oils and lubricants so that no
residue is formed during annealing. This is commonly done by
application of aqueous alkaline detergent solutions containing
such chemicals as sodium hydroxide, sodium orthosilicate, and
trisodium phosphate.
These solutions are routinely wasted and may constitute
corrosive hazards. Since the pH of these solutions is generally
above 12, it is classified as a hazardous waste.
Liquid waste streams with such caustic character present
an environmental risk for several reasons. Very high pH liquid
waste if disposed in a sanitary landfill would leach high con-
centrations of toxic heavy metals from ordinary municipal trash.
These heavy metals would otherwise remain bound in the waste
matrix. Highly caustic liquid wastes also present a handling
risk because of their corrosive properties. Highly caustic waste
streams are also dangerous because they have been known to
initiate potentially dangerous reactions when combined with
otherwise innocuous waste.
-------
OSW has in its files many damage incidents resulting from
the mismanagement of highly acidic or caustic wastes. These
include: several deaths and many serious illnesses resulting
from the inhalation of toxic gases formed by the reaction of
acidic wastes with wastes containing sulfide or cyanide salts,
contamination and degradation of groundwater and wells from
improper disposal of acidic and caustic wastes, severe burns
from handling and contact with acidic and caustic wastes and
several incidents of fish kills from discharge of acidic and
caustic wastes. (Refer to corrosivity and reactivity background
documents for further information).
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Pnactices
in the Metal SmeltAng and Refining Industry Appendices.
April 1977. Contract t 68-01-2604. Vol III, 6-69, App. page
12, 37.
Enviro Control Inc. Hazardous Waste Listings Fully Integrated
Steel Mills. May 1978. Contract # 68-01-3937. Pages 4.25-27,
4.37.
NUS Corp. Development Document for Effluent Limitations. (etc,)-
Iron and Steel Industries-Hot Forming and Cold Finishing Segment.
July 1974. Contract # 68-01-1507.
Dravo Corp. Managing and Disposing of Residues from Environmental
Control Facilities in the Steel Industry. June 1976. Contract #
R-803619. Page 133-135.
-------
3312 Steel Finishing: Waste Pickle Liquor (C, T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its
corrosive and toxic characteristics. According to the
information EPA has about this waste stream it meets both
the RCRA §250.13b and §250.13d characteristics identifying
corrosive and toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information:
(1) Waste Management Inc. has tested a sample of spent pickle
liquor and found the following:
pH = .6
contaminent cone, mg/1
Cd 461
Cr (total) 11460
Cr VI .2
Cu 4867
Pb 578
Zn 12680
California Manifest Listings
The following waste discriptions were taken from "Handbook
of Industrial Waste Compositions'/ These waste discriptions are
typical of wastes entering the California waste control system.
These listings are included to demonstrate that these waste
streams can contain the hazardous component indicated.
(2) Pickling liquor - 7% sulfuric acid
(this would give a pH slightly greater that 0, and
less then 1)
(3) Metal pickling acid soln.
-------
5-15% Hydrochloric Acid
20-30% Sulfuric Acid
C4) Steelpickling Acid solution
4% Sulfuric Acid
96% H20
ph 1
(51 Acid solution, Ironworks
5% Inhibited Hydrochloric Acid
Balance H20
£6} Pickling Liquor 4-6% HNO3
Acid Solution 10-12% H3PO4
.5-12% HCI
.5-1% H2 S04 pH = 1
As is evident from the above, the waste pickling liquor has
a pH of 2 or below. Liquid waste streams with such acidic
character Present an environmental risk for several reasons.
Very low pH liquid waste if disposed in a sanitary landfill would
leach high concentrations of toxic heavy metals (such as lead)
from ordinary municipal trash. These heavy metals would other-
wise remain bound in the waste matrix. Highly acidic liquid
wastes also present a handling risk because of their corrosive
properties. Highly acidic waste streams are also dangerous
because they have been known to initiate potentially dangerous
reactions when combined with otherwise innocuou waste.
-------
OSW has in its files many damage incidents resulting from
the mismanagement of highly acidic or caustic wastes. These
include: several deaths and many serious illness resulting from
the inhalation of toxic gases formed by the reaction of acidic
wastes with wastes containing sulfide or cyanide salts, con-
tamination and degradation of groundwater and wells from improper
disposal of acidic and caustic wastes, severe burns from handling
and contact with acidic and caustic wastes and several incidents
of fish kills from discharge of acidic and caustic wastes. (Refer
to corrosivity and reactivity background documents for further
information).
According to the Analysis performed by Waste Management
Inc. Spent pickle liquor, contains Cd, Cr, and Pb, in concen-
trations which are several orders of magnitude greater than
drinking water standards. Since the pH of this waste is very
low (0.6, analogous to a 1 to 0.1 molar solution HN03 or other
strong acid) these heavy metals are mostly in solution and
therefore are available to migrate down through a disposal site
to groundwater. Chromium and Lead are toxicants listed by
the NIPDWR at a concentration of ,05mg/l because of their
toxicity. As explained in the RCRA toxicity background document
this converts to a ,5mg/l level in the EP extract. Cadmium
is one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at a concentration
of .Olmg/1 because of its toxicity. As explained in the
RCRA toxicity background document this converts to a .lmg/1
level in the EP extract. Since this waste has been shown
-------
to contain Cadmium, Chromium and Lead at a 461, 11460, and
578ppm concentration according to Waste Management Inc., we
feel that this waste stream poses a threat to human health and
the environment.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDW
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003) .
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leache
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting & Refining Industry Appendices. April 1977.
Contract ff 68-01-2604, Vol III pages 6-69, App. page 12, 37.
Enviro Control Inc. Hazardous Waste Listings Fully Integrated
Steel Mills. May 1978. Contract I 68-01-3937, pages 4.25-27,
4.38-40, App. table A-20, 21.
NUS Corp. Development Document for Effluent Limitations.
(etc.) Iron and Steel Industries-Hot forming and Cold Finishing
Segment. July 1974. Contract # 68-01-1507.
Dravo Corp. Managing and Disposing of Residues front Environmental.
Control Facilities in the Steel Industry. June 1976. Contract
R-803C19, page 127-133.
Handbook of Industrial Waste Compositions in California 1978
Storm, D, Dept. of Health Calif, pages 72, 74, 84, 85.
-------
3312 Steel Finishing; Cyanide-bearing Wastes from Electrolytic
Coating (R)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its reactive
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about this
waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13c characteristic identifying
reactive waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following, information:
(1) The following table summarizes the composition of electro-
plating baths. Of particular concern in the waste streams are '
(1) cyanide-bearing wastes which may result from electroplating
of cadmium, copper, brass, and zinc, and (2) heavy metal content
of wastes, particularly cadmium and mercury. Certain wastes and
plating solutions would be corrosive as well. Corrosivity would
be expected to be a problem from the chromium, copper, and zinc
plating wastes.
Composition of Electroplating Baths
as Used in Steel Mills
Electrolytic Coatings Bath Composition (per
gallon H20)
Cadmium 3 oz. Cadmium Oxide
14.5 oz. Sodium Cyanide
Copper (cyanide) 3 oz. Copper Cyanide
4.5 oz. Sodium Cyanide
2 oz. Sodium Carbonate
Brass 3.6 oz. Copper Cyanide
1.2 oz. Zinc Cyanide
4 oz. Sodium Carbonate
Zinc (cyanide) 8 oz. Zinc Cyanide
3 oz. Sodium Cyanide
7 oz. Sodium Hydroxide
1-1/16 oz. Mercuric Salts
-------
California Manifest Listings
The following waste discriptions were taken from "Handbook
a '
of Industrial Waste Compositions. These waste discriptions are
typical of wastes entering the California waste control system.
These listings are included to demonstrate that these waste streams
can contain the hazardous component indicated.
(2) Cadmium plating Alkaline solution
1000 - 2500 ppm cadmium
1000 - 3000 ppm cyanide
99% water
ph 11.5
(3) Metal plating, Alkaline tank bottom sediment
2% sodium cyanide
1% zinc
3% copper
4% sodium bicarbonate
1% nickel
89% water
ph 12
(4) Zinc Automatic plating, Alkaline solution
2 oz/gal. zinc
5 oz/gal. sodium cyanide
11 oz/gal caustic
ph 12
Alkaline solution - Metal refining
10% Sodium Cyanide
90% water
ph 12
-------
Reactive wastes as defined by Section 250.14 of RCRA pose
a threat to human health and the environment, either through the
physical consequences of their reaction (i.e., high pressure and/
or heat generation) or through the chemical consequences of their
reaction (i.e., generation of toxic fumes).
According to Enviro Control, pages 4.25-27, 4.40-44, this
waste stream has been shown to contain cyanides. Under mildly
acid and/or basic conditions these may solubilize to generate
HCN gas. HCN gas* is an intensly poisonous gas even when mixed
with air. High concentration produces tachypnea (causing
increased intake of cyanide); then dyspnea, paralysis, unconscious-
ness, convulsions and respiratory arrest. Exposure to 150 ppra for
1/2 to 1 hour may endanger life. Death may result from a few
minutes exposure to 300 ppm. Average fatal dose: 50 to 60 ing.
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry Appendices. April 1977
Contract # 68-01-2604. App. page 12, 37. Vol III, 6-69.
Enviro Control Inc. Hazardous Waste Listings Fully Integrated
Steel Mills. May 1978. Contract f 68-01-3937. Pages 4.25-27,
4.40-44.
NUS Corp. Development Document for Effluent Limitations. (etc,)
iron and Steel Industries-Hot Forming and Cold Finishing Segment.
July 1974. Contract # 68-01-1507.
Dravo Corp. Managing and Disposing of Residues from Environmental,
control Facilities in the Steel Industry. June 1976. Contract #
K-803C19. Page 133-135.
Handbook of Industrial Waste Compositions in California 1978
Storm, D, Dept. of Health Calif, pages 77, 85, 86.
3V?
-------
3312 Steel Finishing: Chromates and Bichromates from Chemical
Treatment, Spent Chromating Solution, Chroma^ Rinse, (T,C)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about this
waste stream it meets both the RCRA §250.13b and §250.13d charac-
teristics identifying corrosive and toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information:
(1) Chromating
Chromating is done to develop a protective amorphous chromic
oxide layer directly on steel. Chromating solutions are reported
to contain 2 to 35mg/l of hexavalent chromium as chromic acid,
potassium chromate, or potassium dichromate. Steel is dipped in
or sprayed with this solution.
Spent Chromating Solution
Wastes from the Chromating process include spent solution
which is classified as hazardous. If chromic acid is used in
the solution, the waste may be corrosive as well as toxic.
Chromate Rinse
In order to prevent formation of white rust on galvanized
steel and corrosion of tin-plated or other types of finished
steel, use of a chromate rinse is commonly employed. There is
both continuous discharge of chromium and occasional total
discharge of the bath. The untreated wastes contain high con-
centrations of hexavalent chromium as chromic acid, dichromate,
or chromate and would thus be considered toxic. Depending on
acid concentration, the waste may be corrosive as well.
-------
California Manifest Listings
The following waste descriptions were taken from "Handbook
of Industrial Waste Compositions". These waste descriptions
are typical of wastes entering the California waste control
system. These listings are included to demonstrate that these
waste streams can contain the hazardous component indicated.
(1) Metal Plating Acid Solution ,
0-5% Sulfuric Acid and Chromic Acid
Balance: Water
pH 1.3
(2) Metal Plating Acid Solution
5% Chromic Acid
95% Water
pM 2
(3) Metal Plating
Chromium Sludges
1-5% Chromium (131) hydroxide
balance water and calcium sulfate
pH 7
As is indicated by the above information this waste stream
can contain chromium. Chromium is one of the toxicants listed
the NIPDWR at a concentration of .05mg/l because of its toxicity.
explained in the RCPA toxicity background document this converts
to a .5mg/l level in the EP extract.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDW1
set limits for chemical contamination of drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leach
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
58-2-
-------
Chromating solutions using Chromic Acid may make the waste
hazardous due to it corrosive properties. Also, if the pH of
•the solution is below or equal to 3 the waste is classified as
corrosive. Liquid waste streams with such acidic character
present an environmental risk for several reasons. Very low pH
liquid waste if disposed in a sanitary landfill would leach high
»•,
concentrations of toxic heavy metals (such as lead) from ordinary
municipal trash. These heavy metals would otherwise remain
bound in the waste maxtrix. Highly acidic liquid wastes also
present a handling risk because of their corrosive properties.
Highly acidic waste streams are also dangerous because they
have been known to initiate potentially dangerous reactions when
combined with otherwise innocuous waste.
OSW has in its files many damage incidents resulting from
the mismanagement of highly acidic or caustic wastes. These
include: several deaths and many serious illnesses resulting
from the inhalation of toxic gases formed by the reaction of
acidic wastes with wastes containing sulfide or cyanide salts,
contamination and degradation of groundwater and wells from
disposal of acidic and caustic wastes, severe burns
handling and contact with acidic and caustic wastes and
several incidents of fish kills from discharge of acidic and
caustic wastes. (Refer to corrosivity and reactivity background
Documents for further information).
-------
References
(1) Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices in the Metal Smelting S Refining Industry
Appendices. April 1977. Contract # 68-01-26.04 Vol III
6-69, App. page 12, 37.
(2) Enviro Control Inc. Hazardous Waste Listings Fully
Integrated Steel Mills. May 1978. Contract # 68-01-3937.
Page 4.25-27, 4.44-45.
(3) NUS Corp. Development Document for Effluent Limitations
(etc.) Iron and Steel Industries-Hot Forming and Cold
Finishing Segment. July 1974. Contract # 68-01-1507.
(4) Handbook of Industrial Waste Compositions in California
1978. Storm, D, Dept. of Health California. Pages 72, 85,
-------
33J1 Pr i mary Copper, £/«c^Wc -furnace S let j
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about the
waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13d characteristic identifying
toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of 6/actvTc FMr*ci*e S/*»*
and found the following:
Dist. H20 Waste
Leachate Sample
contaminant Cone, ppm Analysis ppm
Zn 3.0
cd 0. /5" ^ S
Cr 0.03-
Cu <
Mn (
Pb fe 3.50
Sb ^>tf.X */<*0
s* O-I3 10
Ni <
ph
A* °
-------
According to the solubility test performed by Calspan Corp.
the leachate derived from E/-*
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003) .
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
.is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leach
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
report, indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
stream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations) .
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting & Refining Industry Appendices. April 1977.
Contract # 68-01-2604, Vol II' page H - V3y App. page 2, 32.
Battelle. Cross Media Impact of the Disposal of Hazardous Waste
from Metals. Inorganic Chemicals and Related Industries.
Vol I, page 20-45, Vol III, page 3-/£ Contract f 68-01-2552.
-------
33*1 Primary Copper, C«Mt/-e*^«^ OiSf/ (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about the
waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13d characteristic identifying
toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of C O*. \str+-*r O*A*?'
and found the following:
Dist. H20 Waste
Leachate Sample
Contaminant Cone. ppm Analysis ppn*
Zn *ljooQ
Cd I"7O
Cr 0.1 *<>
Cu 11,000
Mn 33
Pb S.3
sb . a. o
s< < 0*oS 30
Ni fs no
ph 3.1
Hy O.
$ 3«
-------
According to the solubility tost performed by Calspan Corp.
the leachate derived from Con */« r~f-fft, fosf contains Cd
in concentration^ which are orders of magnitude greater than
J /Jrs^M'c AK^
drinking water standards. Lead ck r«Mn/*f /* " toxicants listed
by the NIPDWR at a concentration of . Q5mg/l because of its
toxicity. As explained in the RCRA toxicity background docu
this converts to a .5mg/l level in the EP extract. Cadmium is
• one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at a concentration of
.Olmg/1 because of its toxicity. As explained in the RCRA
toxicity background document this converts to a .lmg/1 level £tt
the EP extract.! ^CKCt/ry is
r-
• one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at a concentration of
,OOZmg/l because of its toxicity. As explained in the RCRa.
toxicity background document this converts to a.Ojmg/l level in,
the EP extract.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
/H-e *e«/ry, ^' *•»*«• C, Ck
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminetnts
.is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leach
J.nto and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
Disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
rrostream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations) .
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting & Refining Industry Appendices. April 1977.
Contract f 68-01-2604, Vol II' page «/ - *3, App. page 2,
Battelle. Cross Media Impact of the Disposal of Hazardous Waste
from Metals. Inorganic Chemicals and Related Industries.
Vol 1, page 20-45 , Vol III, page 3-/£ Contract I 68-01-2552.
-------
33^1 Primary Copper, A"Ct'e/ Pt^^'f $ I v*rp •*. (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about the
waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13d characteristic identifying
toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of ^c.*W fl^vCf S/v*/f~*.
and found the following:
Dist. H20 Waste
Leachate Sample
Contaminant Cone. ppm Analysis ppm
Zn
Cd
Cr
Cu
Mn hO"
Pb 7,$
sb < 0.03. <2o° — ' *-*"*
S« - V^ -
Ni C
ph
•"3
/V5 0
-------
According to the solubility test performed by Calspan Corp.
the leachate derived from Aci« rJ«*vf S/c«£« contains Cd^'J* Pb>,
in concentration* which are orders of magnitude greater than
£hf»wl'*">1 >*••»•' **•$«* ifc «fr««.
drinking water standards. Lead c toxicants listed
by the NIPDWR at a concentration of ,05mg/l because of its
toxicity. As explained in the RCRA toxicity background document
this converts to a . 5mg/l level in the EP extract. . Cadaium is
one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at a concentration of
.Olmg/1 because of its toxicity. As explained in the RCRA.
toxicity background document this converts to a .lmg/1 level in
the EP extract.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
*r/*i»«y, Clir»*i«/«••, O.fyfj O'5
contain-cadmiutn and lead at a/i J.y and£9ppm concentration, the
heavy metals are not fixed in the solid matrix. They are there-
fore available to migrate down through a disposal site to
groundwater. Thus, we feel that this waste stream poses a threat
to human health and the environment.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
»',
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical'Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leach
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites .in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc-) in *-^e groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting & Refining Industry Appendices. April 1577.
Contract f 68-01-2604, Vol IT page «/ - f/3, App. page 2, 32.
Battelle. Cross Media Impact of the Disposal of Hazardous Waste
from Metals. Inorganic Chemicals and Related Industries.
Vol I, page 20-45, Vol III, page 3-/£ Contract f 68-01-2552.
-------
33$1 Primary Copper, R« Mr bit or* O^sT (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about the
waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13d characteristic identifying
•toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of H•««/•• r b«*w*/ O^^'f
and found the following:
Dist.' H20 Waste
Leachate Sample
Contaminant Cone. ppm Analysis ppm
Zn -
cd no 3to
Cr 0.1 yj-
Cu lljOOO -mOjOOO
Mn IS" IOO
Pb- 7. 3 \L OOO
Sb . < *'2- *75*0
Se <*-.*? f0
Ni OL .5" 35-
. Al •»
ph " • i.
As o.i -
0.00$ -> r-
-------
According to the solubility test performed by Calspan Corp.
the leachate derived from r • v«r b«ett>/^ dusfr contains Cd and Pb-
3
in concentration, which are orders of magnitude greater than
A •
drinking water standards. Lead is one of the toxicants listed
by the NIPDWR at a concentration of .05mg/l because of its
toxicity. As explained in the RCRA toxicity background document
this converts to a .5mg/l level in the EP extract. Cadmium is
one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at a concentration of
.Olmg/1 because of its toxicity. As explained in the RCRA
toxicity background document this converts to a .lrag/1 level in
the EP extract.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain cadmium and lead at a a.30 and?.3ppra concentration,., the.
heavy metals are not fixed in the solid matrix. They are there-
fore available to migrate down through a disposal site to
groundwater. Thus, we feel that this waste stream poses a threat
to human health and the environment.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminonts
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leach
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations) .
-------
References
Ca1span Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting & Refining Industry Appendices. April 1977,
Contract § 68-01-2604, Vol II' page «/ -
-------
3332 Primary Lead, Blast Furnace Dust (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about
this waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13d characteristic
identifying toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information-
;".' Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of Blast Furnace Dust and
found the following:
Contaminent
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sb.
Zn
Se
ph
Dist. H20
Leachate
Cone, ppm
0.177
8.0
<0.01
130
<0.02
0.25
0.09
7.3
<0.2
45
<0.05
8.8
Waste
Sample
Analysis ppm
14,000
10
5,350
148,000
82,000
-------
According to the Solubility test performed by Calspan Corp.
the leachate derived from Blast Furnace Dust contains Cd and Pb
in concentrations which are orders of magnitude greater than
drinking water standards.
Lead is one of the toxicants listed by the N I.P-.D :v :R at
a concentration of ,05mg/l because of its toxicity. As explained
in the RCRA toxicity background document this converts to a
.5mg/l level in the SP extract.
Cadmium is one of the toxicants listed by the N I p D W R
at a concentration of .Olmg/1 because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this converts
to a .lmg/1 level in the EP extract.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain Cadmium and Lead at a 8 and 7.3 ppm concentration, the
heavy metals are not fixed in the Solid iriatrix. They are there-
fore available to migrate down through a disposal site to ground-
water. Thus we feel that this waste stream poses a threat to
human health and the environment.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
*•.
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 -' 76 - 003) .
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leache
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
1
report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites.toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry Appendices. April 1977,
Contract # 68-01-2604 V . :. ..::. . Vol II pages 44-64.
App. page 3, 32.
Battelle. Cross Media Impact of the Disposal of Hazardous
Waste from Metals. Inorganic Chemicals and Related Industries.
Vol. I pages 20-45, Vol III pages 12-17. Contract # 68-03-2552.
-------
3332 Primary Lead, Lagoon Dredgings (Smelter) (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about
this waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13d characteristic
identifying toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information»
Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of Lagoon Dredging (Smelter)
and found the following:
Contaminent
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Mg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sb
Zn
Se
ph
Dist. H20
Leachate
Cone, ppm
0.231
11
< 0.01
0.53
< 0.02
27
0.08
4.5
< 0.2
9.5
< 0.05
6.7
Waste
Sample
Analysis ppm
640 - 700
28 - 60
1490 - 6200
115,000 - 140,000
80,00 - 132,000
-------
According to the Solubility test performed by Calspan Corp.
the leachate derived from Lagoon Dredging (Smelter) contains Cd
and Pb in concentrations which are orders of magnitude greater
than drinking water standards.
Lead is one of the toxicants listed by the N I'P.D W R at
a concentration of .05mg/l because of its toxicity. As explained
in the RCRA toxicity background document this converts to a
.5mg/l level in the :EP extract.
Cadmium is one of the toxicants listed by the N I p D W R
at a concentration of .01 mg/1 because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this converts
to a .lmg/1 level in the EP extract.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain cadmium and lead at a 11 and 4.5ppm concentration, the
r
heavy metals are not fixed in the Solid matrix. They are there-
fore available to migrate down through a disposal site to ground-
water. Thus we feel that this waste stream poses a threat to
human health and the environment.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leache
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
1
report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
) in tne groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
pStream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry Appendices. April 1977,
Contract # 68-01-2604, ". :. ::.:. ..:;;:. Vol II, pages 44-64.
App. pages 3, 32.
Battelle. Cross Media Impact of the Disposal of Hazardous Waste
from Metals. Inorganic Chemicals and Related Industries.
Vol I, pages 20-45. Vol III, pages 12-17. Contract # 68-03-2552.
-------
3333 Primary Zinc Smelting and Refining: Gypsum Cake (C,T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its corro-
sive and toxic characteristics. According to the information EPA
has about this waste stream it meets both the RCRA §250.13(b)
and §250.13(d) characteristics identifying corrosive and toxic
wastes.
According to analyses performed by Calspan, Inc. the
water extract of gypsum cake (acid cooling tower) has a pH of
1.4. This data can be found in Calspan Report No. ND-5520-M-1,
Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices in the Metal
Smelting and Refining Industry, Appendices, page 32.
Waste streams with such acidic character present an environ-
mental risk for several reasons. Very low pH wastes if disposed
in a sanitary landfill when contacted with rainwater, would leach
high concentrations of toxic heavy metals (such as lead) from
ordinary municipal trash. These heavy metals would otherwise
remain bound in the waste matrix. Highly acidic wastes also
present a handling risk because of their corrosive properties.
Highly acidic wastes streams are also dangerous because they have
been know to initiate potentially dangerous reactions when
combined with otherwise innocous wastes.
-------
OSW has in its files many damage incidents resulting from
the mismanagement of highly acidic or caustic wastes. These
include: several deaths and many serious illnesses resulting
oF
from the inhalation of toxic gases formed by the reaction^acidic
wastes with wastes containing sulfide el"cyanide salts, contami-
nation and degradation of groundwater and wells from improper
disposal of acidic and caustic wastes, severe berns from handling
and contact with acidic and caustic wastes, and several incidents
of fish kills from discharge of acidic and caustic wastes. (Refer
to corrosivity and reactivity background documents for further
information).
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of drinking water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered.
(For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing
the substances and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR
Appendix A-C Chemical Quality/ EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contami-
nants is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking
water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to
indicate that industrial waste as presently managed and disposed
often leaches into and contaminates the groundwater. The Geraghty
and Miller report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected
on-site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic
and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium,
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells
exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into
account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
Cadmium, chromium, and lead are three of the toxicants listed
by the NIPDWR at concentrations of 0.01 mg/1, 0.05 mg/1, and
0.05 mg/1, respectively, because of their toxicity. As explained in
the RCRA toxicity background document these concentrations convert
-------
to 0.1 mg/1, 0.5 mg/1, and 0.5 mg/1 levels respectively, in the
EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain cadmium, chromium, and
lead at the following concentrations according to Calspan
Report No. ND-5520-M-1, Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practices in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry,
Appendices, page 4:
Contaminant Concentration (ppm)
Material Analysed Cd Cr Pb
Gypsum Cake <10 10 98
(Neutral Cooling
Tower)
Gypsum Cake <10 9 1,750
(Acid Cooling
Tower) _____
Gypsum Cake 550 11 18,100
(Land Dump)
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain cadmium, chromium, and lead at the concentrations listed
below, according to the same report, page 32, we feel that
this waste stream poses a threat to human health and the environ-
ment.
Gypsum Cake Leachate 24 0.04 2.1
(Neutral Cooling
Tower)
Gypsum Cake Leachate 11 0.67 1.0
(Acid Cooling
Tower)
-------
3333 Primary Zinc Smelting and Refining: Acid Plant Sludge (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about this
waste stream it meets the RCRA §250.13(d) characteristic identi-
fying toxic waste.
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of drinking water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving
at these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of
man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a
complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing
the substances and specified limits please refer to the
NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage of
drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence
to indicate that industrial waste as presently managed and disposed
often leaches into and contaminates the groundwater. The Geraghty
and Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected
on-site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the
sites and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium,
etc.) i° the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells
exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into
-------
account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations) .
Lead is one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR
at a concentration of 0.05 mg/1 because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this converts
to a 0.5 mg/1 level in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain lead at a 4,350 ppm
concentration according Calspan Report No. ND-5520-M-1, Assessment
of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices in the Metal Smelting
and Refining Industry, Appendices, page 4.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to contain
lead at a 1.3 mg/1 concentration/ according to the same report,
page 32, we feel that this waste stream poses a threat to human
health and the environment.
-------
3333 Primary Zinc Smelting and Refining: Anode Sludge (C,T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its corro-
sive and toxic characteristics. According to the information
EPA has about this waste stream it meets both the RCRA §250.13(b)
and §250.13(d) characteristics identifying corrosive and toxic
wastes.
According to analyses performed by Calspan, Inc., the
water extract of anode sludge has a pH of 2.5. This data can be
found in Calspan Report No. ND-5520-M-1, Assessment of Industrial
Hazardous Waste Practices in the Metal Smelting and Refining
Industry, Appendices, page 32.
Waste streams with such acidic character present an environ-
mental risk for several reasons. Very low pH wastes if disposed
in a sanitary landfill when contacted with rainwater would leach
high concentrations of toxic heavy metals (such as lead) from
ordinary municipal trash. These heavy metals would otherwise
remain bound in the waste matrix. Highly acidic wastes also
present a handling risk because of their corrosive properties.
Highly acidic waste streams are also dangerous because they have
been known to initiate potentially dangerous reactions when
combined with otherwise innocuous wastes.
-------
OSW has in its files many damage incidents resulting from
the mismanagement of highly acidic or caustic wastes. These
include: several deaths and many serious illnesses resulting
of
from the inhalation of toxic gases formed by the reaction.acidic
wastes with wastes containing sulfide Of cyanide salts, contami-
nation and degradation of groundwater and wells from improper
disposal of acidic and caustic wastes, severe bMrns from handling
and contact with acidic and caustic wastes, and several incidents
of fish kills from discharge of acidic and caustic wastes. (Refer
to corrosivity and reactivity background documents for further
information).
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water. Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of drinking water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental exposure
of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a
complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the
substances and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR
Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial waste as presently managed and disposed often
leaches into and contaminates the groundwater. The Geraghty
and Miller report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected
on-site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated
from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium,
arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of
the sites and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium,
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account
the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
Cadmium, chromium, and lead are three of the toxicants listed
by the NIPDWR at concentrations of 0.01 mg/1, 0.05 mg/1, and
0.05 mg/1, respectively, because of their toxicity. As explained
in the RCRA toxicity background document these concentrations
convert to 0.1 mg/1, 0.5 mg/1, and 0.5 mg/1 respectively, in the EP
-------
extract.
This waste has been shown to contain cadmium, chromium,
and lead at the following concentrations according to Calspan
Report No. ND-5520-M-1, Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Waste Practices in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry,
Appendices, page 4:
Contaminant Concentration (ppm)
Material Analysed
Fresh Anode Sludge
Old Anode Sludge
Cd
12
1,400
Cr
10
8
Pb
170,000
87,000
(from dump)
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain cadmium, chromium, and lead, at concentrations of
12 ppm, 0.05 ppm, and 2.0 ppm respectively, according to the
same report, page 32, we feel that this waste stream poses a
threat to human health and the environment.
-------
3339 Primary Tungsten, Digestion Residue (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its
toxic characteristics. According to the information EPA has
about this waste stream it meets the RCRA S250,13d characteristic
identifying toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information;
" ;. Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of Digestion Residue and
found the following:
Contaminent
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sb
Zn
Se
ph
Dist. H20
Leachate
Cone. ppm
< 0.003
0.15
0.05
90
< 0.02
75
60
0.7
< 0.2
1.5
<0.05
6.4
Waste
Sample
Analysis ppm
38,000
90
< 10
850
-------
According to the solubility test performed by Calspan
Corp. the leachate derived from Digestion Residue contains
Cd and Pb in concentrations which are orders of magnitude
greater than drinking water standards.
Lead is one of the toxicants listed by the N I p D W R
at a concentration of .05mg/l because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this converts
to a .5mg/l level in the EP extract.
Cadmium is one of the toxicants listed by the N I P D W R.
at a concentration of .Otmg/l because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this converts
to a .lmg/1 level in the EP extract.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain Cadmium and lead at a 0.15 and 0.7ppm concentration,
the heavy metals are not fixed in the Solid /Matrix. They are
therefore available to migrate down through a disposal site to
groundwater. Thus we feel that this waste stream poses a threat
to human health and the environment.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leache
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
1
report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
i>e present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry Appendices. April 1977
Contract f 68-01-2604 ' " '::. Vol II 178-193. App. pages
8, 32.
i-_
Battelle. Cross Media Impact of the Disposal of Hazardous Waste
from Metals. Inorganic Chemicals and Related Industries.
Vol I, page 20-45. Vol III, page 53-58. Contract # 68-01-2552.
-------
3332 Primary Lead, S',n+*r
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about
.this waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13d characteristic
identifying toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information-
' ' Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of S i* *»**€*" •$<"-<•* 4i«
found the following:
Contaminant
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Mn
Mi
Pb
Sb
Zn
Se
ph
Dist. H2O
Leachate
Cone. ppm
< 0.01
*. 6
<0.02
J..3
< 0.05
s.r
<0.2
7.5
CLL7
b.8
waste
Sample
Analysis
100
11
0-1
05,600
-------
According to the solubility test performed by Calspan Corp.
the leachate derived from SfnTer Sc r nhber S^^contains Cd and Pb
s
in concentration which are orders of magnitude greater -than
A
drinking water standards. Lead is one of the toxicants listed
by the NIPDWR at a concentration of .05mg/l because of its
toxicity. As explained in the RCRA toxicity background document
this converts to a .5mg/l level in the EP extract. Cadmium is
one of the toxicants .listed by the NIPDWR at a concentration of
.Olmg/1 because of its toxicity. As explained in the RCRA
toxicity background document this converts to a .lmg/1 level in
the EP extract.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain cadmium and lead at a 9. i andF-Sppm concentration, the
heavy metals are not fixed in the solid matrix. They are there-
fore available to migrate down through a disposal site to
groundwater. Thus, we feel that this waste stream, poses a threat
•
to human health and the environment.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003) .
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leach
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal, sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry Appendices. April 1977.
Contract f 68-01-2604 * . ::. Vol II pages 44-64.
App. page 3, 32.
Battelle. Cross Media Impact of the Disposal of Hazardous
Waste from Metals. Inorganic Chemicals and Related Industries.
Vol. I pages 20-45, Vol III pages 12-17. Contract f 68-03-2552.
-------
3313 Ferrochrome Silicon Furnace Emission Control Dust/Sludge (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about this
waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13d characteristic identifying
toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information- .
Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of Ferrochrome Silicon
Emission Control Dust/Sludge and found the following:
Dist. H20 Waste
Leachate Sample
Contaminent Cone, ppm Analysis ppm
Cr 190 • 41
Cu 0.44 45
Zn 0.3 700
Mn 0.1 700
Ni < 0.05
Pb 1.5
Ph 8.8
-------
According to the Solubility test performed by Calspan Corp.
the leachate derived from Cerrochrome silicon emission control
dust/sludge contains Cr and Pb in concentrations which are greater
than drinking water standards.
Chromium and lead are toxicants listed by the N I P D W R<
*** '
at a concentration of .05mg/l because of their toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this converts
to a .5mg/l level in the ,EP extract.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain chromium and lead at a 190 and l.Sppm concentration, the
heavy metals are not fixed in the Solid Matrix. They are there-
fore available to migrate down through a disposal site to
groundwater. Thus we feel that this waste stream poses a threat
to human health and the environment.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003) .
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leache
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
1
report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EpA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry Appendices.
April 1977. Contract # 68-01-2604 Vol III, page 97-144.
App. pages 29, 35.
-------
3313 Ferrochrome Furnace Emission Control Dust/Sludge (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its
toxic characteristics. According to the information EPA has
about this waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13d characteristic
identifying toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information:
(".' Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of Ferrochrome Emission
Control Dust/Sludge and found the following:
Dist. H20 Waste
Leachate Sample
Contaminent Cone, ppm Analysis ppm
Cr 710 3,390
Cu 0.2 54
Pb 0.7 300
Zn 0.09 14,000
Mn 0.07 7,200
pH 12.3
-------
According to the Solubility test performed by Calspan Corp.
the leachate derived from Ferrochrome Emission Control Dust/
Sludge contains Cr and Pb in concentrations which are orders of
crvagnitude greater than drinking water standards.
Chromium and Lead are toxicants listed by the N I P D W R
at a concentration of .05mg/l because of their toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this converts
to a .5mg/l level in the EP extract.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
re*ft«.T
contain chromium and lead at a 710 and . V7ppm concentration^ the
heavy metals are not fixed in the Solid matrix. They are there-
fore available to migrate down through a disposal site to
groundwater. Thus we feel that this waste stream poses a threat
to human health and the environment.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leache
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
1
report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry Appendices.
April 1977. Contract # 68-01-2604 Vol III, pages 97-144.
App. pages 29, 35.
-------
3339 Primary Antimony, Pyrometallurgical Blast Furnace Slag (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about this
waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13d characteristic identifying
toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information;-
Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of Blast Furnace Slag and
found the following:
Contaminant
Sb
Pb
Cu
Zn
Ni
Mn
Cr
As
Cd
Se
ph
Dist. H20
Leachate
Cone. ppm
100
< 0.2
5
1.7
< 0.05
0.01
< 0.01
3.00
0.09
< 0.05
9.2
Waste
Sample
Analysis ppm
18,000
66
50
500
-------
According to the Solubility test performed by Calspan Corp.
the leachate derived from Blast Furnace Slag contains As in
concentration which is orders of magnitude greater than the
drinking water standard.
Arsenic is one of the toxicants listed by the N I p D W R
at a concentration of ,05mg/l because of its toxicity. As
explained in the RCRA toxicity background document this 'converts
to a .5mg/l level in the EP extract.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain Arsenic at a 3ppm concentration, the heavy metal is
not fixed in the solid Matrix. It is therefore available to
migrate down through a disposal site to groundwater. Thus we
feel that this waste stream poses a threat to human health and
the environment.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leache
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
1
report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EpA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry Appendices. April 1977,
Contract # 68-01-2604. - : . . Vol II page 132-153.
App. page 6, 32.
Battelle. Cross Media Impact of the Disposal of Hazardous Waste
from Metals. Inorganic Chemicals and Related Industries.
Vol I, page 20-45. Vol III, page 34-39. Contract # 68-03-2552.
-------
3341 Secondary Lead, Scrubber Sludge from S02 Emission Control,
Soft Lead Production (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about this
waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13d characteristic identifying
toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information- •
Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of S02 Scrubber Sludge and
found the following:
Dist. H20 Waste
Leachate Sample
Contaminent Cone. ppm Analysis ppm
Zn 1.3 25
Cd 5 340
Cr 0.05 30
Cu 0.5 20
Mn 0.21 120
Pb 2.5 53,000
Sb < 0.2 1,100
Sn 1.6
Ni 5
pM 8.4
-------
According to the solubility test performed by Calspan Corp.
the leachate derived from SO2 Scrubber Sludge contains Cd and Pb
in concentrations which are orders of magnitude greater than
drinking water standards.
Lead is one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at a con-
centration of .05mg/l because of its toxicity. As explained in
the RCRA toxicity background document this converts to a .5mg/l
level in the "EP extract.
Cadmium is one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at a
concentration of .Olmg/1 because of its toxicity. As explained
in the RCRA toxicity background document this converts to a .lmg/1
level in the 'EP extract.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain cadmium and lead at a 5 and 2.5ppm concentration, the
^i
heavy metals are not fixed in the solid matrix. They are there-
fore available to migrate down through a disposal site to ground-
water. Thus, we feel that this waste stream poses a threat to
human health and the environment.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
•these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leache
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
1
report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting & Refining Industry Appendices. April 1977,
Contract # 68-01-2604, Vol II page 262-282, App. page 10,34.
Battelle. Cross Media Impact of the Disposal of Hazardous Waste
from Metals. Inorganic Chemicals and Related Industries.
Vol I page 20-45, Vol III page 12-J-126, Contract # 68-01-2552.
-------
3341 Secondary Lead, White Metal Production, Furnance Dust (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about
this waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13d characteristic
identifying toxic wastes.
EPA basis this classification on the following information- .
;."' Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of Furnance Dust and found
the following:
Dist. H20 Waste
Leachate Sample
Contaminent Cone, ppm Analysis ppm
Zn 4,000 120,000
Cd 230 900
Cr. 12 150
Cu 45 400
Mn 4 5
Pb 24 120,000
Sb < 0.02 1800
Sn 860 117,000
Ni 5
3.9
-------
According to the solubility test performed by Calspan Corp.
the leachate derived from Furnance Dust contains Cd, Cr and Pb
in concentrations which are several orders of magnitude greater
than drinking water standards.
Chromium and Lead are toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at a
concentration of ,05mg/l because of their toxiciiy. As explained
in the RCRA toxicity background document this converts to a .5mg/l
level in the "EP extract.
Cadmium is one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at a
concentration of .Olmg/1 because of its toxicity. As explained
in the RCRA toxicity background document this converts to a .lmg/1
level in the EP extract.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain Cdf Cr, and Pb at a 230, 12, and 24ppm concentration, the
heavy metals are not fixed in the .Solid irjatrix. They are there-
fore available to migrate down through a disposal site to ground-
water. Thus, we feel that this waste stream poses a threat to
human health and the environment.
fff
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leache
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
1
report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry Appendices. April 1977
Contract # 68-01-2604, Vol II page 262-282 App. page 10,34.
Battelle. Cross Media Impact of the Disposal of Hazardous Waste
from Metals. Inorganic Chemicals and Related Industries.
Vol I page 20-45, Vol III page 120-126, Contract # 68-03-2552.
-------
3341 Secondary Copper, Pyrometallurgical Blast Furnance Slag (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about the
waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13d characteristic identifying
toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of Blast Furnance Slag
and found the following:
Dist. H20 Waste
Leachate Sample
Contaminant Cone. ppm Analysis PP"L
Zn 55 75,000
Cd 1.0 45
Cr 0.03 20
Cu 170 12,000
Mn 0.3 7,000
Pb 6 2,600
Sb 4^0.2 <100
Sn < 0.2
Ni 260
ph 9.4
-------
According to the solubility test performed by Calspan Corp.
the leachate derived from Blast Furnance slag contains Cd and Pb
in concentration, which are orders of magnitude greater than
drinking water standards. Lead is one of the toxicants listed
by the NIPDWR at a concentration of .05mg/l because of its
toxicity. As explained in the RCRA toxicity background document
this converts to a ,5mg/l level in the EP extract. Cadmium is
one of the toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at a concentration of
.Olmg/1 because of its toxicity. As explained in the RCRA
toxicity background document this converts to a .lmg/1 level in
the EP extract.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain cadmium and lead at a 1.0 and 6ppm concentration, the
heavy metals are not fixed in the solid matrix. They are there-
fore available to migrate down through a disposal site to
groundwater. Thus/ we feel that this waste stream poses a threat
to human health and the environment.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
•treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leach
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EpA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting & Refining Industry Appendices. April 1977.
Contract # 68-01-2604, Vol II" page 239-261, App. page 9, 34.
Battelle. Cross Media Impact of the Disposal of Hazardous Waste
from Metals. Inorganic Chemicals and Related Industries.
Vol I, page 20-45, Vol III, page 110-119, Contract # 68-01-2552. .
-------
3341 Secondary Copper, Electrolytic Refining Waste Water Sludge
(T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about
this waste stream it meets the RCRA S250.13d characteristic
identifying toxic wastes.
EPA bases this classification on the following information-
;:,'• Calspan Corp. has tested a sample of Electrolytic Refining
waste water sludge and found the following:
Dist. H_0 Waste
Leachatl Sample
Contaminent cone. ppm Analysis ppm
Zn <0.01 1,850
Cd 0.05 10
Cr 7.1 94,000
Cu 0.63 170,000
Mn 0.06
pb 0.5 900
Sb < 0.2
Sn <0.2 20,000
Ni - 16,600
Ph 8.6
-------
According to the solubility test performed by Calspan Corp.
the leachate derived from Electrolytic Refining waste water
sludge contains Cr and Pb in concentrations which are orders of
magnitude greater than drinking water standards.
Chromium and Lead are toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at a
concentration of .05mg/l because of their toxicity. As explained
in the RCRA toxicity background document this converts to a
.5mg/l level in the EP extract.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain chromium and lead at a 7.1 and O.Sppm concentration, the
heavy metals are not fixed in the Solid matrix. They are there-
fore available to migrate down through a disposal site to ground-
water. Thus, we feel that this waste stream poses a threat to
human health and the environment.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water. The sub-
stances listed represent hazards to human health. In arriving at
these specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man to a
stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a complete
treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the substances
and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix A-C
Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate that
industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often leache
into and contaminate the groundwater. The Geraghty and Miller
1
report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected on-site
industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were found to
t>e present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from the
Disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or
cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and confirmed
to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
@-tc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells exceeded
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account the
upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
-------
References
Calspan Corp. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting & Refining Industry Appendices. April 1977,
Contract * 68-01-2604, ". '.:::.. Vol II, pages 239-261,
App. page 9, 34.
Battelle. Cross Media Impact of the Disposal of Hazardous Waste
from Metals. Inorganic Chemicals and Related Industries.
Vol I, page 20-45, Vol III, page 110-119. Contract f 68-03-2552.
-------
333417 Secondary Aluminum Smelting and Refining: Secondary
Aluminum Dross Smelting High Salt Slag (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to information EPA has about this
waste stream it meets the RCRA §250.13(d) characteristic identi-
fying toxic wastes.
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of drinking water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered.
(For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in
\
choosing the substances and specified limits please refer to
the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9
- 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contami-
nants is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking
water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to
indicate that industrial waste as presently managed and
disposed often leaches into and contaminates the groundwater.
The Geraghty and Miller Report indicated that in 98% of 50
randomly selected on-site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic
heavy metals had migrated from the disposal sites in 80% of the
instances. Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be
present at 74% of the sites and confirmed to have migrated at 60%
0£ the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc-) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells
-------
exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into
account the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations) .
Chromium and lead are two of the toxicants listed by the
NIPDWR at concentrations of 0.05mg/l because of their
toxicity. As explained in the RCRA toxicity background document
this converts to a 0.5mg/l level in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain chromium and lead
concentrations 60 ppm and 300 ppm respectively, according to
Calspan Report No. ND-5520-M-1, Assessment of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Practices in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry,
Appendices, page 11.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain chromium and lead concentrations of 1.5 ppm and 0.24 ppm
respectively, according to the same report, page 36, we feel
that this waste stream poses a threat to human health and the
environment.
-------
3333 Primary Zinc Smelting and Refining: Cadmium Plan Residue (T)
A
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristics. According to the information EPA has about this
waste stream it meets the RCRA §250.13(d) characteristic identi-
fying toxic wastes.
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of drinking water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental
exposure of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered.
(For a complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in
choosing the substances and specified limits please refer to
the NIPDWR Appendix A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9
f - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic
contaminants is through drinking water. A large percentage of
drinking water finds its source in groundwater. EPA has evidence
to indicate that industrial waste as presently managed and
disposed often leaches into and contaminates the groundwater.
The Geraghty and Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50
randomly selected on-site waste disposal sites toxic heavy metals
had migrated from the disposal sites in 80% of the instances.
Selenium, arsenic and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74%
Of the sites and confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium,
etc-) in tne groundwater from one or more monitoring wells
EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account
-------
the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations) .
Cadmium, chromium, and lead are three toxicants listed by
the NIPDWR at concentrations 0.01 mg/1, 0.05 mg/1, and 0.5 mg/1
respectively, because of their toxicity. As explained in the
RCRA toxicity background document these concentrations convert to
0.1 mg/1, 0.5 mg/1, and 0.5 mg/1 levels, respectively, in the
EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain cadmium, chromium, and
lead at concentrations of 280 ppm, and 24 ppm, and 215,000 ppm,
respectively, according Calspan Report No. ND-5520-M-1, Assessment
of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices in the Metal Smelting
and Refining Industry, Appendices, page 4.
Since the water extract of the waste has been shown to
contain cadmium, chromium, and lead at concentrations of <0.01
ppm, 0.02 ppm, and 9.0 ppm, respectively, according to the same
report, page 32, we feel that this waste stream poses a threat to
human health and the environment.
-------
3691 Lead acid battery production wastewater
treatment sludge (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristic. According to the information EPA has on this
waste stream it meets RCRA §250.13d characteristic identifying
toxic waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
(1) Booz-Allen has tested a sample of lead acid battery
production wastewater treatment sludge and found the following.
contaminant cone, kg/kkg product
Pb as PbS04 & Pb(OH)2 150.00
The data presented are available from:
Booz-Allen. A Study of Hazardous Waste Materials, Hazardous
Effects and Disposal Methods. Vol. 1-14. PB - 221 - 466.
Contract #68 - 03 - 0032.
and
Versar, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Practices,
Storage and Primary Batteries. PB - 241 - 204/7WP. 1975.
The "Handbook of Industrial Waste Compositions in
California" - 1978, indicates that a load of this waste had the
following composition (Reference 9, p. 10).
Storage battery wastewater treatment sludge - lead hydroxide
load size - 8 yards
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental exposure
of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a
complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the
substances and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix
A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds it source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leaches into and contaminents the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected
on-site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from
the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic
and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells
exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account
the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations) .
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium,
and silver are toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at concentrations
of 0.05, 1.00, 0.010, 0.05, 0.05, 0.002, 0.01, and 0.05, mg/1
respectively because of their toxicity. As explained in the RCRA
toxicity background documents these concentrations convert to
-------
0.5, 10.0, 0.1, 0.5, 0.5, 0.02, 0.1, and 0.5, mg/1 respectively
in the 'EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain lead at 150kg/1000 kg
product according to PB - 221 - 466, A Study of Hazardous Waste
Materials, Hazardous Effects and Disposal Methods; and PB - 241 -
204/7WP, Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Practices, Storage
and Primary Batteries.
Because of the toxicity of lead and the solubility of the
hydroxide salt (slightly soluble in aquous solution, soluble in
audio solution) this waste stream is to be considered hazardous.
-------
3691 Lead acid storage battery production & clean-up wastes
from cathode and anode paste production (T)
This waste is classifed as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristic. According to the information EPA has on this
waste stream it meets RCRA §250.13d characteristic identifying
toxic waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
(1) Booz-Allen has tested a sample of lead acid storage
battery production clean-up waste from cathode and anode paste
production and found the following.
contaminents cone, kg/1000 kg product
Pb as PbO, Pb, PbO2 . 67.00
The data presented are available from:
Booz-Allen. A Study of Hazardou Waste Materials, Hazardous
Effects and Disposal Methods. Vol. 1-14. PB - 221 - 466.
Contaract #68 - 03 - 0032.
and
Versar, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Practices,
Storage and Primary Batteries. PB - 241 - 204/7WP. 1975.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits/ the total environmental exposure
of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a
complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the
substances and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix
A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds it source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leaches into and contaminents the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected
on-site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from
the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic
and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells
exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account
the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium,
and silver are toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at concentrations
Of 0.05, 1.00, 0.010, 0.05, 0,05, 0.002, 0.01, and 0.05, mg/1
respectively because of their toxicity. As explained in the RCRA
toxicity background documents these concentrations convert to
ft*
-------
0.5, 10.0, 0.1, 0.5,-0.5, 0.02, 0.1, and 0.5, mg/1 respectively
in the TEP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain lead at 67.0 kg/1000 kg
product according to Pb - 221 - 466, A study of Hazardous Waste
Materials, Hazardous Effects and Disposal Methods; and PB - 241
- 204/7WP, Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Practices, Storage
and Primary Batteries.
Because of the toxicity of lead this waste is to be considered
hazardous.
-------
3691 Nickel cadmium battery production wastewater treatment
sludges (T)
I
This waste is classif^pd as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristic. According to the information EPA has on this
waste stream it meets RCRA §250.13d characteristic identifying
toxic waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
(1) Booz-Allen has tested a sample of nickel cadmium battery
production wastewater treatment sludges and found the following.
contaminent cone, kg/1000 kg product
Cd as Cd(OH)2 5.34
Ni as Ni(OH)2 1.66
The data presented are available from:
Booz-Allen. A Study of Hazardous Waste Materials, Hazardous
Effects and Disposal Methods. Vol 1-14. PB - 221 - 466. Contract
f68 - 03 - 0032.
and
Versar, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Practices;
Storage and Primary Batteries. PB - 241 - 204/7WP. 1975.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental exposure
of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a
complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the
substances and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix
A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003) .
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds it source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leaches into and contaminents the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected
on-site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from
the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic
and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (s. a. arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells
exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account
the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations) .
Arsenic, barium, cadmium/ chromium, lead, mercury, selenium
and silver are toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at concentrations
of 0.05, 1.00, 0.010, 0.05, 0.05, 0.002, 0.01, and 0.05, mg/1
respectively because of their toxicity. As explained in the RCRA
toxicity background documents these concentrations convert to
-------
0.5, 10.0, 0.1, 0.5, 0.5, 0.02, 0.1, and 0.5, mg/1 respectively
in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain cadmium at 5.34 kg/1000
kg product, according to PB - 241 - 204, Assessment of Industrial
Hazardous Practices, Storage and Primary Batteries.
Because of the toxicity of Cadmium and the solubility
(soluble in acid solution) of cadmium hydroxide this waste is
considered hazardous.
-------
3691 Cadmium silver oxide battery production wastewater
treatment sludge (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous beq/i^gfse of its toxic
characteristic. According to the information EPA has on this
waste stream it meets RCRA §250.13d characteristic identifying
toxic waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
(1) Booz-Allen has tested a sample of cadmium silver oxide
battery production wastewater treatment sludge and found the
following.
contaminent cone, kg/1000 kg product
Cd as Cd(OH)2 5.34
Ag as Silver Oxide 2.24
The data presented are available from:
Booz-Allen. A Study of Hazardous Waste Materials, Hazardous
Effects and Disposal Methods. Vol 1-14. PB - 221 - 446. Contract
#68 - 03 - 0032.
and
Versar, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Practices,
Storage and Primary Batteries. PB - 241 - 204/7WP. 1975.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental exposure
of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a
complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the
substances and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix
A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003) .
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds it source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leaches into and contaminents the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report^ indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected
on-site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from
the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic
and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (ST. a. arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells
exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account
the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium,
and silver are toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at concentrations
Of 0.05, 1.00, 0.010, 0.05, 0.05, 0.002, 0.01, and 0.05, mg/1
respectively because of their toxicity. As explained in the RCRA
toxicity background documents these concentrations convert to
-------
0.5, 10.0, 0.1, 0.5, 0.5, 0.02, 0.1, and 0.5 mg/1 respectively
in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain cadmium and silver at
5.34 and 2.24 kg/1000 kg product respectfully, according to
PB 241-204/7WP, Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Practices,
Storage and Primary Batteries.
Because of the toxicity of cadmium and silver and the
solubility of these salts (soluble in acid solution), this waste
is to be considered hazardous.
-------
3691 Mercury cadmium battery production wastewater treatment
sludges (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristic. According to the information EPA has on this
waste steam it meets RCRA §250.13d characteristic identifying
toxic waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
(1) Booz-Allen has tested a sample of mercury cadmium
battery production wastewater treatment sludge and found
it to contain silver, cadmium and mercury.
(1,022 kg/yr of this waste are landfilled)
Note: This listing will include other storage batteries
that are not otherwise listed, that is, Zinc-Silver
Oxide & Silver lead as an example
The data presented are available from:
Booz-Allen. A Study of Hazardous Waste Materials, Hazardous
Disposal Methods. Vol 1-14. PB 221 - 466. Contract #68 - 03 -
0032.
and
Versar, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Practices;
Storage and Primary Batteries. PB - 241 - 204/7WP. 1975.
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental exposure
of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a
complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the
substances and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix
A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminants
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds it source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leaches into and contaminents the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report^- indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected
on-site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from
the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic
and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells
exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account
the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium,
and silver are toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at concentrations
of 0.05, 1.00, 0.010, 0.05, 0.05, 0.002, 0.01, and 0.05, mg/1
respectively because of their toxicity. As explained in the RCRA
toxicity background documents these concentrations convert to
-------
o.5, 10.0, 0.1, 0.5, 0.5, 0.02, 0.1, and 0.5 mg/1 respectively
in the TEP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain cadmium, silver, and
mercury at a total concentration of 1,022.3 kg/1000 kg product,
according to PB - 241 - 204/7WP, Assessment of Industifa^l Hazardous
Practices, Storage and Primary Batteries.
Because of the toxicity of cadmium, mercury and silver, this
waste is to be considered hazardous.
-------
3692 Magnesium carbon battery production chromic acid
wastewater treatment sludges (T)
This waste is classified as hazardous because of its toxic
characteristic. According to the information EPA has on this
waste stream it meets RCRA §250.13d characteristic identifying
toxic waste.
EPA bases this classification on the following information.
(1) Booz-Allen has tested a sample of magnesium carbon
battery production chromic acid wastewater treatment sludges
and found the following.
contaminent cone, kg/1000 kg product
Cr as chromium hydroxide 11.07
and chromium carbonate
The data presented are available from:
Booz-Allen. A Study of Hazardous Waste Materials, Hazardous
Effects and Disposal Methods. Vol 1-14. PB 221-446. Contract
#68 - 03 - 0032.
and
Versar, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Practices,
Storage and Primary Batteries. PB 241-204/7WP. 1975,
-------
The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR) set limits for chemical contamination of Drinking Water.
The substances listed represent hazards to human health. In
arriving at these specific limits, the total environmental exposure
of man to a stated specific toxicant has been considered. (For a
complete treatment of the data and reasoning used in choosing the
substances and specified limits please refer to the NIPDWR Appendix
A-C Chemical Quality, EPA-6570/9 - 76 - 003).
A primary exposure route to the public for toxic contaminents
is through drinking water. A large percentage of drinking water
finds it source in groundwater. EPA has evidence to indicate
that industrial wastes as presently managed and disposed often
leaches into and contaminents the groundwater. The Geraghty and
Miller report1 indicated that in 98% of 50 randomly selected
on-site industrial waste disposal sites, toxic heavy metals were
found to be present, and that these heavy metals had migrated from
the disposal sites in 80% of the instances. Selenium, arsenic
and/or cyanides were found to be present at 74% of the sites and
confirmed to have migrated at 60% of the sites.
At 52% of the sites toxic inorganics (such as arsenic, cadmium
etc.) in the groundwater from one or more monitoring wells
exceeded EPA drinking water limits (even after taking into account
the upstream (beyond the site) groundwater concentrations).
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium,
and silver are toxicants listed by the NIPDWR at concentrations
Of 0.05, 1.00, 0.010, 0.05, 0.05, 0.002, 0.01, and 0.05, mg/1
respectively because of their toxicity. As explained in the RCRA
toxicity background documents these concentrations convert to
-------
0.5, 10.0, 0.1, 0.5, 0.5, 0.02, 0.1, and 0.5, mg/1 respect ively
in the EP extract.
This waste has been shown to contain chromium levels of 11.07
kg/kkg product, according to PB 241-204, Assessment of Industrial
Hazardous Practices, Storage and Primary Batteries.
Because of the toxicity of chromium and the solubility of
the .1 hydroxide (in the presence of chloride ion) this waste
A
is to be considered hazardous.
-------
BD-6
-------
BD-6
DRAFT
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
SECTION 3001 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE
SECTION 250.14 - HAZARDOUS WASTE LISTS
RADIOACTIVE WASTE
DECEMBER IS, 1978
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
-------
This document provides background information and
support for regulations which have been designed to identify
and list hazardous waste pursuant to Section 3001 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. It is being
made available as a draft to support the proposed regulations.
As new information is obtained, changes may be made in the
background information and used as support for the regulations
when promulgated.
This document was first drafted many months ago and has
been revised to reflect information received and Agency
decisions made since then. EPA made some changes in the
proposed regulations shortly before their publication in the
Federal Register. We have tried to ensure that all of those
decisions are reflected in this document. If there are any
inconsistencies between the proposal (the preamble and the
regulation) and this background document, however, the
proposal is controlling.
Comments~'ih~wrltlhg"may be made to:
Alan S. Corson
Hazardous Waste Management Division (WH-565)
Office of Solid Waste
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS RADIOACTIVE
WASTE PURSUANT TO THE RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND
RECOVERY ACT (RCRA) OF 1976
Application of Generic Numerical Criteria
I. INTRODUCTION
Numerical criteria were considered for use as uniform measures of
hazard for radioactive waste in the initial development of Section
3001. This approach was viewed as the optimal one at the time because
it provides relative ease of implementation by both regulator and the
industry being regulated, and insures consistency of regulation with
respect to criteria being proposed for other hazard characteristics
under RCRA. Uniform criteria, for example, could be applied to all
waste streams, regardless of origin (except where restricted by the
Act), where elevated concentrations of natural radionuclides are
present. These criteria would be used both to determine compliance
with RCRA permit requirements and eligibility for relief from Section
3001 listing.
The development and application of this regulatory approach,
however, is predicated on the availability-of-supporting data. The
extent to which data is available to characterize various wastes and
the extent to which this data substantiates the correlation of hazard
level (radiological impact) with waste concentration (i.e.,
radionuclide content), will determine whether uniform criteria can be
practically implemented. For diffuse radium-containing waste,
supporting information is largely available for only the phosphate and
-------
2
uranium industries, where the radiological impact of major waste
streams has already been evaluated to a large degree. This particular
body of data is supportive of a uniform hazard criterion for
radium-226, the critical radionuclide involved, between 5 and 10
pCi/g, based on known radon emanation and diffusion rates, with the
radium-radon exposure pathway being the prime one of concern.
The following discussion serves a two-fold purpose: 1) to provide
rationale and general background for the 'proposed classification of
certain wastes containing radiura-226 as hazardous under RCRA, and 2)
to propose a framework for development and implementation of numerical
concentration criteria for these and other wastes in Section 3001.
The Agency will pursue the development of such criteria on a timely
schedule and requests that interested parties submit any information
or comments they feel relevant to this development. A determination
will be made by the Agency shortly following the closing of the ANPR
comment period concerning the feasibility of this latter approach for
regulating radioactive wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA.
II. BACKGROUND
Under Section 1004(5) of the "Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976" (RCRA or "the Act") solid waste materials which may cause
an increase in mortality are termed hazardous waste, and therefore
must be considered under the hazardous waste management provisions of
Subtitle C of the Act. Since all radioactive materials satisfy this
-------
3
criterion in the absolute sense, it is necessary to consider all
wastes which contain significant concentrations of radioactivity.
Excluding those activities or substances subject under the Atomic
Energy Act of 1951 (as required by RCRA Section 1006(a)), the
radionuclides of concern can be categorized as either naturally-
occurring or accelerator-produced.
Naturally-occurring radioactive materials are those containing
radionuclides which are present in the earth's crust or atmosphere as
the result of natural processes. Among these, uranium-238,
uranium-235, and thorium-232, and their respective decay products, as
well as potassium-HO, carbon-14, and tritium, are the principal
radionuclides of interest. The latter three are isotopes of elements
which are significant constituents of human tissues. Prom the
standpoint of avoidable human radiation exposure, though, only members
of the uranium and thorium decay series are usually significant.
Nuclides of the uranium and thorium decay series are present in
elevated concentrations in certain minerals, and are typically
redistributed by extraction processes, especially in the mining and
milling of uranium, thorium, and phosphates. These large volume
sources can be characterized as low-level diffuse wastes by virtue of
their relatively low specific activity. Radiun-226 concentrations in
uranium mill tailings, for example, on the average range from 600 to
700 picocuries per gram of tailings (Swift, 1976), with maximum
concentrations in excess of 1500 pCi/g (Hendricks, 1978). This
-------
compares with the average terrestrial concentration of about one
picocurie per gram for igneous or sedimentary rocks, and about half a
picocurie per gram for soil (NCRP 45, 1975, UNSCEAR, 1977). For
phosphate mining and milling wastes, average radium concentrations of
30 to 60 picocuries per gram for slimes, byproduct gypsum, and
byproduct slag have been observed (Guimond, 1975).
Discrete radium sources, which are widely used in medical and
»
commercial applications, are potentially hazardous if not handled
properly. Overall use is now decreasing, due in large measure to
technological advances and radiological health considerations.
However, according to the most recent survey available, over 1300
curies of radium (1.3 kg) have been distributed by various
manufacturers through 1971 (Pettigrew, et al., 1971). Of this amount,
State licensure and registration data accounted for usage of 480
curies of radium at 4200 facilities. Approximately 330 curies of this
total are contained in about 50,000 medical sources at 2300 medically
related facilities.
Excluding those sources known to be in disposal or storage, the
remaining ones are generally either unaccounted for or have been
incorporated as low activity sources into various consumer products
(e.g., timepieces, smoke detectors, gauges, etc.). Such products may
contain up to one millicurie of radium-226 (UNSCEAR, 1977).
A wide variety of accelerator-produced radioisotopes are in use
today, particularly in the area of medical and biological applications
-------
5
(NEC, 1977). Cobalt-57 sources, for example, have widespread use in a
number of items, such as anatomical markers which are designed to
enhance the ability of the physician to outline areas of the body
during radiography. Other sources such as cesium-131, mercury-197 and
bismuth-206 are used in various organ scanning procedures.
*
Due to physical-and chemical requirements for their application
in medicine, the majority of the material used is small in quantity
and short-lived, with half-lives of minutes to days. Cobalt-57, with
a half-life of 0.25 year, for the most part represents the upper bound
in longevity for those materials in widespread use. Their disposal as
radioactive waste is therefore unlikely to pose a significant problem,
since they can easily be retained for a sufficient amount of time to
insure sufficient decay before disposal. Wastes from industrial and
research applications of accelerator-produced radionuclides likewise
do not represent a hazard for the same reasons.
III. IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS RADIOACTIVE WASTE
Radium-226, a radlonuclide in the uranium-238 series (Figure 1),
is the only radlonuclide proposed to be identified as hazardous in
waste materials under the Act at this time. The potential health
impact of this radionuclide is associated primarily with its emissions
of gamma rays and alpha particles from it and its decay products.
Listing of radium-226 is based on its persistence and relative
abundance in the environment, radiotoxlcity, and presence in waste
-------
I ••• M>lf*«4
ttttmt »ti*
-------
7
materials as a result of man's activity , which together result in a
relatively higher degree of potential hazard for it than for other
radioactive materials discussed above. On a more pragmatic basis,
radium-226 requires regulatory consideration under the Act because of
the potential health hazard to the public from existing uranium mining
and wastes in the Western plateau, phosphate mining and milling wastes
in Florida and Idaho, and other mineral extraction wastes for which
uniform Federal or State regulations do not exist.
The following radioactive materials, among others, will be
reviewed for possible future identification:
Thorium-228
Thorium-230
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-224
Radium-228
Blsmuth-207
IV. RATIONALE FOR REGULATION OF RADIQM-226 UNDER RCRA
A. Persistence and Relative Abundance in Environment
Radium-226 is an alpha emitter with a half-life of 1620 years
which decays to the radioactive noble gas, radon-222. Radon itself,
decays with a half-life of 3.8 days, leading to a series of
-------
8
short-lived, alpha emitting radionuclides which decay in succession to
the longer lived lead-210 (half-life of 22 years), poloniura-210
(half-life of 138 days) and eventually, lead-206, which is stable.
Being largely an alpha emitter (96J), the gamma component usually
associated with radium-containing materials is primarily due to
daughter decay.
Radium-226 is naturally present in soils throughout the United
States in reported average concentrations ranging from about 0.2 to 3
picocuries per gram. Certain types of rock, such as igneous, have
been found to contain a slightly higher average content of radium than
other types, such as sandstone and shale. Likewise, for specific
mineral ores, such as coal and phosphate, increased radium
concentrations as much as an order of magnitude above "background"
levels have been noted. Increased concentrations such as these are
primarily the result of geochemical action over time.
B. Radiotoxicity
The ubiquitousness of radium in the environment and its
usefulness in various commercial applications has led to extensive
epidemiological and health effects data on human exposure to radium
and its decay products. The reported instances of
occupationally-related bone cancer and aplastic anemia in radium dial
painters is a classic example. During the years 1917 to 1924,
approximately 2,000 individuals were employed in the luminous dial
-------
9
industry in this country, where radium containing phosphorescent zinc
sulfide paint was used. The "tipping" of paint brushes by the
painters with their lips led to the continuous ingestion of radium and
eventually to clinical manifestations. Since the initial radium dial
painter studies of the 1920's, over 700 cases of radium ingestion have
been surveyed. Fifty deaths in the United States have been attributed
directly to radium exposure and more are likely to have been
unreported.
As a general rule, radium is transported in the environment and
absorbed by plants in a manner similar to calcium, which is necessary
for plant metabolism. Since it has chemical characteristics similar
to calcium, radium is likewise absorbed and enters the food chain.
The degree of impact on humans through this pathway is dependent upon
the characteristics of the soil, the concentration of radium available
for uptake, and whether the plant is directly eaten (i.e., the degree
of concentration by animal intermediaries). The ingestion of radium
through drinking water has also been of concern where elevated
concentrations exist by virtue of either natural or technically
enhanced sources. After ingestion, radium concentrates in bone where
the tabecular and surface tissue received the highest exposure.
Depending on whether an absolute or relative risk estimate for
bone cancer, leukemia, and all other cancers is assumed as calculated
in the National Academy of Sciences-BEIR report (1972), an
*Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation
-------
10
annual rate of total cancers from radium ingeation of 5 or 20 per
million person-rem/year is estimated, respectively. Therefore,
applying the International Commission on Radiological Protection
(ICRP) estimated dose to bone of 0.15 rem per year from an ingestion
rate of 10 pCi of radium-226 per day, the annual rate of induced
cancer is between 0.7 to 3 cancers per year per million exposed
persons (EPA, 1976b).
With regard to external exposure, the penetrating gamma radiation
of the radium decay products is of primary concern. For such "whole
body" exposure, proximity to the source, the size and geometry of the
source, and its activity are factors affecting the degree of exposure.
Assuming an exposed population, total body irradiation would be
expected to result in 200 lethal and 200 non-lethal cancers per year
per 10 annual person-rem, as well as 200 serious genetic abnormalities
per rem per 10 live births (NAS/BEIR, 1972).
The major public health hazard of radium, however, is not due to
ingestion or external exposure, but more often is due to inhalation of
its decay products. Radon-222, the first generation decay product of
radium-226, is a radioactive noble gas which has a relatively short
half-life (3.8 days). The decay products of radon-222, several of
which decay by alpha particle emission, through inhalation can deposit
in and irradiate the lung. The observed result of exposure to radon
decay products at relatively higher levels of cumulative exposure has
been the induction of lung cancer. This response has been
demonstrated by extensive epidemiological surveys of underground
-------
11
uranium miners in this country and miners in a variety of mining
operations in other countries. This data indicates an increase in
lung cancer over normal incidence of approximately 2 to 5 percent per
working level month cumulative exposure (Ellett, 1977). The basis
of this estimate and the qualifying factors related to its derivation
are given in Ellett, 1977.
Data are not available to demonstrate unequivocally a linear,
non-threshold dose-effect relationship at doses as low as those
usually found in the environment. However, the data from the miner
studies are consistent with a linear non-threshold hypothesis down to
the higher levels measured in some structures in Grand Junction,
Colorado, and in Central Florida. It is therefore prudent to assume
that on the basis of this aa well as more general experience with
radiation exposure, that individuals occupying structures with
elevated levels of radon are subject to a potential hazard for
induction of lung cancer in proportion to the total accumulation of
exposure they experience.
C. Ubiquitiousness of Radium-226 in Waste Materials
Due to its presence in byproducts and wastes of a number of
*Working level month (WLM): exposure to 1 working level (WL) for
170 hours (a working month). Continuous exposure to radon daughters
at 1 WL for one year is equivalent to 36 WLM. A working level is
defined as any combination of short-lived radon daughter products in
one liter of air that can result in the ultimate emission of 1.3 x
MeV of alpha energy.
-------
12
mineral extraction industries, as well as its continued application in
many medical sources and commercial products, the total quantity of
radium in distribution has increased steadily. The following is a
partial list of sources and processes in which radium may be found in
significant quantities:
Ore mining and milling
(including tailings, slag, waste rock,
etc., from the uranium, thorium, zirconium, heavy metals,
and phosphate industries)
Fossil fuel use (ash and scrubber sludge)
Water Treatment (sludge)
Commercial products, including:
Smoke detectors
Lightning rods
Static eliminators
Radioluminous sources
Industrial gauges
Vacuum tubes
Vacuum gages
Ion generators
Well logging devices
Calibration and check sources
Educational materials
Medical diagnostic and therapeutic sources including:
Needles, capsules and tubes
-------
13
Plaques
Nasopharangeal applicators
Radon seeds
Of these sources, wastes from mineral extraction and discarded
radium sources represent the major ones of public health concern.
Their production and distribution into the general environment may
result in contamination with a potential for long-term, or chronic,
public health impact and, in the case of discrete sources, more acute
hazards. Continuing efforts to assess and control potential hazards
due to radium have been ongoing at the State and Federal level, as
evidenced by the EPA and the State of Florida phosphate program, the
Joint Federal/State mill tailings project, and reports of the
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (1977) and NRC's
Task Force on Naturally Occurring and Accelerator Produced Radioactive
Materials (NARM) (1977).
a. Diffuse Radium-containing Wastes
This category consists of waste which contains radium dispersed
throughout a non-radioactive medium at a relatively low concentration,
which would make chronic exposure to the waste and the decay products
of radium of principle concern. The elevated radium content of these
wastes results primarily from the extraction and processing of mineral
ores, which due to geochemical factors are enriched in radium. These
process sources, examples of which are listed in Table 1, are large in
-------
TABLE 1
DIFFUSE RADIUM-CONTAINING WASTES
(PARTIAL LISTING)*
Process Source
Uranium ore milling
Phosphate mining
Phosphoric Acid
production
Elemental phosphorus
production
Zirconium extraction
Water Treatment
Coal Combustion
Waste Material
tailings
slimes
sand tailings
raining debris
gypsum
slag
Fluid bed p-ills
chlorinator res.
clarif ier sludge
sludge (lime)
ash
Average
Primary Re*-226
Locality pf Cpncentration
Production (pCi/g)
Western Plateau
Florida
Florida
Idaho
North Carolina
Florida
Idaho
Florida/Tennessee**
Florida
Idaho
Oregon
National
National
600-700 (a)
45 (b)
8 (b)
13 (c)
33 (b)
23 (d)
56 (b)
35 (c)
18 (b)
13 (e)
150-1300(f)
6-9 (g)
1-8
Annual Tota.1 Average
Quantity Annual
Produced Activity
(million MT) (Ci)
9 (i) 6000
32 (b) 1500
49 (b) 400
-
23 (b) 800
4.5 (b) 200
0.3
-
_ _
(Tat cont'd)
-------
* Others for which substantive data is unavailable include some heavy metal, copper, rare earth, and coal
extraction and processing wastes.
** One plant using a blend of Tennessee and Florida Ores.
(a) Swift, et al., 1976 (g) Brink, et al., 1976
(b) Guimond and Windham, 1975 (h) Martin, 1970
(c) Eadie, et aj.., 1977a (i) Hendricks, 1978
(d) Eadie, et al., 1977b
(e) University of Florida, 1977
(f) Oregon State Health Division, 1977
-------
16
volume and therefore disposal is less practicable than for discrete
radium sources. One non-mineral extraction waste listed, water
treatment sludge, results from the removal of various contaminants,
including radium, from drinking water in order to satisfy Safe
Drinking Water regulations (1976b).
Because of the relatively low activity and diffuse configuration
of these wastes, the exposure pathways of major concern are inhalation
from radon emanation and, to a lesser degree, direct gamma
irradiation. Both pathways of exposure have been found in structures
constructed with uranium tailings material in Grand Junction,
Colorado, and on phosphate reclaimed land in Central Florida.
Concerns resulting from the use of radium-containing raw materials,
such as by-product gypsum and coal ash, in construction materials have
also been raised (O'Riordan, «st al , 1972; Hamilton, E.I., 1972;
Moeller and Underhill, 1976). However, while uranium, phosphate, and
zirconium ores characteristically contain elevated radium
concentrations, the radium content of coal, heavy metal source ores,
and water treatment sludge, among others, vary considerably by virtue
of geochemical and hydrogeological factors. Some waste materials,
such as coal ash, may also have physical properties related to their
formation which would decrease radon emanation and diffusion. The
public health hazard posed by these wastes, therefore, would vary
considerably as a result of these factors.
-------
17
b. Discrete Radium Sources
The radiological characteristics of radium have encouraged its
use in numerous medical, industrial, and military applications, as
well as in consumer products, as shown in Table 2. It is extremely
difficult, though, to quantify the potential waste source resulting
from this broad use over the past several decades. At present, no
reporting is required on a national scale of the amount of radium
disposed or recycled. To give some indication, since 1964, over 2,300
disposed sources have been sent voluntarily to the Federal radium
repository now operated by EPA at Montgomery, Alabama.
In a recent FDA report (1975), roughly twice as much radium was
reportedly used in medical as in non-medical applications, with 330
curies contained in 50,000-55,000 medical sources at 2300 facilities,
and 150 curies for non-medical applications at 1900 facilities.
Radium users constitute about ^8% of users of radioactive materials
who are subject to licensing by State programs having that
«
authority. The HRC Task Force on the Regulation of Naturally
Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials (NRC, 1977)
This percentage, therefore, excludes the use of radium sources
in Federal facilities. Of the total 50 States, which individually
have the regulatory authority to establish programs for licensing or
registering users of HARM, 30 States have licensing programs and 16
have registration programs. The remainder have liminted programs or
in one case, no program.
-------
TABLE 2.
DISCRETE RADIUM-CONTAINING SOURCES*
Source Type
CONSUMER PRODUCTS
1. Radioluminous
Products
-
2. Electronic and
electrical
devices
3. Antistatic
devices
4. Gas and aerosol
detectors
MEDICAL SOURCES
1. Sealed sources
_. _ „ _ .. .
INDUSTRIAL
1. Sealed sources
Product
Timepieces
Aircraft Instruments
Electronic tubes
Fluorescent lamp
starters
Lightening Rod
Antistatic devices
contained in instru-
ments
Smoke and fire
detectors
Needles, tubes, cells
and capsules
Plaques
Nasopharyngeal
Radon seeds
Well logging
Radiography
Uncontrolled
Activity Distribution
per Source to public
0.1-3uCi
,< 20jiCi
O.luCi
luCi
0.2-lmCi
IQuCi
0. 01-15 uCi
l-50nCi
5-25mCi
SOmCi
•v ImCi
10-50mCi (gamma)
300-600mCi
(neutron)
10-lSOmCi
Wide
Limited**
Hide
Wide
Wide
Wide
Wide
Wide
Limited**
Limited**
Limited***
Limited**
Limited *»
* Data extracted from UNSCEAR, 1977 and Pettigrew, et al.. 1971
** Limited is used here to denote that no planned distribution to the general
public is forseen.
-------
19
noted that the health and safety control by these users has been a
continuing problem to State authorities.
The principal hazard from medical and industrial uses of radium
is the possibility of an acute exposure. By far the most common
medical source has been the radium needle, whose primary use is
internal implantation for irradiation treatment of malignancies.
Other medical sources, such as plaques and nasopharyngeal applicators,
also contain similar concentrations of radium which can result in an
acute exposure. Accounting of the many sources in existance and those
lost or disposed of has been inadequate. Many State regulatory
authorities involved in the control of such hazards have reported
instances where sources have reached the general environment, and in
some cases the general public, via accessible trash and garbage from
medical and industrial facilities. There is a clear need for uniform
regulation of discarded radium sources and radium-containing products
to insure proper accountability and disposal practices.
For the most part, consumer products containing radium are likely
to be disposed of as household refuse. However, the disposal of such
discarded sources is not likely to be significant because of more
restrictive national and international controls which limit the
quantities and types of consumer product application. An annual
average gonadal dose of less than 1 mrad has been calculated for all
disposed consumer products containing radioactive material of any kind
(UNSCEAR, 1977). -
-------
20
In summary, wastes containing elevated concentrations of
radium-226 are proposed to be listed as hazardous under this Act
because:
a. Radium poses a recognized potential hazard to health.
Factors which contribute to the significance of this hazard include
its long half-life and relatively high radiotoxiclty;
b. Radium-226 is found concentrated in both diffuse and discrete
waste to levels significantly in excess of its average natural
physical abundance; and
c. There is currently uncontrolled widescale distribution of
products, byproducts and wastes containing radium in the environment
resulting from man's activities.
V. PROPOSED NUMERICAL HAZARD CRITERIA FOR RADIUM
A radium-containing waste is proposed to be designated as a
hazardous waste for the purposes of this Act if a representative
sample of the waste has either of the following properties:
(1) The average radium concentration equals or exceeds 5
picocuries per gram for solid wastes, or 50 picocuries per liter for
liquid wastes (for the latter, radium-226 and radium-228 combined)
(2) The total activity of any single discrete source equals or
exceeds 10 microcuries.
*The radium criterion for liquids is based in part on the EPA
Drinking Water regulation which requires measurement of combined
radium-226 and radium-228 as part of its analytical regimen.
-------
21
Perspective
In proposing these numerical hazard criteria for radium-226, it
should be recognized that they do not constitute "de minimus" levels,
i.e., radiation levels below which exposure is considered negligible.
Rather, they specify which wastes are sufficiently high in radium
content to involve a high expectation of hazard should the wastes be
mismanaged under circumstances reasonably expected to occur. Under
I
these criteria, diffuse wastes which because of their small quantity
and configuration, or their radon emanation characteristics, are not
hazardous via the pathways described may also be included. This
likelihood represents the most important hindrance to the use of these
radioactive waste criteria in a uniform manner and will be addressed
in Section VI. For radium-containing wastes with concentrations less
than those established by these criteria, the well established federal
radiation protection requirement that any radiation exposures be
maintained as far below limiting radiation protection standards "as
practicable" or "reasonably achievable" remains in effect.
Rationale
Solid Waste Concentration Criterion
The radium source-term criterion of 5 pCi/g is based primarily on
consideration of the radium-radon exposure pathway and on levels
experienced for observed concentrations in waste materials. This
pathway is given prime consideration because of the hazard of lung
cancer induction associated with the chronic inhalation of radon decay
-------
22
products originating from radon diffusion into structures from
underlying radium-containing material. This pathway, which may be of
significance at radium concentrations equal to or in excess of the
proposed criterion, is the major radiological health concern for
radium-bearing waste materials of this type. Data for this situation
»
is available from ongoing studies in Florida and from studies
conducted of housing built over uranium tailings in Grand Junction,
Colorado (Culot, ejt al, 1973).
Indoor radon decay product concentrations in structures built on
normal soils throughout the U.S. are usually between .001 and .007 WL,
with the average around .003 WL. Preliminary EPA data for twenty-two
structures in Florida showed that in general the radon progeny
concentration of structures increases as a function of soil radium
~~ .tent. This data was derived from the average radium concentration
core samples taken (to a maximum depth of three feet) at the site,
well as average TLD air sampling measurements for radon decay
;.'oducts. These average measurements are plotted in Figure 2.
"being performed, respectively, by the Environmental Protection
Agency (Office of Radiation Programs), the State of Florida
(Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services) and the University
of Florida (the latter under contract to the Florida Phosphate
Council). An EPA technical report providing detailed information on
health effects associated with radon decay product exposure on
phosphate land in Florida and available control options will be
published in January-February 1979.
-------
V*!?.
-&gid&j^y&~jyr&isvs<>
*V&
p:cocuries per
-------
21
It is recognized that measurement error ( + 25% for TLD air
sampling) and the relatively small sample size are qualifying factors
in drawing firm conclusions on a defined correlation between soil
radium and radon progeny concentrations in structures. However, the
relationship is sufficiently defined to permit broad projections for
radium concentrations in excess of 5 pCi/g. As Figure 2 shows, for
structure sites with such soil concentrations, it is likely that
indoor radon progeny concentrations considerably in excess of normal
background levels can be observed in many structures. From health
effects information analyzed to date (Ellett, 1977), exposure to
indoor radon decay product levels in excess of .01 WL (including
background), a level which can be associated with land containing
greater than 5 pCi/g of radium-226, is estimated to result in an
increased lung cancer risk of greater than 1 percent over the normal
risk. This is based upon occupancy of the structure 75 percent of
the time.
The University of Florida, as part of its study of the
radiological impact of radon in structures on Florida phosphate land,
has also collected data for the relationship between soil radium
concentration and indoor radon progeny levels as a function of land
type for a relatively small sample of structures. Their data show
*With a normal incidence of lung cancer in the United States of
about 40 per 100,000 per year, this represents an increase of .U per
100,000 per year at .01 WL above background (about 30 cancers per
100,000 over a lifetime assumed to be 70 years).
-------
25
significantly elevated indoor radon decay product concentrations in
structures located on soil containing moderate radium concentrations
(2 to 7 pCi/g) (University of Florida, 1977).
These latter observations are consistent with the EPA findings,
although it is recognized that the values observed in both studies may
not be representative of radium-indoor radon progeny relationships in
a more extensive sample obtained in a wide geographical area.
Healy and Rodgers (1978) in their review of exposure pathways to
the population from radium contaminated soils concluded that the most
limiting pathway is the emanation of radon into residences. As shown
in Table 3, they indicate that given an assumed exposure limit of 0.01
WL, a soil concentration of 3 pCi/g would be the corresponding limit
for soil radium contamination. This soil level is comparable to
average natural concentrations found in many parts of the country.
Their correlation is based on derived emanation rates of radon through
various soil types and a "barrier factor" of 0.2 for transport of
radon through a structure's foundation. The correlation provided by
this theoretical model compares favorably with the field data graphed
in Figure 2.
Using the Federal Radiation Council (FRC) guidance of 170 mrem
whole body exposure per year to a member of the general public (Fe60),
a corresponding soil concentration limit of 11 jjR/h is calculated by
Healy and Rodgers. With the 3 pCi/g estimated limit, this criterion
defines a narrow range of consideration (5-10 pCi/g, with appropriate
-------
26
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF RADIUM LIMITS FOR INFINITE DEPTH OF
CONTAMINATION AND A SANDY SOIL (He 78)
Derived Level
Condition Dose Used (pCi/g Radium)
Radium Resuspension 0.01 uCi - bone 7 000 pCi/g
0.5 rem/y - lung 2 000 pCi/g
Radium in Foods 0.01 uCi - bone
Home Gardner 300 - 700
All foods 80
External Dose 0.17 rem/y 11
Rn Downwind 0.01 WL
Small area (35 000 m2) U90
Large area (6.6 x 107m2) 5
Rn in Home 0.01 WL 3
consideration of practicality and implementation) for wastes whose
hazard is due principally to radon decay products or gamma exposure,
or a combination of both.
Indoor concentrations greater than .005 WL have been measured for
structures located on sites with soil radium concentrations at or near
natural background levels (e.g., 1-3 pCi/g for Florida). Notwith-
standing the possibility of some structures having undesirable indoor
radon decay product levels at soil radium concentrations less than 5
-------
27
pCi/gram (due, in part, to uncontrollable factors such as indoor
ventilation), it is impractical to provide and implement effective
control measures at such levels. Likewise, for radium concentrations
at or near background, a degree of hazard in excess of that
attributable to normal background levels cannot practicably be
delineated on a generic, national basis.
Given these considerations, the criteria should prudently achieve
a balance between minimizing public health risk, and the practical
considerations of measurement and regulatory implementation. The 5
pCi/g criterion level achieves this balance through reflection of
available information concerning hazardous radium concentrations in
diffuse wastes, with the inclusion of only those wastes whose radium
content and proximity to the population necessitates their
consideration under the Act.
Liquid Source Term Criterion;
The 50 pCi/1 criterion for liquid waste is based on the EPA
Drinking Water Regulation of 5 pCi/1 for radium (226 and 228) (EPA,
1976), with a 10-fold dilution factor. This dilution factor, which is
uniformly applied in the RCRA Section 3001 toxicity characteristic to
substances for which a corresponding Drinking Water regulation exists,
is based on the assumption of a 500 feet minimum distance from a
landfill or similar disposal site to the nearest potable water well.
Radium-228 is included in the characteristic solely for measurement
purposes in order to provide consistency with the Drinking Water
-------
28
standard, which stipulates an analysis of combined radium-226 and
radium-228.
Total Activity Criterion;
The basis for this criterion is the Suggested State Regulations
for Control of Radiation (SSRCR), Part D, Section 304(a), and 10 CFR
20.30Ma) which specify for disposal by burial in soil:
No licensee shall dispose of radioactive material by burial in
soil unless the total quantity of radioactive material buried at any
one location and time does not exceed, at the time of burial, 1000
times the amount specified (0.01 yCi for radium-226).
A total activity criterion is required to delineate a hazard
level for discrete sources, where direct exposure is of primary
concern. Both alpha and gamma radiation contribute to this exposure
with the latter resulting in an estimated exposure rate of 10 UR/h at
one meter from a 10 uCi discrete radium source. On the basis of past
experience and practice with the distribution and disposal of sources
with less radium concentration (watches, clocks, gauges, smoke
detectors, etc), it is reasonable to apply the 10 uCi criterion for
the purposes of RCRA. This "screening level" would exclude most
consumer sources from regulatory consideration while insuring such
consideration for the majority of medical and industrial sources whose
typical millicurie activities have resulted in documented hazardous
situations (DHEW, 1975; NRC, 1977).
Extent of Applicability of Criteria to Waste Materials;
As Table 4 shows, the respective criteria levels proposed for
-------
TABLE H
PROJECTED APPLICABILITY OF PROPOSED RADIUM.-226 CRITERIA
FOR SELECTED APPLICABLE HASTES
Relative
Process Source
Product Use Before
Deposition
DIFFUSE
Uranium Ore
milling
Phosphate
Phosphoric acid
production
Elemental phos-
phorus production
Zirconium
extraction
Water Treatment
Coal combustion
DISCRETE
Consumer Products
Haste Material
tailings
debris
slimes
sand tailings
gypsum
slag
fluid bed |rills
chlorinator res.
clarifier sludge
lime sludge
ash
Aircraft
instruments
Potential Public
Average Health Impact
Activity Identified
600-700pCi/g
10-15pCi/g
t5 pCi/g
8 pCi/g
20-30 pCi/g
20-60 pCi/g
10-15 pCi/g
6-9 pCi/g
1-8 pCi/g
20 uCi
Yes
Yes
Possible
None identified
Yes
Yes
None identified
None identified
None identified
None identified
None identified
Degree of RCRA 6
Section 3001
Applicability
None(NRC regulated)
Complete
Complete
Partial
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Partial
Partial
Partial
Magnitude of
Applicable Haste
(estimated)
Large
30 million tons
(800 acres)
Large*
IxlO11 gallons
Large*
1
Large,
300 Billion tons
I^rgf0
SxlO-1" gallons
Small*
moderate (4-5 thousands)
Moderate**
Moderate**
Small*
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
Medical Sources
Industrial
Lightning rod 0.2-1 m Ci
Antistatic
devices (con- 10 m Ci
tained in instruments)
Smoke and
Fire Detectors 0,01-15uCi
Sealed sources 1-50 m Ci
Sealed sources 10-600 M Ci
None identified Complete
None identified Partial
None identified Partial
Yes Complete
Yes Complete
Small*
Small*
Small*
Moderate**
Moderate**
* not definied
** not defined; however, is primarily a function of the number of waste generators exceeding these criteria
OJ
o
-------
31
diffuse and discrete radium-containing wastes would encompass most
medical and industrial discrete sources, and a large proportion (by
volume) of the wastes generated by the uranium and phosphate
extraction industries. Potential hazards have been identified for all
of these wastes except those of marginal concentration or activity,
such as phosphate sand tailings and consumer products containing very
small amounts of radium.
The extent to which each waste category is applicable to the Act
with regard to its respective criteria depends on the variability of
radium concentration or quantity, with only a small fraction of some
waste categories being in excess of the proposed criteria. Wastes
which only marginally or non-uniformly fall within the criteria
consist largely of diffuse wastes such as water treatment sludge and
coal ash whose radium concentrations are a function of the
radium-content of their source material. For discrete sources, most
medical and industrial sources would qualify, while consumer
»
products whose activities for readily accessible sources rarely
exceed 5 uCi, generally do not.
VI. CONSIDERATIONS FOR GENERIC APPLICATION OF NUMERICAL HAZARD
CRITERIA FOR RADIUM-226 CONTAMINATED WASTE UNDER RCRA
With 5 and 10 pCi/g proposed aa soil radium contamination
criteria based, respectively, on radon decay product and gamma
*Wastes produced by residential generators are exempted under
RCHA Section 3001.
-------
32
exposure hazard, the key to implementation in Section 3001 of RCRA is
the proper application of these numerical criteria to wastes which may
or may not be characteristically hazardous by one or the other route.
While self-shielding may result in lower gamma levels than expected,
this would be a relatively minor factor except where material
densities are extremely high (e.g., lead or zinc extraction waste, for
example). The more important consideration is the radon emanation "
fraction. The emanation fraction, the measure of radon release from
the surface of a radium-containing material, varies by the physical
characteristics of the waste material. This fraction or ratio varies
considerably from one type of waste to another, which clearly poses a
problem to the development of a uniform definition of hazard based
solely on concentration. One option would be to incorporate an
emanation fraction criterion into the regulations as given in the
following example:
Waste would be listed under Section 3001 for either:
1) gamma exposure hazard, if the average concentration of the
waste is equal to or in excess of 10 pCi/g (about 20 yR/h
continuous exposure), or 2) radon decay product exposure hazard,
if the emanation fraction is equal to or in excess of 0.1
(typical soil including waste materials, such as uranium and
phosphate mining waste have fractions of approximately 0.2), and
the average concentration of waste is equal to or in excess of 5
PCi/g;
-------
33
The 0.1 emanation fraction value is a factor of two less than the
0.2 fraction for phosphate overburden waste on which the 5 pCi/g
criterion is based, and is assumed to reduce the radon diffusion by a
like factor which would preclude hazard designation.
Another available option would be to implement a single criterion
6f 5 pCi/g with provision for relief if the emanation fraction is less
than 0.1 and radium content equal to or less than 10 pCi/g. This
alternative is effectively identical to the preceding one although it
places the burden on the regulated industry to seek relief from RCRA
regulation (the other option makes it a condition for inclusion).
Implementation of this hazard definition for Ra-226 in diffuse
waste would require representative sampling and analysis to determine
average radium concentrations and emanation fractions.
-------
REFERENCES
Brink, W.L., R.H. Schliekelman, D.L. Bennett, C.R. Bell and I.M.
Markwood, Determination of Radium Removal Efficiencies in Water
Treatment Processes, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Radiation Programs, Technical Note ORP/TAD-76-5 (December 1976).
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc., U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, Guides for Naturally
Occurring and Accelerator Produced Radioactive Materials (NARM), HEW
(FDA)77-8025, Prepared in support of PHS 223-76-6018 (July 1977)
Culot, M.V.J., and K.J. Schiager, Radon Progeny Control in
Buildings, Final Report under EPA R01 EC00153 and AEC AT(11-1)-2273,
Colorado State University, Ft. Collins Colorado (May 1973).
Eadie, G.G., J.A. Cochren and G.A. Boysen, Radiological Surveys of
Idaho Phosphate Ore Processing—The Wet Process Plant, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs (DRAFT).
Eadie, G.G., D.E. Bernhardt and J.A. Cochran, Radiological Surveys
of Idaho Phosphate Ore Processing—The Thermal Process Plant, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs,
ORP/LV-77-3 (1978).
Ellett, W.H., "Exposure to Radon Daughters and the Incidence of
Lung Cancer," Presented at American Nuclear Society Meeting,
December 1, 1977, San Francisco, California, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs.
Guimond, R. J., and S. T. Windham, "Radioactivity Distribution in
Phosphate Products, By-products, Effluents, and Waste," U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Note ORP/CSD-75-3 (August
1975).
Hamilton, E.I. (1972), D.J. Beninson, A. Bouville, B.J. O'Brien and
J.O. Snies (1975), "Dosinetric Implications of the Exposure to the
Natural Sources of Irradiation," Presentation to the International
Symposium on Areas of High Radioactivity, Pocos de Caldas, Brazil.
Healy, J.W. and J.C. Rodgers, A Preliminary Study of
Radium-Contaminated Soils, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory,
LA-7391-MS, October 1978.
-------
H-2
Hendricks, D.W., Director, EPA/ORP Las Vegas Facility, Memorandum
of February 23,1978, to Dr. William A. Mills, Director, Criteria &
Standards Division, EPA/ORP.
Martin, J. E., E. D. Harvard, and D. T. Oakley, "Radiation Doses from
Fossil-Fuel and Nuclear Power Plants," Power Generation and
Environmental Change, Chapter 9, MIT Press, Cambridge~7 Mass., (1971),
paper presented at the Symposium of the Committee on Environmental
Alteration, American Association for the Advancement of Science, pp
107-125 (1970).
Moeller, D.W. and D.W. Underbill (1976), Final Report on Study of the
Effects of Building Materials on Population Dose Equivalents, Harvard
University, School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts,
EPA/68-01-3292.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report No.
45, Natural Background Radiation in the United States, Washington,
D.C. (1975)
National Academy of Sciences, The Effects on Populations of Exposure
to Low Levels of Ionizing Radaitiaon, Report of the Advisory Committee
on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Washington, D.C.
O'Riordan, M.C., M.J. Duggan, W.B. Rose and G.F. Bradford (1972), the
Radiological Implications of Using By-Product Gypsum as a Building
Material, National Radiological Protection Board, NRPB-R7, Harwell,
Didcot, Berks, London.
Pettigrew, G. L., E. W. Robinson, and G. D. Schmidt, "State and
Federal Control of Health Hazards from Radioactive Materials Other
Than Materials Regulated Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954," Bureau
of Radiological Health, Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
Report 72-8001, (June 1971).
Surgeon General's Guidelines for Remedial Action in Grand Junction,
Colorado. (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 12, 1970).
Swift, J. J., J. M. Hardin, and H. W. Galley, Potential Radiological
Impact of Airborne Releases and Direct Gamma Radiation to Individuals
Living Near Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings Piles," U.S. Environmental
protection Agency, EPA-520/1-76-001 (January 1976).
University of Florida, College of Engineering, Radioactivity of Lands
and Associated Structures, A Semiannual Technical Report Submitted to
Florida Phosphate Council, Lakeland, Florida, Gainesville, Florida,
(1977).
-------
R-3
U.S. Department of Heailth, Education and Welfare (DHEW), Food and Drug
Administration, Bureau of Radiological Health, Radioactive Materials
Reference Manual for Regulatory Agencies, (1975)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Supply, Drinking
Water Regulations, EPA-570/9/76 (1976)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Vol. 1, Environmental Radiation Protection Requirements for
Normal Operations of Activities in the Uranium Fuel Cycle,
EPA-520/4-74-016, Appendix B (Policy Statement-Relationship between
Radiation Dose and Effect), 1976
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulation of Naturally Occurring
and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials, A Task Force Review,
NUREG-0301, July 1977.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs,
Radiation Protection Activities 1976, EPA-520/4-77-005 (August 1977).
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation, 32 Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/32/40), United Nations,
New York (1977).
-------
DEFINITIONS
background (material); A general term describing the level of normal
radioactivity and/or external radiation intensity in a given area or
environment; background radiation is that produced by sources other
than those produced by man, including radioactive elements in the
crust or atmosphere of the earth, and cosmic radiations.
byproduct material; Any radioactive material (except special nuclear
material) yielded in or made radioactive by exposure to the radiation
incident to the process of producing or utilizing special nuclear
material (10 CFR 20.3).
curie (Ci); A quantity of radioactive material that undergoes nuclear
tranaformation at a rate of 37 billion events per second; and
millicurie
(mCi) = 10-3 curie; one microcurie (uCi) = 10 curie; one picocurie
(pCi) = 10-2 curie.
half-life, physical; The time required for one-half of an initial
quantity of radioactive material to undergo nuclear .transformation;
the half-life is a measure of the persistence of a radioactive
material and is unique to each radionuclide.
HARM: naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive
material.
naturally-occurring radiaoctive material: Material containing
radionuclides naturally present in the earth's crust or atmosphere.
accelerator-produced radioactive material: material produced
through the nucelar' interactions made possible by a nuclear particle
or election accelerator.
phosphogypaum: gypsum produced as a byproduct of the phosphoric acid
production process.
radionuclide; a radioactive species of an element having a specific
mass, atomic number and nuclear energy state.
fadiotoxicity; the property of a material by which it is capable of
"adversely affecting biological organisms through the mechanism of
nuclear radiation.
source material; (i) uranium or thorium, or any combination thereof,
in any physical or chemical form; or (ii) ores which contain by weight
one-twentieth of one percent (0.05$) or more of: (a) uranium, (b)
thorium, or (c) any combination thereof. Source material does not
include special nuclear material (10 CFR 20.3).
-------
D-2
uranium tailings; material comprised of finely divided sands and clays
settled out ^df"and dried from uranium mill waste slurries.
working level (WL): term used to describe radon daughter product
activities in air. Defined as any combination of short-lived radon
daughter products in one liter of air that can result in the ultimate
emission of 1.3 x 105 MeV of alpha energy.
working^level month (WLM); exposure to 1 WL for 170 hours (a working
month!. Continuous exposure to radon daughters at 1 WL for one year
is equal to about 36 WLM.
-------
BD-7
DRAFT
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
SECTION 3001 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE
SECTION 250.14 - HAZARDOUS WASTE LISTS
INFECTIOUS WASTE
DECEMBER 15, 1978
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
-------
This document provides background information and
support for regulations which have been designed to identify
and list hazardous waste pursuant to Section 3001 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. It is being
made available as a draft to support the proposed regulations.
As new information is obtained, changes may be made in the
background information and used as support for the regulations
when promulgated.
This document was first drafted many months ago and has
been revised to reflect information received and Agency
decisions made since then. EPA made some changes in the
proposed regulations shortly before their publication in the
Federal Register. We have tried to ensure that all of those
decisions are reflected in this document. If there are any
inconsistencies between the proposal (the preamble and the
regulation) and this background document, however, the
proposal is controlling.
Comments in writing may be made to:
Alan S. Corson
Hazardous Waste Management Division (WH-565)
Office of Solid Waste
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
Draft Background Document
Hazardous Waste Identification and Listing
Infectious Waste
Page
3.1 Introduction 1
3.2 Solid Waste/Disease Relationships 2
3.3 Indicator Organisms 3
3.4 The Source Approach 4
3.5 The Current State Approach 6
3.6 Related Federal Regulations 22
3.7 Epidemiological Evidence 26
3.8 Sources of Infectious Waste 28
3.9 Definitions 29
3.10 Rationale for Regulation of Health Care
Facilities Waste—Hospitals and Veterinary
Hospitals 33
3.11 Rationale for Regulation of Laboratory Waste 59
3.12 Rational for Regulation of Unstabilized
Sewage Treatment Plant Sludge °2
3.13 Methods for Biological Examination of Solid
Waste 83
3.14 References ^'
Appendix
-------
Draft Background Document
Hazardous Waste Identification and Listing
Infectious Waste
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter of the background document
is to present the Agency's rationale in determining the
definition of infectious hazardous waste.
To date it has been the policy of the Agency under
Section 3001 of the Act, to define chemical and physical
hazardous waste characteristics such as toxicity, flammability,
and corrosivity, in quantitative terms; i.e. criteria have
been chosen that best quantify each hazardous characteristic,
with certain hazard levels specified for each tested parameter
(e.g., flashpoint for flammability, pH for corrosivity). For
enforcement purposes, this method of quantitatively defining
a hazardous waste is most desirable. It would follow then,
that a similar type of definition for "infectious characteristics"
would be the most useful one from a regulatory point of view.
Unfortunately, such quantification of infectious
characteristics is not possible, as will be discussed in
this document. Instead of specifying a certain number of
infectious agents allowed to be present in a waste, the
Agency has chosen to define infectious waste by specifying
the sources where disease microorganisms may occur. After
-------
consultation with experts in the public health field and con-
sideration of current State regulatory programs, the Agency
has reached the conclusion that such source identification
of infectious waste is the most inclusive and enforceable
method of regulation.
3.2 Solid Waste/Disease Relationships
Basic principles of epidemiology include a chain of events
necessary for the transmission of disease microorganisms. In
the case of solid waste, the chain involves the production of
solid waste contaminated with disease agents, the transfer of
the disease agents from a waste to a host, and the manifestation
of the disease in a host. The completion of this chain,
or transmission of disease, is dependent upon the optimization
of many variables. For example, some variables include the
kinds and numbers of disease agents found in the solid waste,
the environmental conditions of the solid waste substrate,
and the capability of the disease agent to survive. Some
variables that affect the host's susceptibility to disease
are the manner of contact with the waste, the general health
and age of the host, his or her previous contact with the disease
agent, and his or her response (clinical versus subclinical)
to the disease agent.
To specify a "safe" number of disease organisms allowed
in a waste would be to ignore the large number of variables
involved in the transmission of disease. Additionally, for
certain viral and parasitic diseases, it is known that only
one organism, if successfully transmitted, can cause a
-2-
-------
clinical response in a host; yet for other disease agents it
is known that hundreds or even thousands of organisms are
necessary. Therefore setting a safe number of organisms for
solid waste would involve specifying a safe level for each
disease agent and providing a means to analyze for each one.
Unfortunately, dose levels for all disease agents are not known
at present and methods of environmental sampling and analysis
for many disease agents have not been developed.
3.3 Indicator Organisms
Several EPA contacts have suggested the use of indicator
organisms such as Salmonella spp., fecal coliforms, or
S. aureus as an index of overall (i.e. viral, bacterial,
fungal, parasitic) biological hazard of a waste. The problems
associated with the use of indicator organisms have been
recognized by EPA. For water standards, the Office of Water
program Operations originally suggested the use of fecal
coliform as an indicator organism to determine the effectiveness
of the chlorination process (40 CFP. 133) . This standard was
later deleted (FR July 26, 1976) (1), with EPA recognizing that
fecal coliform is "not an ideal indicator of pathogenic (sic)
contamination" but is "a practical indicator of relative disease
causing potential."
While microbial concentration standards may be applicable
in the evaluation of the efficacy of wastewater treatment systems,
their applicability as absolute quality standards remains to be
demonstrated. A problem is that in some situations, the die-
-3-
-------
off or regrowth of indicator organisms does not always
parallel that of the disease organisms, the presence of which
they are supposed to indicate. For example, it has been
found that certain pathogenic viruses are more resistant to
conventional wastewater treatment than are the coliforms
(Cooper and Golueke, 1977). (2) As such, it has been decided
that indicator organisms will not be used for purposes of
defining infectious characteristics in this regulation.
3.4 The Source Approach
Ruling out the specification of "safe" microbial con-
tamination levels and the use of indicator organisms, EPA has
chosen to specify the solid waste sources where disease-
causing organisms are known to occur, and to define waste
from these sources as infectious waste.
The disease-causing organisms are, for purposes of this
regulation,to be defined by CDC's "Classification of Etiologic
Agents on the Basis of Hazard." (3) Sources of waste where
Class 1 agents are known to occur are excluded from the definition
of infectious waste, since Class 1 agents are of no or minimal
hazard under ordinary conditions. Sources where Class 2 (agents
of ordinary potential hazard) and up are known to occur are
included, since Class 2 agents are disease causing. Descriptions
of the CDC Classes used to identify the infectious waste
sources are given below.
Class 2
Agents of ordinary potential hazard. This class
includes agents which may produce disease of varying
-4-
-------
degrees of severity from accidental inoculation or
injection or other means of cutaneous penetration but
which are contained by ordinary laboratory techniques.
Class 3
Agents involving special hazard or agents
derived from outside the United States which require
a federal permit for importation unless they are
specified for higher classification. This class includes
pathogens which require special conditions for containment.
Class 4
Agents that require the most stringent conditions
for their containment because they are extremely hazardous
to laboratory personnel or may cause serious epidemic
disease. This class includes Class 3 agents from outside
the United States when they are employed in entomological
experiments or when other entomological experiments are
conducted in the same laboratory area.
Class 5
Foreign animal pathogens that are excluded from
the United States by law or whose entry is restricted
by USDA administrative policy.
NOTE: It has been pointed out that the current CDC list does not
include some agents of significance (e.g. Giardia, Ascaris,
Legionnaires bacterium) as well as it does include one
non-pathogen (Naegleria gruberi). The reader should keep
in mind that the list is periodically revised. The most
recently published list would be applicable.
-------
The relationship between the agents in these classes
and the waste sources where these agents are found was
developed by using information found in the literature and
consultation with public health experts. This approach
is in agreement with the Center for Disease Control, USPHS,
for sources other than health-care facilities waste; in agree-
ment with the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals
for sources of hospital waste; in agreement with NIH for
sources of laboratory waste; and with the various State
regulatory programs for other sources of infectious waste.
3.5 The Current State Approach
Nine states have defined the infectious characteristics
of hazardous waste either wholly or in part. Terms such as
"biohazardous," "health-services hazardous," "pathological,"
"biological," and "hazardous-infectious" are used to describe
infectious characteristics of the waste of concern. These
examples of State definitions are shown in Table 1.
The definitions are derived from one, or a combination,
of four methods: a list of infectious (etiologic) agents; a
list of infectious items that have a high probability of
being contaminated; a list of sources of infectious waste; or
a prose definition. The one list of infectious agents
referenced is HEW's list of etiologic agents. Table 2 shows
a composite matrix of infectious items and sources of
infectious wastes, identifying the States that consider
each one.
-6-
-------
It is interesting to note that not one of these definitions
attempts to quantify numbers of disease organisms that would
render a waste infectious and that it is these same States that
have promulgated criteria for physical/chemical characteristics
of hazardous waste on a quantitative basis similar to the
ones EPA is considering. The approach that the Agency is
taking to define infectious characteristics of waste, then,
and the deviance of this approach from that of defining
other characteristics of hazardous waste, is in line with
the thinking proposed by the most progressive State hazardous
waste management programs.
-7-
-------
TRHLB 1
State Definitions Of Infectious Vfaste
State Agency
Legislative
Authority
(if any)
California Department
of Health
i
CO
I
Title of
Regulation/
Guideline/
Document
Definition (s)
Proposed Revisions
to the Code, Title
22
Biohazardous waste (infectious waste) shall
be defined as, but is not limited to;
(1) Significant laboratory or pathology
waste of an infectious or experimental
nature which has not been autoclaved in-
cluding pathologic specimens (which shall
include all human parts removed surgi-
cally or at autopsy, specimens or blood
elements, excreta and secretions obtained
from patients) and disposable fonites such
as bandages, dressings, casts, catheters,
and tubing which has been in contact with
wounds, burns or surgical incisions and
which are suspect or have been medically
identified as biohazardous.
(2) Surgical specimens and attendant dis-
posable fomites.
(3) Similar disposable material from out-
patient areas and emergency rooms.
* *«
(4) Equipment, instruments, utensils and
fonites of a disposable fron the rooms of
patients with suspected or diagnosed com-
municable disease requiring isolation.
(5) Sharps which include but are not
limited to needles, syringes and blades.
(6) Dangerous drugs as defined in Section
4211 of the Business and Professions e.
-------
TABLE 1
State Definitions Of Infectious Waste
State Agency
Legislative
AutiTority
(if any)
Title of
Regulation/
Guideline/
Document
Definition (s)
Calif omia Department
of Health
Assembly Bill No.
1593: An Act to
amend Section
25116. Ch. 6.5.
Division 20, of
the Health and
Safety Code
'Infectious" means containing pathogenic
organisms, or having been exposed, or
reasonably being expected to have been
exposed, to contagious or infectious
disease. Articles which are "infectious"
include, but are not limited to, the following:
»•
(1) Wastes that xxsntain pathologic speci-
mens, tissues, specimens or blood elements,
excreta or secretions from humans or
animals at a hospital, medical clinic, re-
search center, veterinary institution, or
pathology laboratory.
(2) Surgical operating room pathologic
specimens and articles attendant thereto
which may harbor or transmit pathogenic
organisms.
(3) Pathologic specimens and articles
attendant thereto from outpatient areas
and emergency rooms.
(4) Discarded equipment,' instruments utensils
and other articles which may harbor or tran-
mit pathogenic organisms from the rooms of
patients with suspected or diagnosed com-
municable disease.
-------
State Definitions Of Infectious Waste
State Agency
Legislative
Authority
(if any)
Title of
Regulation/
Definition(s)
Illinois EPA
Environmental
Protection Act
Special Waste
Land Disposal
Disposal Criteria
Maryland Department
of Natural Resource i
Safe Disposal of
Hazardous Substance!
Act of July 1976
OCMAR 08.05.05
Control of the
Disposal of
Designated
Substances
Regulations
.01-.18
.18, Designated
Hazardous Sub-
stances, Class
HI. B (4)
Industrial Process Effluent - Any liquid,
solid, send-solid or gaseous refuse gener-
ated as a direct or indirect result of
the creation of a project or the performance
of a service, including but not limited to...
hospital pathological waste.
Hazardous Waste - Any refuse that...is
harmful or potentially harmful to human
health or the environment...due to its..
pathological.. .nature.
A "Designated Hazardous Substance" includes
pathological and medical wastes front
hospitals, laboratories, and similar
operations.
-------
THSiii 1
State Definitions Of Infectious Waste
State Agency
Legislative
Authority
(if sny)
Title of
Regulation/
Guideline/
Document
Definition (s)
State of Maryland
Department of
Health and Mental
Hygiene
Proposed Regula-
tions for Medica
Waste Disposal,
"Subocranittee Re-
port to the Task
Force on Medical
Waste Disposal -
December 6, 1976
The term medical wastes, encompassing
Tnaterjgig^hjtherto rai ig^ "infectious"
"pathological", "contaminated", "special",
and "hazardous" shall be replaced with the
following new terms:
(1) Hospital Medical Wastes - shall mean all
solid waste generated within a hospital.
Blood and blood products shall be included
in this solid waste category.
(2) Nursing Hone Medical Wastes - shall
be defined in two categories, as follows:
(a) All disposable fonites from isola-
tion areas, all dressings, pledgets,
swabs, tongue depressors, plaster casts,
body tissues, laboratory wastes, needles,
syringes, I.V. apparatus, and medications
(as permitted under Federal, State
and local regulations).
(b). Additional items which nay be in-
cluded in the above category include
diapers and perinea! pads.
-------
E i
State Definitions Of Infectious Waste
State Agency
Legislative
Authority
(if any)
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
Division of Solid
Waste
N)
I
Minnesota Statutes
1971: Chapters 115,
116,400,4730
Title of
Regulation/
Guideline/
Document
Definiticn(s)
Solid Waste Dis-
posal Regulations
Section SW-1
Hazardous Infectious Waste - Waste originat-
ing from the diagnois, care or treatment of
a person or animal that has been or nay have
been exposed to a contagious or infectious
disease. Hazardous infectious waste includes,
but is not limited to,
•*
(1) All wastes originating from persons
placed in isolation for control and treat-
ment of an infectious disease.
(2) Bandages, dressings, cases, catheters,
tubing, and the like, which have been in
contact with wounds, burns, or surgical
incisions and which are suspect or have been
medically identified as hazardous.
(3) All anatomical waste, including human
and animal parts of tissues removed
surgically or at autopsy.
(4) Laboratory and pathology waste of an
infectious nature which has not been auto-
claved.' ' .
(5) Any other waste, as defined by the
State Board of Health, which, because of its
hazardous nature/ requires handling and
disposal in a manner prescribed for (1)
through (5).
-------
State Definitions Of Infectious Waste
State Agency
Legislative
AuUiorl-ty
(if any)
Title of
Regulation/
Guideline/
Definition(s)
Minnesota Depart-
ment of Health,
Health Facilities
Division
Interpretive
Policies for the
Physical Plant:
Handling and Dis-
posal of Infect-
ious Waste
(Current DOH
Guidelines)
Infectious Waste:
(1) Hazardous Infectious Waste (same
as above).'~
(2) General Infectious Waste (contaminated):
(a) Bandages, dressing, casts, catheters
tubing, and the like, which have in
contact with wounds, burns, or
surgical incisions, but are not sus-
pected or have been not medically
identified as being of a hazardous
infectious nature.
(b) Discarded hypodermic needles and
syringes, scalpel blades, and
similar materials, \
-------
TUsBLE 1
State Definitions Of Infectious Waste
State Agency
Legislative
Autiiority
{if any)
Title of
regulation/
Guideline/
Docta-vsnt
Definition(s)
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
I
Proposed, but to
no longer be part
of the hazardous
waste regulations
HW-1
Health services hazardous wastes: wastes
that originate from the diagnois, care, or
treatment of a human or an animal, and
wastes of similar composition, excluding
animal or human corpses but including:
(1) Laboratory wastes, including:
(a) Pathological specimens: tissues
and specimens of blood elements,
excreta, and secretions obtained
from patients.
(b) Infectious cultures: cultures t]
have been used in the detection, main-
tenance, or isolation of infectious
organisms or suspected infectious
organisms including, but not limited
to microorganisms and helminths
capable of producing infection or
infectious disease.
(c). Disposal fonaites: any waste thai
may harbor or transmit infectious
organisms.
-------
State Definitions Of Infectious Waste
Stats Agency
Legislative
Authority
(i£ any)
Title of
Regulation/
Guideline/
DoeoTient
Definition(s)
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency,
(CCWT.)
Proposed, but to
no longer be part
of the hazardous
waste regulations,
HW-1
(2) Surgical and obstetrical wastes,
pathological speciirens, and disposal fonites
from surgical operating roans, outpatient
areas, emergency rooms and similar areas
where such wastes are generated.
(3) Equipment, instruments, utensils,
and fonites of a disposable nature from
the roans of patients with suspected or
diagnosed ocmnunicable disease, or from
the roans of patients who by nature or
their disease are required to be isolated
by the State Board of Health.
(4) Hypodermic needles and syringes,
scalpel blades, suture needles and similar
materials.
(5) Mixtures of any of the wastes in (1)
through (5) and other wastes that have
been collected within the same container.
-------
State Definitials Of Infectious Waste
State Agency
Legislative
Authority
(if any)
NSWM&.
New York Department
of Environmental
Conservation
Oregon Department of
Environmental
Quality
6 NTCRR Part 360,
Solid Waste Manage-
ment Facilities
Oregon Laws 1971
(HB 1051), Chapter
648
Title of
regulation/
Guideline/
Document
Definition(s)
Gaynor Ward Dawson
Draft of Model
Criteria for
Hazardous Waste
DEQ 41, Chapter
340
Materials or wastes which are capable of
transmitting infectious diseases at a
probability level above that from dally
life should be defined as hazardous wastes.
Criteria for identifying Hazardous Substances;
Infectious: Materials containing infectious
agents which are capable of
causing death or severe illness,
or which are highly contagious.
''Hazardous Solid Waste" includes "infectious",
but infectious not defined.
-------
XAlilii A
State Definitions Of Infectious Waste
State Agency
Legislative
Authority
(if any)
Title of
Regulation/
Guideline/
Definition (s)
Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Environment
al Resources
Texas Department of
Health Resources
State of Washington
Department of
Ecology
Pennsylvania Solid
- Management Act (35
(35 PS6-001),
PL 241
Hazardous Waste
Management Profilfe
Comments to ANPR
Washington Admin-
istrative Code
(WC) Hazardous
Waste Regulation,
Chapter 173-302
WAC
General Classification of Hazardous Wastes
(1) Pathogenic Materials
(a) biological solids
(b) laboratory wastes
(c)u infectious wastes
(2) Other Hazardous Solid Waste
(a) diseased animals
Hazardous biological waste should include all
pathological waste from chemical biological
and contagious wards as well as animals dead
of unknown disease and unstabilized domestic
sewage.
Waste containing etiologic agents are toxic
dangerous wastes. Etiologic agent means
a viable microorganism or its toxin, which
causes oi: may cause human disease, and is
limited to those agents listed in 42 CFR
72.25(c) of the regulations of the
Department of HEW.
-------
State Definitions Of Infectious Waste
State Agency
itla of
Definition (s)
(if
i
M
CO
Ontario, Department
of the Bwircnment,
Waste Management
Branch
Ontario, Department
of the Environment,
Air Management
Branch
Guideline/
Docurrent
Pathological waste - Waste resulting fron
the discard of tissue or of material or
equipment subject to contamination with
infectious' organisms.
Pathological Waste - Carcasses, human and
animal, solid organic wastes from hospitals,
laboratories, abattoirs, and animal compounds,
disposable operating theatre garments and
swabs, maternity and incontient pads, dis-
posable diapers, and other similar items
which might contain pathogenic bacteria.
-------
Table 2A.
Areas/Sources Identified as Sources of Infectious Wastes, By State
Abattoir
Animal Compounds
Veterinary Hospitals
Health Services
Hospital, "pathological waste"
Emergency Booms
Isolation Booms
Laboratory
Outpatient Areas
Pathology Laboratory
Surgical Operating Boom
Mc*^'ioA1 f-iim'r's
Nursing Homes
Research Center
Sewage Sludge
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
i
X
X
X
f
X
X
X
X
i
-19-
-------
Table 23.
Dy State
Autopsy Specimens
Blood Specimens
Excreta
Human Carcasses
Obstetrical Waste
Pathologic Specimens
Secreta
Surgical Specimens
Tissues
Etiologic (infectious)
Agent-contaijiing items
Attendant Disposable
Fomites
Disposable Diapers
Instruments (disposable)
I.V. Apparatus
Perinea! Pads
Sharps
Utensils
Dangerous Drugs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
i
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
1
I
1
!
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
t
1
1
1
t
1
X
X
i
1
X
X
X
1
1
X
1
i
i j
!
j
-20-
-------
/c.la 2 B (Cont.)
-s Jdentifiec), By State
Biological Solids
Incinerator Ash From
Infectious Waste
Diseased Animals
1
— r
f
•
i
-21-
-------
3.6 Related Federal Regulations and Guidelines
No current federal regulations specifically address the
problem of infection as related to solid waste. The Department
of Transportation has published Interim Hazardous Materials
Regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-177)(4) in which "etiologic
agent" is defined (173.386) for purposes of commodity transport.
The definition reads as follows:
§ 173.386 Etiologic agents; definition and scope.
(a) Definition. For the purpose of Parts
170-189 of this subchapter:
(1) An "etiologic agent" means a viable micro-
organism, or its toxin, which causes or may cause
human disease, and is limited to those agents listed
in 42 CFR 72.25(c) of the regulations of the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare.
HEW's list (5) consists of the following etiologic agents.
BACTERIAL AGENTS
Actinobacillus—all species.
Arizona hinsha'wii—all serotypes.
Bacillus anthracis.
Bartonella—all species.
Bordetalla—all species.
Borrelia recurrentis, B. vincenti
Brucella—all species.
ClostricTium botulinum, Cl. chauvpei, Cl. hae-
mplyticum, Cl. histolyticum, Cl.~novyl,
Cl. septTcum, Cl. tetani.
Corynebac ter mm diphtheriae, C. equi, c. hae-
molyticum, C. pseudotuberculosis, C^ pyo-
genes, C^ renale.
Diplococcus (Streptococcus) pneumoniae.
Erysipelpthrix insidiosa.
Escherichia cHlT^all enteropathogenic sero-
types.
Francisella (Pasteurella) tulcrensis.
-22-
-------
Haempphilus ducreyi, H. influenzas.
Herellea vaginicola.
KlebsieTla—-all species and all serotypes.
Leptospira interrogans—all serotypes.
Listeria—all species.
Mima VpTymorpha.
Moraxella—ali~species.
Mycobacterium—all species.
Mycoplasma—a'll species.
Neisseria gonorrhoeae, N. meningitidis.
Pasteureila—all species
Pseudomonas pseudomallei.
Salmonella—all species and all serotypes.
Shigeila--all species and all serotypes.
Sphacrophorus necrophorus.
Staphylpcoccus aureus.
Streptobacillus moniriformis.
Streptococcus pyogenes.
Treponema careteum/ T. pallidum/ and T.
ertenue.
Vibrio fetus, V. comma, including biotype
El Tor, and V. parahemolyticus.
Yerscnia (Pasteureila) pestis.~~
FUNGAL AGENTS
Actinomycetes (including Nocardia species,
Actinpmyces species and Arachnia propi-
onica).
Blastomyces dermatitidis.
Coccidioides"linmitis."
Cryptococcus neofprroahs.
Histoplasma capsulatum.
Paracoccidioides brasiliensis.
VIRAL, RICKETTSIAL, AND CHLAMYDIAL
AGENTS
Adenoviruses—human—all types.
Arboviruses.
Coxiella burnetii.
CoxsackTe A and B viruses—all types.
Cytomegaloviruses .
Dengue virus.
Echoviruses—all types.
Encephalomyocarditis virus.
Hemorrhagic fever agents/ including Crimean
hemmorrhaglc fever (Congo), Junin, and
Machupo viruses, and others as yet un-
defined.
-23-
-------
Hepatitis-associated antigen.
Herpesvirus—all members
Infectious bronchitis-like virus.
Influenza viruses—all types.
Lassa virus.
Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus.
Marburg virus.
Measles virus.
Mumps virus.
Parainfluenza viruses—all types.
Polioviruses—all types.
Poxviruses —all members,
Psittacosis-Ornithosis-Trachoma-Lympho-
g^nuloma group of agents.
Rabies virus—all strains.
Reoviruses—all types.
Respiratory syncytial
Rhinovirusies----aTl ^
Rickettsia--all species.
Rubella viruses—all types.
Simian virus.
Tick-borne encephalitis virus complex, in-
cluding Russian spring-summer encepha-
litis, Kyasanur forest disease/ Omsk Kemor-
rfaagic fever, and Central European enceph-
alitis viruses.
Vaccinia virus.
Varicella virus.
VariolcTinajpr and Variola minor viruses.
Vesicular stomatis virusT
Yellow fever virus.
Comments addressing this Interim Regulation are filed
in DOT's Docket HM-142. Many responses suggest that the
definition of etiologic agent be expanded to include agents
harmful to plants and animals. DOT has not yet published a
response to comments.
In considering the possibility of adopting this regulation
for defining infectious waste, EPA was concerned with the
enforceability of such a list because wastes cannot be adequately
-24-
-------
tested. EPA would prefer to rely on such a list as a way to
identify sources that may contain these etiologic agents.
The CDC "Classification of Etiologic Agents on the Basis of
Hazard," a more complete list which includes animal etiologic
agents, will be used for source-identification purposes. (See
Appendix VI of the regulation.)
EPA has previously defined infectious waste in "Guidelines
for Thermal Processing and Land Disposal of Solid Waste/1
FR, August 14, 1974.(6) The definition, which is reprinted below,
is felt to be unenforceable, as are most State definitions of
infectious waste. Items specified in this definition would
be included in the "sources," under the proposed approach.
Also, this definition ignores the sewage sludge problem.
"Infectious waste" means:
(1) Equipment, instruments,
utensils, and fomites of a
disposable nature from the rooms
of patients who are suspected to
have or have been diagnosed as
having a communicable disease and
must, therefore, be isolated as
required by public health agencies;
(2) laboratory wastes such as
pathological specimens (e.g., all
tissues, specimens of blood elements,
excreta, and secretions obtained
from patients or laboratory animals)
and disposable fomites (any sub-
stance that may harbor or transmit
pathogenic organisms) attendant
thereto; (3) surgical operating
room pathologic specimens and dis-
posable fomites attendant thereto
and similar disposable materials
from outpatient areas and emergency
rooms.
-25-
-------
3.7 Epidemiological Evidence
In 1967, for the first time solid waste was thoroughly
investigated as a reservoir for infectious microorganisms.
Thrift G. Hanks/ M.D., completed an exhaustive study entitled
Solid Waste/Disease Relationships; A Literature Survey. (7)
Routes of transmission of human disease from solid waste were
described as "pathways," (see diagram below), and all evidence
from the literature on solid waste/disease correlation was
brought together. Hanks summarizes his findings with the
following statement:
The literature fails to supply data which
would permit a quantitative estimate of
any solid waste/disease relationship. The
circumstantial and epidemiologic informa-
tion does support a conclusion that, to some
disease, solid wastes bear definite, if
not well defined, etiologic relationship.
The diseases so implicated are infectious
in nature; no relationship can be substan-
tiated for noncommunicable disease agents
associated with solid wastes, not because
of negating data, but because of lack of data.
-26-
-------
fl .•: \^> 7
Solid
Waste
Biological __^
Vectors
Physical
and mech-
anical
Hazards
Airborne
Contami-
nants
Direct Contact
Human Disease
Disability
Malnutrition
Water
Supply
Food
Supply
Socio-
Economic
Factors
Figure 1. T.G. Hanks' Postulated Solid Waste/Human Disease Pathways
There appears to be a paucity of epidemiological data on
the subject mainly because funds have never been appropriated
for gathering such data. It has not been until recently that EPA
lias undertaken any epidemiologic studies related to solid
waste/ which will be completed in several years. Until then/
regulation must be based on the microbiological data from
studies of the various sources of waste/ and on the principles
epidemiology and solid waste-disease relationships.
-27-
-------
3.8 Sources Identified
For purposes of defining infectious waste, the sources
of these wastes have been identified in the regulation by
SIC number with the corresponding industry. These sources
are regrouped here for discussion purposes in this document
under the following headings:
3.10 Rationale for Regulation of Health Care
Facilities Waste
Hospitals
Veterinary Hospitals
3.11 Rationale for Regulation of Laboratory Waste
3.12 Rationale for Regulation of Unstabilized Sewage
Treatment Plant Sludge
-28-
-------
.._ _
3.9 Definitions (8, 9, 10)
For clarification the later discussions, the following
definitions are provided:
ANIMAL WASTE - Waste generated from animal care or use;
including bedding/ egestion, excretions, secretions, tissue,
remains, and any inedible by-products of animal processing for
food and fiber-production.
AUTOCLAVE - An apparatus for effecting sterilization by
steam under pressure. It is fitted with a gauge and a mechanical
system which automatically regulates the pressure and the
•temperature to which the contents are subjected.
BACTERIA - Any of numerous unicellular microorganisms of
the class Schizomycetes, occuring in a wide variety of forms,
existing either as free-living organisms or as parasites, and
having a wide range of biochemical, sometimes pathogenic, properties,
ENTERIC - of or within the intestine.
ETIOLCGIC AGENT - A viable microorganism or its toxin which
causes, or may cause human disease. In the case of DOT Regulations,
etiologic agents are (or are suspected to be) in relatively small
concentrated samples which are shipped to special laboratories for
identification.
FOMITE - An inanimate object such as an article of clothing,
a dish, a toy, or a book, that is not itself corrupted but
is able to harbor pathogenic organisms which may by that means be
transmitted to others.
-29-
-------
FUNGUS - Any of numerous plants of the division or subkingdom
Tallophyta, lacking chlorophyll/ ranging in form from a single
cell to a body mass of branched filamentous hyphae that often
produce specialized fruiting bodies, and including the yeasts/
molds/ smuts, and mushrooms.
INFECTION - The entry and development or multiplication
of an infectious agent in the body of man or animal. Infection
is not synonymous with infectious disease; the result may be
inapparent or manifest. The presence of living infectious
agents on exterior surfaces of the body or upon articles of
apparel or soiled articles is not infection, but rather is con-
tamination of such surfaces and articles.
INFECTIOUS AGENT - An organism, mainly microorganisms
(bacterium, protozoan, spirochete/ fungus, virus, rickettsia,
or other) but including helminths/ capable of producing
infectious disease.
INFECTIOUS DISEASE - A disease of man or animal resulting
from an infection.
PATHOGEN - An organism capable of producing disease.
PATHOLOGICAL WASTE - Tissues/ parts, and organs of humans
and animals.
-30-
-------
PROTOZOAN - Any of the single-celled, usually microscopic
organisms of the phylum or subkingdom Protozoa, which includes
the most primitive forms of animal life.
RICKETTSIA - Any of various microorganisms of the genus
Rickettsia, carried as parasites by many ticks, fleas, and lice.
Transmitted to man, they cause diseases such as typhus, scrub
typhus, and Rocky Mountain spotted fever.
SOLID WASTE - Any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste
treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution
control facility and other discarded material, including
solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material result-
ing from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural
operations, and from community activities, not including solid
or dissolved material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved
material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in
irrigation return flows or industrial discharges which are point
sources subject to permits under section 402 of the Federal Water
pollution Control Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880), or source,
special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923).
SEWAGE Sludge - The residue resulting from wastewater
treatment.
-31-
-------
SPIROCHETE - Any of various slender, nonflagellated,
twisted microorganisms of the order spirochaetales, many of which
are pathogenic, causing syphilis, relapsing fever, yaws, and
other diseases.
SURGICAL AND AUTOPSY WASTE - Waste that includes tissue,
limbs, organs, placentas, and similar types of materials;
synonomous with pathogenic waste.
VIRUS - Any of the various submicroscopic pathogens
consisting essentially of a core of a single nucleic acid sur-
rounded by a protein coat, having the ability to replicate only
inside a living cell.
ZOONOSIS - An infection or infectious disease transmittable
under natural conditions from vertebrate animals to man.
-32-
-------
3.10 Rationale for Regulation of Health Care Facilities Waste
The nature of waste generated by health care facilities
is of concern to EPA due to a certain amount of potentially disease-
contaminated materials found in the waste that are not normally
found in other institutional solid wastes. Some studies have
stated that the type and numbers of bacteria and viruses found
in health-care solid waste are little different from that
found in wastes generated from dwelling units, offices,
factories and other institutions. Other researchers have
given a completely opposite view and stated that health care
facility wastes may be potentially dangerous to the environment
due to their infectious content. (11)
Both hospitals and veterinary hospitals (for more specific
breakdown by Standard Industrial Classification Code see §250.14
(b) of the regulations) are health care facilities that are
considered to be generators of infectious waste for purposes of
the regulation. EPA realizes that there are different problems
associated with the infectious wastes from the treatment of
people vs. animals and by no means does the Agency intend to
imply that these two types of health care facilities generate
the same types and amounts of waste or should treat or dispose
of their wastes by the same methods. A discussion of each
type of health care facility and sources of waste associated
with them are given below.
Hospitals
Theoretically, the difference between the biological
jiazard of waste generated in hospitsls, with their population
Of "sick" people, and the waste generated by dwelling units
-33-
-------
and other buildings that are occupied basically by "well"
people, lies in the waste's content. A proportion of the
waste materials generated by hospitals in the treatment of
patients has been exposed directly or indirectly to various
pathogens in concentrated forms. From 2 to 8 percent of
hospital wastes, for example, consists of such materials as:
dressings from wounds, incisions, and burns; plaster casts;
infectious laboratory samples; bacteriological cultures and
media; pathological specimens; animal remains and biological
specimens; body fluids and secretions; blood, urine, feces,
and tissues; needles and syringes; disposable treatment
devices made of plastic, metal, and glass; "sharps"; newborn,
pediatric, and geriatric diapers; and various contaminated
disposable containers. (12)
The leading generation points for these known infectious
wastes are surgical suites, isolation wards for communicable
diseases, clinical and research laboratories, research animal
quarters, the autopsy suite and pathology laboratory, and the
renal dialysis department. Another generation point is any
care and treatment area or room for a known infectious case—
inpatient, outpatient or emergency. As these wastes come from
specific departments or sources, segregation is possible by
handling all wastes from these particular areas as being infectious,
The major problems in isolating possibly "infectious" wastes
arise from the general patient care and treatment areas, both
inpatient and outpatient, where large numbers of patients are
being cared for by nursing personnel and diagnosis is often
-34-
-------
incomplete at the time. It is these areas that infection
potential of most waste is unknown. So, at some point,
there is a reasonable possibility that infectious wastes can
be intermixed with other wastes.
Three surveys have been made which cover quite extensively
hospital practices with regard to waste collection and disposal
(Iglar and Bond, 1971; (13) Burchinal and Wallace, 1971;(14)
Esco/Greenleaf, 1972 (15)). The main interest, however, has been
in evaluating the overall waste collection and disposal
systems, with infectious wastes being considered as only one
aspect of the overall situation. This section is concerned
with discussing the infectious wastes which are identified in
the literature.
The composition of infectious wastes is well known.
They include items from surgery such as dressings, contaminated
disposable items, drapes, and human tissue (amputated limbs,
tissues, organs, placentas); items from pathology and the
laboratory such as tissues, chemicals, bacteriological cultures,
urine, blood, and feces; animal remains and biological specimens;
and general infected material from the wards such as gauze
dressings and bandages, swabs, plaster casts, sputum cups,
paper tissues soaked with nose and throat secretions, and
wound drainage.
Some authors distinguish between "pathological" wastes
and "hazardous" or "infectious" wastes (Litsky, et al., 1972). (16)
They call "pathological" materials those from surgery, labora-
tories, etc., and "hazardous" waste everything else—everything
-35-
-------
from the hospital floor and everything that comes in contact
with patients. Disposal systems in the hospital are often
different for the two types of waste, but for transport and
disposal away from the hospital these authors found that the
two cannot be separated. The Esco/Greenleaf report (1972) (15)
had this to say:
"Early in the study we concluded that there is no
practical way of segregating contaminated and un-
contaminated waste in a hospital, and that, with
few exceptions, contaminated and uncontaminated
wastes are co-mingled together either on purpose
or accidently so that by the time these materials
reach the back door of the hospital for disposal
...there is no distinction...Therefore everything
...from a hospital floor must be considered to be
contaminated and should be classified as waste."
This position is not uniformly held. Burchinal and Wallace
(1971) (14) state that only 25 to 30 percent of the total
waste generated in a hospital can be considered dangerous,
and if this is kept apart from the remaining waste there is
no need to treat the total waste as contaminated.
Surgery, autopsy, and the laboratories generate most of
the segregated pathologic waste. The waste for the Los Angeles
County - USC Medical Center is given in Table 8 (Esco/Green-
leaf, 1972). (15)
An investigation by G.H. Reavely and P.G. Warwick of the
University of Western Ontario (Anon, 1972c)(17) defined pathological
wastes as "all substances which cannot be resterilized or
reused originating within or brought into patient care, labora-
tory and autopsy areas." Patient care areas not only included
-36-
-------
those traditionally considered to be sources of infectious
waste, but also ward areas, doctors' offices, outpatient
clinics, and treatment rooms. Infectious waste averaged 43 percent
of the total waste in the hospitals studied, and the general patient
care areas generated almost three quarters of this infectious
waste.
-37-
-------
Table 8
Quantities of Pathological Wastes Generated Daily
at LAC-USC Medical Center from Various Divisions
(Esco/Greenleaf, 1972)
Areas Quantity of Waste (gal/day)
Lab Services (Basement) 30
Autopsy and Lab Areas (2nd Floor) 80
Laboratories (2nd Floor) 45
Pathology Lab (16th Floor) 30
Surgical Delivery (4th Floor) 2
Total 187 gallons/day
Using a density factor of 5.2 Ibs./gal. based upon 70% moisture,
a calculated production of 1000 Ibs/day may be expected for the
pathology incinerator.
-38-
-------
A survey in California (Anon, I972b) (18) concluded that
it was possible to safely separate and collect infectious waste
within a hospital, but this does result in increased costs
of waste handling. With an average total waste per patient day
of 10.25 Ibs., the average infectious waste measured was
only 0.38 Ibs.
Investigations by Bond and Michaelson (1964)(19) on the
effects of waste handling upon air and surface contamination
give some indication of what types of contamination to
expect. They found that soiled laundry handling had by far
the most significant influence on increased airborne bacteria.
Further investigations have been carried out on the solid
waste itself. Armstrong (1969) (20) looked at refuse chutes with
respect to airborne bacteria. Ee found that placing the refuse
in bags reduces the number of airborne bacteria generated, and
that the possibility exists for the transmission of viable
organisms to other parts of the hospital by way of the refuse
chute.
Research at the University of West Virginia Medical Center
(Burchinal and Wallace, 1971; (14) Wallace, et al., 1972; (21)
Smith, 1970; (22) Trigg, 1971 (23)) revealed that pathogenic
organisms can be present in hospital solid waste in significantly
high concentrations, and especially so if an organic substrate
is present. Coliform counts ranged from less than one per gram
of refuse at some stations to as high as 8.6 per gram. Fecal
-39-
-------
streptococci ranged from less than 1 per gram to as high as
8.0 per gram; staphyloccocci from less than 2 per gram to
7.1 per gram; Candida albicans from less than 2 per gram to
3.8 per gram; Pseudomonas sp. from less than 2 per gram to
8.4 per gram/ and spore counts from less than 1.5 to 3.9 per
gram (Trigg, 1971).
Substantial numbers of organisms of human origin were
found, which suggests the presence of virulent pathogenic
bacteria and viruses living on the solid waste in undetected
numbers. Bacillus organisms made up 80 to 90 percent of all
microbes observed with staphloccocci and streptococci each
composing between 5 and 10 percent of the population.
Staphylococcus aureujs was by far the most predominant pathogen
detected in the waste. Spore forming organisms were not present
in sufficient numbers to constitute a potential hazard if
accepted methods of sterilization are followed. Nursing stations,
such as the operating rooms, where pathological waste is separated
from other waste, show much lower microbial concentrations in
general refuse than other stations. The stations generating the
refuse most highly contaminated with coliform bacteria are the
intensive care units and pediatrics.
Virus survival studies indicate that almost all materials
found in the hospital solid waste could be vehicles for
transmission of viruses (Burchinal and Wallace, 1971; (14) Wallace,
etal., 1972 (21)). Various types of waste were artificially con-
-40-
-------
taminated with viruses to established recovery times and rates.
Vaccinia, Polio 1, Coxsackie A-9, and Influenza PR-8 were the
viral strains used for inoculation. Paper and cotton fabric
both held active viruses for long periods of time—from 5 to
8 days in most cases. Virus titer decreased in most cases at a
steady rate with increasing time, implying that the agent
loses its viability upon incubation.
An air samplying program was carried out at the Los Angeles
County-USC Medical Center (Esco/Greenleaf, 1972).(15) Results are
given in Table 9 and substantiate the earlier findings of Bond
and Michaelson that laundry handling does generate considerably
greater aerosols than does trash handling.
Estimates of the total waste generated by hospitals vary
widely, ranging from about 10 Ibs/patient/day to as much as
40-50 Ibs/patient/day (Litsky, et al., 1972; (16) Oviatt, 1969;(24)
Wallace, et al., 1972; (21) Anon, 1972b(18); Small, 1971(25)).
Tables 10 and 11 give a breakdown of the types of wastes generated
and the disposal costs for seven California hospitals. The great
variation is caused by the quantity of disposable items used.
The trend has been toward greater use of disposables because
of decreased danger of cross-infection and supposedly greater
economy. It has now become evident that "disposables" are
really merely "throw-aways"; and their actual disposal presents
a. large problem. Even the cost advantage is open to question;
Table 12 indicates that disposables cost more to handle and
dispose of than reusables.
-41-
-------
Table 9
of Air Sampling Data at IAC-USC Medical Center
(Esco/Greenleaf, 1972)
Station
Trash Chute Roan
Inside
Outside
Laundry Chute Footi
Inside
Outside
Number of
Observations
99
96
58
57
Mean Coliforms
per cubic foot
14.1
8.8
38.3
31.4
No. of Samples with
Colonies too Numer-
ous to Count .
2
0
2
5
Sorting Area
Station Utility Foon
54
55
71.0
5.0
7
0
-42-
-------
Breakdown of Daily Waste Production OEs/bay) By Types of Wastes (Escx./Greenleaf, 1972)
Type of Waste
# of Beds
Sharps, Needles, Etc.
Path. & Surgical
Soiled Linen
(Reusable)
Rubbish
Reusable Patient Items
Non-conbustibles
Non-grindable (a) Garbage
Food Service Items
(Reusable)
Radiological
Ash & Residue
Animal Carcasses
Food Waste (Grindable)
Medical
Center
3000
75
1000
45,000
16,200
trace
1,500
1,800
9,000
trace
trace
25
2,600
Total Production 77,700
— — — — — _ ___ __ ____ _
Long Beach
General
Hospital
428
3
trace
3,740
540
trace
75
150
1,400
—
—
—
330
6,238
Harbor
General
Hospital
715
22
156
13,600
6,569
trace
465
660
2,400
trace
20
220
950
25,062
Ranches Los
Amigos Hos-
pital
1188
40
4
16,320
2,760
trace
725
875
4,200
trace
20
20
1,100
26,064
John
Wesley
Hospital
259
8
115
2,900
717
trace
80
160
800
_
50
10
210
Olive
View
725
20
6
5,630
1,722
trace
250
475
2,500
trace
20
23
1,860
5,050 12,506
Mira
Lctna
232
5
trace
1,120
362
trace
80
110
600
_
25
_^
150
2,452
•t ' ;
fe/ . ••
&"~~f
-------
Table 10 (CCMT.)
Daily Production
Disposable
23,000 1,098
9,062
5,554
1,350 4,376
(a) Predominantly garbage mixed with substantial quantities of paper, plastics, metal, etc.
(b) Per capita production based on equivalent 24-hour population.
732
fUUnu£a J-XiL IJtJU
patient
Pounds per capita, (b)
Daily Production
Reusable
Pounds per bed
i patient
1 Pounds per capita (b)
11.6
3.75
54,000
27.2
8.75
3.6
2.08
5,140
16.9
9.74
16.7
5.57
16,000
29.6
9.73
6.0
2.80
20,520
22.1
10.20
7.9
3.44
3,700
21.7
9.41
7.8
4.32
8,130
14.5
8.08
5.1
3.37
1,720
11.9
7.93
-------
oaiiy, and Unit
Costs (Esco/Greenleaf, 1972)
Quantity of Waste
Produced
Disposables
(Tons/Day)
Reusables
(Tons/bay)
Total Waste
(Tons/bay)
•—-*•» vww
Medical
Center
11.60
27.25
38.85
j-uiivj ucau
General
Hospital
0.55
2.57
3.12
" narDor
General
Hospital
4.53
8.00
12.53
Kaneno Los
Amigos
Hospital
2.77
10.26
13.03
John
Wesley
Hospital
0.68
1.85
2.53
Olive
View
Hospital
2.19
4.06
6.25
Mira
Lena
Hospital
0.37
0.86
1.23
Cost of System Operation
Annual
Daily
Average Daily Cost
Disposables
Reusables
Total Wastes
$2,396,850
$ 6,566
per Ton
$ 305
110
170
$223,600
$ 612
$ 325
168
197
$777,435 $656,340
$ 2,130 $
$ 327 $
82
170
1,798
364
77
168
$296,582
$ 813
$ 664
195
321
$750,585
$ 2,056
$ 516
229
329
$175,200
$ 480
$ 551
322
390
•*«.j. ~>t.j j;
Average Daily Cost/feed Patient [Calculated based on total nurrber of patients not total nunber of beds]
Disposables $ i476 $ o 58 $ 9 7-?
-------
Table 12
Cost Comparison of Disposable and Reusable Wastes at LAC-USC Medical Center
(Esco/Greenleaf, 1972)
Daily Costs of Handling and Disposal
Ave. Cost
Type of Waste
Disposables
Rubbish
Other
Total
Reusables
Soiled Linen
Food Service Items
Other
Total
Total All Materials
Ave. Wt.
Ibs/day
16,200
7,000
23,200
45,000
9,000
trace
54,500
77,700
Labor
$2,235
1,027
$3,262
$1,255
1,403
312
$2,970
$6,232
Bldg. & Other (a>
Equip.
$104 $ 85
40 60
$144 $145
$ 45
—
__ —
$ 45
$189 $145
Total
$2,424
1,127
$3,551
$1,300
1,403
312
$3,015
$6,566
Per
ton
$300
322
$305
$ 57
312
$110
$170
Per
Bed
$1.22
.56
$1.78
$0.65
.70
.15
$1.50
$3.28
(a) Miscellaneous expendable supplies and dumping fees.
-------
Disposable items are found in all the areas of the
hospital, and have special application in burn therapy, aseptic
techniques, and isolation cases. Typical items are found in
Table 13. They are combinations of materials such as paper,
plastic, rayon, acrylic, cellulose, nylon, glass and metal.
The plastic content is much higher than the 2-3 percent found
in municipal solid waste; one study of infectious waste found
it to be 11.42 percent hard plastic and 7.09 percent soft
plastic (Anon, 1972b).(18) Expenditures have risen from $30
million in 1966 to $126 million in 1970, and may rise to an
estimated $900 million in 1978 (Fahlberg, 1973). (26) Further
estimates say that a hospital can double its waste output by
completely switching to disposable linen (Salkowski, 1970).(27)
Disposables add two problems to the waste treatment process;
first they increase the volume so that disposal systems are
taxed and second the plastic components are hard to degrade.
Also, it may be that some plasticizers are toxic. The John
Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health in Baltimore has
found that plasticizers in blood bags leach into the stored
blood and go on to lodge in lungs, spleen, liver, and
abdominal fat. Tests of embryonic heart cell cultures revealed
that the cells died when plastic tubing was substituted for
rubber (Anon, 1971b). (281
When a simple a change as supplying paper towels to
each patient's room was made at the Baylor University Medical
-47-
-------
Table 13
Cannon Disposable Items Used in the Hospital
Catheters and catheterizaticn trays
Cutting Blades
Eating utensils
Emesis basins
Enema administration bags and buckets
Examination gloves
Exchange transfusion trays with tubing and fittings
Foley catheter trays
Hypodermic syringes with and without attached needles
Hypodermic needles
Hypodermic syringes pre-filled with medication
Irrigation trays
Lumbar puncture trays
Manometer trays
OB and surgical packs
Oxygen canopies
Petri dishes
Prefilled nursers
Prepared enemas
Sheets and pillowcases
Spinal anethesia trays
Surgeons gloves
Surgical prep trays
Suture removal kits
Venous pressure trays
-48-
-------
Center, it was found an additional wastebasket was then required.
The maintenance cost from plugged toilets increased, and the
labor charge for emptying and washing wastebaskets increased by
30 percent/ but the number of cloth towels used did not decrease
(Paul, 1964).(29) The pure bulk of the disposables presents the
problem that most authors comment on, but other hazards are also
present. Discarded needles and cutting edges remain a hazard to
collection personnel. Scavenging of the dumping areas for
useable items and play items for children show that spread
of infectious disease is a real hazard in the disposal of
disposables (Walter, 1964; (30) Mattson, 1974 (31)). Disease
organisms can also be introducted to a landfill in great
quantities via disposable linens and diapers (Ostertag and
Junghaus, 1965; (32) Peterson, 1974 (33)).
Some indication of the numbers of disposable hypodermic
needles used by individual hospitals can be obtained from
•the literature. Michaelson and Vesley (1966) (34) found
from 14,000 to 833,000 used annually at various hospitals in
1966, and Baker (1971)(35) found over 550,000 used annually
in 1968. There are proper ways to collect and destroy these
items, such as collecting them at the individual nursing
stations and returning them to central storage to be crushed
and broken into fragments, then incinerated. They can also
be collected in special boxes and sent directly to the
incinerator, or collected at the nursing stations and sent
to central service to be autoclaved and melted into one
mass (Paul, 1964). (29) Some hospitals have even tried
-49-
-------
replacing the needles on a one for one basis as they are
used, then destroying the old ones (Deschambeau, 1967).(36)
Even though the users are aware of the need to destroy the
waste syringes and needles, many still escape unscathed.
Profit oriented hospital workers have been known to extract
these from the daily waste and sell them to street drug
users (Hewer, 1971).(37) Even at the final landfill site,
these needles can be reclaimed for drug users and children
who find them to be satisfactory squirt guns (Healy, 1965) . (38)
Based on the above discussion, the Agency concluded that
it is necessary to regulate only certain sources of infectious
waste within hospitals, rather than all waste from these facilities,
Further, the Agency concluded that it is unnecessary to regulate
waste materials from these sources which have been properly
treated by the hospital to render them non-infectious (see
§250 Subpart A Regulations, Appendix VII, Infectious Waste Treat-
ment Specifications.)
The following departments of hospitals are subject to
Subtitle C regulation:
Obstetrics department including patients' rooms
Emergency departments
Surgery department including patients' rooms
Morgue
Pathology department
Autopsy department
Isolation rooms
Laboratories
Intensive Care Unit
Pediatrics department
-50-
-------
Veterinary Hospitals
While veterinary hospitals have some of the waste disposal
problems which hospitals caring for people have, these problems
are mainly confined to disposing of dead animals, animal waste,
and waste generated during treatment of animals. Animal waste
includes waste generated from animal care or use, including
excretions, secretions, tissue, remains, and any inedible by-
products of animal processing for food and fiber production.
It has been pointed out to the Agency that the majority of
diseases that could be transmitted through improper disposal of
veterinary hospital waste are primarily ones that are transmitted
only from animal to animal. It is true that several hundred
diseases are transmitted from animal to animal, but more than
150 zoonotic diseases are transmitted between animals and man.
Decker and Steele (38a) report the human health problems
that are created by pathogenic zoonoses. Some of the most
significiant bacterial zoonoses are salmonellosis, staphlococcal
and streptococcal infectious, tetanus, tuberculosis, brucellosis,
icptospirosis, and colibacillosis. Animal wastes also play a
significant role in the distribution of fungal diseases by
providing nutrients for the survival and growth of fungi in
s environment.
-51-
-------
Q fever, a rickettsial disease, is transmitted to man
primarily through air laden with dust containing animal
wastes. It is largely an occupational disease of cattlemen,
slaughterhouse workers, and woolsorters, but may also attack
those residing adjacent to feedlots and stockyards. A trouble-
some parasitic disease transmitted through animal wastes is
trichinosis which persists even though the practice of
feeding swine raw garbage has been greatly reduced in recent
years.
Less is known regarding the role of animal wastes in
the direct transmission of viral diseases than in bacterial
diseases. However, the importance of animal wastes in the
reproduction of insect vectors of many diseases is well
documented.
Anthrax
Anthrax is one of the oldest diseases identified with
animals that is transmissible to man. Anthrax has been
present in the United States for at least the last 100
years. The disease is primarily an occupational hazard of
industrial workers who process hides, hair (especially from
goats), bone and bone products, and wool, and of veterinarians
and agricultural workers who handle infected animals. (39)
Infection of the skin is by contact with tissues of
animals (cattle, sheep, goats, horses, pigs, and others)
dying of the disease; or contaminated hair, wool, hides, and
-52-
-------
soil associated with infected animals. Inhalation anthrax
results from inhalation of anthrax spores. Gastrointestinal
anthrax arises from ingestion of contaminated undercooked
meat. Anthrax spreads among herbivorous animals through
contaminated soil and feed and among omnivorous animals
through contaminated meat, bone meal or other feeds. Biting
flies and other insects are suspected of serving as vectors.
Vultures have spread the organism from one area to another.
The spores of Bacillus anthracis, the infectious agent,
which resist environmental factors and disinfection, remain
viable in contaminated areas for many years after the source-
animal infection has terminated. (39)
Initial symptoms of inhalation anthrax are mild and
non-specific, resembling common upper respiratory infection;
acute symptoms of respiratory distress, fever and shock
follow in from 3 to 5 days, with death shortly thereafter.
Gastrointestinal anthrax is more difficult to recognize,
except that it tends to occur in explosive outbreaks? abdominal
distress is followed by fever, signs of septicemia, and death
in the typical case.
Untreated cutaneous anthrax has a fatality rate of from
5-20%, tut with effective antibody therapy, few deaths
occur. (39)
Salir.onellosis
Although this disease is discussed in the section on
sewage sludge, the important role that animals play in the
transmission of the disease shall be stressed here.
-53-
-------
Animal excreta and inedible by-products of food processing,
such as viscera, bones, and feathers are vehicles that carry
salmonella organisms from their animal hosts to man.(40) Direct
contact with such wastes constitutes an occupational hazard
for livestock producers, slaughterhouse and rendering plant
workers; contamination of edible food products with feces
provides a means of carrying the organism to the consumer, to the
home, or to the institutional environment.
Animal wastes are also a vital factor in perpetuating
and extending the prevalence of animal hosts of the Salmonellae.
C41) Feeding of animal feces to poultry, swine, beef, and
dairy cattle is one means of increasing the incidence of
animal salmonella hosts, as is the use of contaminated
animal protein supplements in animal feeds.
In 1965 a waterborne outbreak in southern California
affected some 16,000 people. How the water supply of the
city of Riverside became contamined is unknown, but Salmonella
typhimurium (Phage II), the cause of the outbreak, is widely
disseminated in animals not only in California but throughout
the world. There has been speculation that contamination
could have originated in feedlots where cattle were passing
Salmonella typhimurium hundreds of miles away, and due to
seepage along earthquake faults, the bacteria appeared in
the water supply. (38)
-54-
-------
Tuberculosis
Tuberculosis must still be considered as an important
disease related to animal wastes. While bovine tuberculosis
caused by Mycobacterium bovis has been effectively controlled
in this country, it is occasionaly found in some wild animals,
as well as in food animals and in pets.
Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the human type of tubercule
bacillus, is capable of infecting cattle swine, and household
pets.
Mycobacterium avium, the etiologic agent of tuberculosis
in gallinaceous birds, is capable of producing tuberculosis
in swine and of infecting cattle to such an extent that
reactions are produced in routine tuberculin testing of
cattle.
The bovine tubercle bacillus is transmitted to man
through respiratory secretions, feces, and milk. In those
few cases where infection of man with the bovine tubercle
bacillus is known, there usually is an occupational contact
with cattle. (38)
Brucellosis
Brucellosis is commonly an occupational disease of
those with close contact with cattle and swine and their
viscera and excreta. The disease in man and animals is
caused by any one of three species of Brucella.
-55-
-------
Brucella abortus is predominantly of bovine origin,
Brucella suis of swine origin, and Brucella melitensis
primarily infects goats. Cows may become infected with
Brucella suis or Brucella melitensis as well as Brucella
abortus. Swine may become infected with all three species;
however, they are most susceptible to Erucella suis. Many
outbreaks of brucellosis have been traced to contaminated
water courses from meat-processing plants, rendering plants,
and contaminated farms. (38)
The disease is systemic, with acute or insidious
onset, characterized by continued, intermittent or irregular
fever of variable duration, headache, weakness, profuse
sweating, chills, or chilliness, arthralgia, depression, and
generalized aching. Non-purulent meningitis and pneumonitis
may occur. The disease may last for several days, many
months, or occassionally several years. Orchitis and vertebral
osteonmyelitis are uncommon but characteristic features.
Recovery is usual but disability is often pronounced. The
fatality rate is 2% or less; higher for Brucella melitensis
infections than for other species. Clinical diagnosis is
often difficult and uncertain. Death is rare in persons
without complications. (39)
Leptospirosis
Leptospirosis is a spirochetal disease of large proportions
and is world-wide in distribution. A number of animal
-56-
-------
species host the leptospira, including the domestic food-
producing species. Cattle and swine are the principal
domestic animals involved—leptospirosis occurs in epizootic
form in stables and feedlot herds. Dogs and rodents are
frequently infected.
Leptospirae are transmitted from the animal host to man
through a number of routes. Documented sources of human
infection are rice fields, swimming "holes", sewers, and a
number of occupations in which exposure to infected animals
is by direct contact. (38)
The disease in man shows a wide range of symptoms and
severity, depending on the species of leptospira involved,
exposure, and the health of the individual. It presents
symptoms similar to influenza, enteric viral infections,
infectious gastroenteritis, and a number of other diseases.
Fatality is low, but increases with advancing age and may
reach 20% or more in patients with jaundice and kidney
damage. (39)
Tularemia
The reservoir for Tularemia is normally wild animals,
but is occasionally found in sheep. Mode of transmission is
t>y inoculation of the skin, conjunctival sac or anal mucosa
with blood or tissue while handling infected animals, as in
skinning, dressing, or performing necropsies; or by fluids
from infected flies, ticks, or other animals, or through the
if arthropods including a species of deer fly. The
-57-
-------
disease is characterized by sudden and dramatic onset of
chills and fever. Fatality in untreated cases is about 5%;
with treatment, negligible. (39)
Although the above discussion of disease transmitted to man
from animal has centered on occupational hazard data, the same
types of wastes are generated from certain departments of veterinary
hospitals. Again, as with hospitals/ the Agency has concluded
that only a portion of the total waste load of veterinary hospitals
is a source of infectious waste (unless properly treated prior
to disposal to render non-infectious).
For purposes of identifying sources of infectious waste, the
following departments of veterinary hospitals are subject to
Subtitle C regulation:
Emergency department
Surgery department including patients' room
Morgue
Pathology department
Autopsy department
Isolation rooms
Laboratories
Intensive care unit
NOTE: The Agency realizes that the names of the above departments
are normally applied to hospitals for humans; the depart-
ments of veterinary hospitals that are functionally
equivalent would be applicable.
-58-
-------
3.11 Rationale for Regulation of Laboratory Waste
Data are generally not available that can be used to show
evidence of disease associated with laboratory waste. In a
recently published study at the University of Texas (Pike,
1975} (42), some waste/disease data can be extracted from the
50-year data base of published and unpublished cases of
laboratory-associated infections.
As shown in the reproduced table (Table 7), 46 cases of
laboratory-acquired infections related to the (waste) source
of discarded glassware are shown. Of these cases, 34 were
related to bacteria, 10 related to viruses, and 2 to rickettsiae.
Of the total number of reported laboratory-associated infections
studied, the 46 associated with discarded glassware represent
about 1% of the total.
The Center for Disease Control has determined that
certain microorganisms are of potential hazard to human
health and the environment, as published in the "Classification
of Etiologic Agents on the Basis of Hazard." Since it has
keen determined by HEV7 that classes 2 through 5 are of
potential hazard, then any laboratory dealing with these
agents would be generating a potentially hazardous, infectious
waste. Given that most hospitals and laboratories know
which organisms are used in their work, the list is appended
-59-
-------
to the regulation to indicate the type of laboratory which
would be included by the specified SIC codes. It must be
recognized however, that many times in diagnostic work the
organisms involved are unknown. By regulating laboratories
as the "source" of infectious waste, the unknown presence
of pathogenic organisms can be controlled. Thus, the CDC
list is used as a basis for including laboratories as a source
of infectious waste, but the list cannot be used alone to
define this source, due to the nature of the waste from
diagnostic labs.
-60-
-------
7 - Distribution of Cases According to Proved car Probable Source of Infection
Agents
Sources
Accident
Animal or ectoparasite
Clinical specimen
Discarded glassware
Human autopsy
i
2 Intentional Infection
i~*
i
Aerosol
(forked with the agent
Other
Unknown or not indicated
Total
Bacteria
378
149
90
34
56
14
101
381
7
459
1669
Viruses
174
249
175
10
9
1
92
213
1
125
1049
Rickettsiae
45
66
2
2
4
0
217
100
7
130
573
Fungi
33
151
1
0
0
0
88
62
0
18
353
Chla-
ndiae
14
32
0
0
0
0
22
43
1
16
128
Parasites
38
11
19
0
1
4
2
28
0
12
115
Unspec-
ified
21
1
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
7
34
Total
703
659
287
46
75
19
522
827
16
767
3921
\
r .. "i
-------
3.12 Rationale for Regulation of Unstabilized Sewage Treatment
Plant Sludge
The Agency has decided to regulate "domestic" or "municipal"
sewage sludge form publicly owned treatment works under the
authority of Section 405 of the Clean Water Act, supplemented by
Section 4004 of RCRA. Unstabilized sewage sludge from industrial
or other sources is considered to be a hazardous waste subject to
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. Thus the following discussion
applies to sewage sludges from industrial and other sources, which
in many cases are similar or identical in character to domestic
or municipal sludges.
The fact that pathogens do survive in sewage sludge has been
addressed by EPA in the November 1977 Federal Register notice
entitled "Municipal Sludge Management: Environmental Factors;
Technical Bulletin." (43) In this publication, EPA recommends
that sewage sludge be "stabilized" before landspreading "to reduce
public health hazards and to prevent nuisance odor conditions."
Stabilization of sewage sludge is defines as chemical, physical,
thermal, or biological treatment processes that result in the
significant reduction of odors, volatile organics, and pathogenic
organics. EPA, in the same publication, recognizes that "although
these conditions can reduce the number of influent fecal coliforms
by 97 percent or more, the remaining levels of microorganisms iray
still have public health significance". And, further, that "under
certain conditions. . .it may be necessary to achieve additional
bacterial, parasite, and/or virus reduction beyond that attained
by stabilization.'
-62-
-------
In this bulletin general requirements for land application
of sludges are given. Reference is made to "Process Design
Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal" (EPA 625/1-74-006;
October 1974) which specifies in more detail the techniques for
sludge stabilization.
The bulk of the information presented in this section
of the background document is identical to that presented in
the background document for s257.4-5 (Land Criteria) to be
used for Section 4004 of RCRA. (45) Section 4004 regulations
will require sewage treatment plant sludge to be "stabilized"
to "reduce public health hazards."
Pathogenic organisms occuring in sewage sludge cover a
wide variety of bacteria, viruses and intestinal parasites.
Their individual presence, as well as their numbers, will
vary considerably from community to community depending upon
rates of disease in the contributing population. (46) Routes
of infection to humans and animals from sewage sludge may be
through direct contact with contaminated environments or
through the ingestion of contaminated food and water.
Bacteria
Among the bacteria that are commonly found in sewage
sludge, is the group referred to as the "enteric bacilli"
that naturally inhabit the gastronintestinal tract of humans.
In their virulence for humans, the enteric baccilli fall into
three general categories: pseudomonas species, salmonella
species, and shigella species.
-63-
-------
Pseudomonas
The pseudomonas species include the proteus organisms,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Alcaligenes faecalis. These
common inhabitants of the normal human gastrointestinal
tract are ordinarily non-pathogenicf causing disease (most
often of the urinary tract) only under special circumstances.
Salmonella
The genus Salmonella contains a wide variety of highly
invasive "species" pathogenic for humans or animals, and
usually for both. Largely as the result of systematic
studies, over 700 Salmonella species have been identified on
the basis of specific antigens. Three distinguishable forms
of salmonellosis occur in humans: enteric fevers, septicemias,
and acute gastroenteritis.
The prototype of enteric fever is caused by Salmonella
typhosa. The organism is usally acquired by ingestion of
contaminated food or water, and the focus of occurence in the
United States is in the South. There were 375 cases of
typhoid fever reported in the U.S. for the year 1976.(47)
The second form of salmonellosis is Salmonella septicemia,
which is characterized by high, remittent fever and bacteremia,
ordinarily without apparent involvement of the gastrointestinal
tract. The third form, gastroenteritis, is a disease confined
primarily to the gastrointestinal tract, and in most cases
is caused by the Salmonella sp. typhimurium.
-64-
-------
Shigella
The third category of enteric bacteria is the Shigella
genus. The shigella cause in humans a disabling disease
known as bacillary dysentery. This is an acute infection of
the large intestines, resulting in diarrhea, which, if
sufficiently severe, may be accompanied by bleeding from the
colon. All known species of the genus Shigella are pathogenic
for humans, with the following being the most common: S.
dysenteriae, S^ flexneri, and §_._ sonnei.
None of the enteric bacilli form spores. Spores are
resistant bodies produced by large number of bacterial
species that enable them to withstand unfavorable environmental
conditions such as heat, cold, desiccation and chemicals.
Since enteric bacilli are not spore formers, their survival
span outside of their normal environment (human intestinal
tract) is usually measured in days or months, compared to
years for spore forming bacteria. Most sludge stabilization
processes would create an unfavorable environment for enteric
bacilli to survive.
A pathogenic bacterium frequently found in sewage
sludge, although not an enteric organism, is the tubercle
bacillus Mycobacterium tuberculosis. This organism is
responsible for nearly all cases of pulmonary tuberculosis.
Tubercle bacilli are very hardy organisms, and can withstand
fairly extreme environmental conditions.
-65-
-------
Viruses
The second group of pathogenic organisms found in
sewage sludge are the enteric viruses. Viruses present
certain differences from bacteria and possess many character-
istics peculiar to their own group. Biologically, the most
important difference between viruses and bacteria is that
viruses must invade the living tissue cells or bacteria cells
to multiply within them, whereas the bacteria do not invade
the cells of their host.
More than 70 serologically distinct human enteric
viruses can occur in sewage sludge. (48) The major pathogenic
enteric virus groups are the Polio viruses, Coxsackie viruses,
Echoviruses and the Hepatitis virus.
Poliomyelitis, caused by the poliovirus, is an acute
systemic infection which, in its clinically recognizable
form appears as an involvement of the central nervous system
and often results in a variable degree of permanent paralysis.
The escape of the virus from the body of the infected person
is in respiratory tract secretions and in the feces.
Coxsackie viruses are responsible for common enteric
infections and a variety of illnesses, including several
clinically distinct ones in humans.
Echoviruses comprise a group of biologic agents brought
together chiefly because they infect the human intestinal
tract. Certain species are known to cause aseptic meningitis,
febrile illnesses and diarrheal diseases in infants and
children.
-66-
-------
Infectious hepatitis is an acute infectious disease
that causes fever/ nausea, abdominal discomfort, followed by
jaundice. It is caused by a resistant virus. The Hepatitis
virus is shed from the body through the feces, and fecal-
oral spread is probably the most common method of transmission,
Parasites
The third group of pathogenic organisms found in waste
water treatment sludges are the intestinal parasites. Those
parasites of concern to humans can be subdivided into two
categories: CD Protozoa, and (2) Helminths. Subgroups of
the Protozoa group include amoebas, flagellates, and ciliates.
Subgroups of the Helminths include trematodes and nematodes.
Protozoa
At least five species of amoebae live in the intestinal
tract of humans, with Entamoeba histolytica being the only
proven pathogen. Infection with E^ histolytica may produce
chronic diarrhea, amoebic hepatitis, abscess of the liver,
brain, lung, and ulceration of the skin. Amoebae have two
stages in their life cycles, a mobile form and a cyst form.
The cysts are infective upon passage from the body, and are
survive in a moist and cool environment. Giardia lamblia,
another protozoan, is also found in sewage sludge. Like the
amoeba, G. lamblia is a parasite of the human intestinal
tract and is responsible for certain conditions such as
diarrhea or symptoms referable to the gall bladder.
Balantidium coli is the only ciliate human parasite
and is the largest of human protozoan parasites. It invades
-67-
-------
a tissue and produces intestinal pathology similar to that
of E. histplyticcx.
Helminths
Helminths are commonly referred to as worms. In a more
restricted sense the name worm, or preferably helminth, is
applied to a few phyla of animals, all of which superficially
resemble one another in being "wormlike," though in life and
structure they are widely different. Ascaris lumbricoides
is the longest-known human parasite in this group. It was
not until early in the present century that Ascaris was
recognized as being as injurious and sometimes dangerous
parasite.
Ascaris lumbricoides is a large nematode; the females
commonly reach a length of 8 to 14 inches. The adult normally
lives in the small human intestine, where it commonly bites
the mucous membrances to extract tissue juices. Ascaris
produce a tremendous number of eggs (ova) which are passed
out of the body in the feces. Infection ordinarily results
from swallowing the embryonated eggs, which are in most
cases conveyed to the mouth by food or water. In heavy
infections the migration of the larvae through the lungs causes
hemorrhaging and sets up a severe pneumonia which may be fatal.
The ova of the Ascaris are extremely durable, and are capable
of withstanding severe environmental conditions.
Other Helminths encountered in sewage sludge are the
tapeworms or Cestoidea. Although 25 or 30 different species
of tapeworms have been recorded in man, only 4 adult species
are to all common. These are Dibothriocephalus latus, Taenia
-68-
-------
solium, !_._ saginatta, and Hymenolepis nana. With the exception
of the species of Hymenolepis, infection with the common
human species results from eating raw or imperfectly cooked
beef, pork, or fish in which the larvae have developed.
Hymenolepis sp_. on the other hand, need no intermediate
host. It is able to complete its entire life cycle in a
single host; thus, when eggs are ingested by man, the larvae
migrate into the lumen of the intestine.
Numerous studies report that pathogenic organisms
present in sludge are either killed or greatly reduced in
number when exposed to various stabilization methods used.
The specific number of an organism necessary for the
establishment of the potential for disease is related to
various factors; etiologic agent, susceptibility of host
etc. However, there is evidence that with many pathogens
this dose may be rather high, in particular the enteric
pathogens. DuPont et. al (49) reported that approximately
10 Salmonella cells (including S typhi) are required to
cause a disease. This would tend to support the premise
that by reducing the number of pathogenic organisms in
sludge, the public health hazards associated with its use
would be greatly minimized.
A review of the literature (7) has shown that there is a
paucity of epidemiclogical data linking disease transmission
of humans and animals directly to the landspreading of waste-
water treatment sludges. The data that do exist, indicate
-69-
-------
that the transmission of enteric disease or parasitic infestation
were related to the use of raw or unstabilized sludges on
cropland. Sepp (50) in his literature review on the landspreading
of wastewater sludge, lists numerous reports of infection
both to humans and animals believed to be caused by ingestion of
raw vegetables fertilized by raw sludges. In specific cases,
Kreuz C51> and Kroger (52) reported disease outbreaks caused
by Salmonella species on lettuce grown on soil fertilized by
raw sludge. Such evidence indicates that there is a public
health risk associated with the landspreading of unstabilized
sludges.
Data linking disease transmission to humans and animals
from the landspreading of stabilized sludges is virtually non-
existent. This lack of data can possibly be attributed to
the fact that most individuals can tolerate the number of
pathogenic organisms that survive the sludge stabilization
process/ or the ingestion of these organisms result only in
sporadic cases of infection, of which the source is difficult
to trace. Based on the knowledge of the human immune system,
the former is a more plausible assumption. Work by Dupont et
al (49) tends to support the former possibility, since their
studies indicated that with many pathogens the infective
dose may be rather high, in particular the enteric pathogens.
-70-
-------
The stabilization process will reduce the pathogen
population in sludge; the level of reduction will vary with
the process used and numerous other variables, e.g., time,
temperature, pH etc. Since available epidemiological evidence
links disease transmission to the landspreading of unstabilized
sludge and not stabilized sludge, it is evident that there
is a correlation between the concentration of pathogens in
•the sludge and disease transmisssion.
Wastewater sludge stabilization is normally accomplished
by anaerobic and aerobic digestion, and lime treatment.
Lesser used methods include heat treatment, ponding and long
time storage, chlorination, and composting. The stabilization
of sludge by thermal irradiation is being addressed, but at
this time the process is.still in the experimental state.
As previously mentioned, the extent to which pathogenic
organisms are reduced is related to the stabilization process
used as well as other variables. Not all stabilization
processes affect pathogenic organisms in the same manner,
therefore, some processes are more effective in reducing the
pathogen population than others. Also the levels of stabiliz-
ation within a particular process will vary as to their
effectiveness in reducing pathogenic organism numbers, e.g.,
anaerobic digestion of sludge for a two week period in the
-71-
-------
thermophilic range C125 F), is more effective in reducing
pathogens than sludge digested anaerobically for two weeks in
the mesophilic range (95 F) .
The following is some of the information encountered
relative to the effectiveness of various sludge stabilization
processes in reducing pathogenic organisms. Table 3 summarizes
these findings.
During anaerobic stabilization, the sludge temperature
may reach 149 F by microbial action. However, the normal
range for essentially all digesters in the United States is
between 80 F to 100 F. (44) Although conditions in the
digester are unfavorable for multiplication of most pathogenic
organisms, they are not lethal and the principal bactericidal
effect appears to be related to natural die-off with time. (44)
Kabler (53) reported that anaerobic digestion was compara-
tively ineffective in the inactivation of parasitic ova. Viable
Ascaris eggs have been recovered following anaerobic digestion
for as long as three (54} and six (55) months. An analysis of
raw sludge from two community wastewater treatment plants
revealed the presence of helminth ova and salmonella species.
The same sludge after being stabilized by anaerobic digestion
tested negative for both organisms.(56) Rudolfs et al.
reported that after 6 months exposure to the anaerobic
digestion process at 75 to 85 F, 46 percent of the ascarid
eggs appeared normal. Other studies (54,57) reported that
anaerobic digestion with different retention times removes
-72-
-------
the eggs of A. lumbricoides 0 to 45 percent.
Two groups (58,59) observed that there was 90 and 69
percent diminution of tubercle bacilli, while two others
(60,61) noted "survival" of M. tuberculosis after anaerobic
digestion.
McKinney et. al(62) found in their studies that approximately
93 percent of £. typhosa were removed after being exposed to
anaerobic digestion process for 20 days. Kenner (63) reported
that sludge treated by anaerobic digestion has been shown to
contain Salmonella and Pseudomonas organisms.
Cram (54) reported from his studies, that activated
sludge treatment does not affect the viability of E. histolytica
cysts or ascarid eggs. Aeration in the activated sludge
process for 5 months showed no effect on ascarid eggs except
a slow reduction in numbers (64), Kabler (53) reported that
studies indicate that activated sludge reduced §_._ typhosa
and strains of bacilli 91 to 99 percent.
-73-
-------
Table 3 Removal of Pathogens by
Total Counts
Colifoxm
Fecal Strep
Typhoid group
Shigella
Cholera
M. Tuberculosis
Polio
Coxsackie
ECHO
Infectious
hepatitis
Tapeworm Ova
E. histolytica
cysts
Ascaros
lunfcricolides
Taenia saginata
Sewage Treatment Processes (53}
(Percent)
Trickling
Filter
70-95
82-97
84-94
84-99+
Activated
Sludge
Enteric
70-99
91-93
-
Present:
95-99.2
Anaerobic
Digestion
Bacteria
-
-
-
Not found:
25-092.4
Chlorina-
tion
96-99
99-99+
-
98-99
Stabiliza-
tion Ponds
.
59-99+
-
41/ml;N.D.
18-26
88-99.9
ova
97-98
Not found
M. Tuberculosis
Survive;
66-99
.
Reduced;
60
Survive; Survive;
88 69-90
Entero viruses
Survive
Survive Survive
Survive;
99+
99
-
Survive or
inactivated
Parasites
Not removed
97
No effect
62-70
45; reduced
Little effect; Very slow
-74-
-------
Enteric virus inactivation during the treatment of
wastewater by the activated sludge process has been reported
extensively in the literature. (65-70) Carlson (71) et
al reported that after 6 months of aeration, polioviruses
were removed or inactivated to a point at which infectiousness
for mice was greatly reduced. Sproul (72) reported that
virus removal of 90 percent or more has been obtained in a
number of studies with activated sludge process. Kelly et
al (73) reported that Coxsackie virus survived activated
sludge treatment.
Table 4
Removal of viruses by bench scale activated sludge units
Coxsackie virus A9 Foliovirus 1
Test No.
1
2
3
4.
5
6
7
Volatile
solids
(irg/1)
600
650
1,000
1,100
1,500
1,500
Virus
Inactivated
(Percent)
98.8
96.1
99.2
99.1
97.4
99.4
Volatile
solids
(mg/1)
206
400
600
600
1,200
1,200
4,000
Virus
Inactivated .
(Percent)
79
88
90
91
92
91
94
Bacterial inhibition from caustic conditions has long been
known.(74) Studies have shown that Salmonella typhosa did
survive in concentrations in the range of pH 11.01-11.50
longer than two hours, while Shigella dysenteriae was destroyed
rapidly in all pH range studies; pH 11.01-11.50 produced 100%
]cill in 75 minutes. (75) However, the effectiveness of lime
treatment on parasitic ova and viruses has not been demonstrated,
-75-
-------
Destruction of pathogenic organisms in sludge or in
sludge-refuse mixtures by composting has been reported
extensively in the literature. (76-83) Table 5 indicates
that 60 C (140 F) for one hour appears to kill all pathogens,
with possible exception of Tubercle bacillus. (84) M^
tuberculosis was shown to be destroyed within two weeks at
temperature 60 C (140 F) or above. (55)
Table 5*
Time-Temperatures Required for Organism Destruction (84)
Destruction
Time-Temperature
Destruction
Time-Temperature
Organism
Salmonella typhosa
Salmonella sp.
Shigella sp.
Ent. histolytica cysts
Taenia saginata
Mycobacterium tubercu-
losis var. hominis
Necator americanus
Temp
C.F)
131-140
131
131
113
131
151
113
Ascaris lumbricoides eggs 122
Time
fain)
30
60
60
few
few
15-20
50
60
Temp
(.F)
140
140
—
131
152.6
Time
fcnin)
20
15-20
few seconds
—
momentary
—
—
* Adapted from Gotass
Long-term storage of sludge has been suggested as one
of the simplest methods of reducing pathogenic organism numbers
(85). Hinesly (86) reported that after storage of sludge
for 30 days, fecal coliforms were reduced by 99.9 percent.
However, Dotson (87) thought that parasites would probably
persist much longer.
Heat treatment is a well known method of destroying
pathogenic organisms. Three methods that have been applied
-76-
-------
to sludge treatment are low pressure oxidation, heat drying
and pasteurization. During the low pressure oxidation (LPO)
process/ the sludge temperature is elevated to between 350
and 400 F, pressure is raised to 180 to 210 psi, and the
retention time is between 20 and 30 minutes. The process
kills all pathogenic organisms due to the high temperature
achieved and the retention time. Over 26 U.S. cities are
currently using the LPO process.
Heat drying of sludge is presently being carried out in
a number of U.S. cities. However, the numbers are declining
because of cost of fuel necessary for the drying process,
and also because the market for heat dried sludge did not
develop as hoped. The temperature achieved during the heat
drying process kills most bacteria.
Pasteurization is a process where the sludge is heated
to a specific temperature for a period of time that will
destroy pathogenic organisms. In most cases this is accomplished
by the use of steam. Currently, pasteurization is used only
in Europe.
While the technical literature presents some conflicting
data as to the degree that pathogenic organisms are reduced
by various sludge stabilization methods, it does generally
indicate that the stabilization process will reduce most
pathogenic organisms significantly. This reduction, in turn
minimizes the public health risks associated with the
landspreading of stabilized sludges.
-77-
-------
To survive and remain virulent, pathogenic organisms
usually depend on the favorable conditions of a host. When
an organism encounters a situation in which it cannot
function normally, growth stops and the organism dies.
Numerous environmental conditions may affect the organism
after it leaves the natural host. Although organic matter
in the sludge acts as a protective agent, organisms are
stressed by waste treatment and encounter unfavorable moisture
conditions, pH, temperature, sunlight, and nutrient levels
when applied to land. Toxic substances in the sludge, soil
antibiotics, and antagonistic organisms may also present
obstacles to pathogen survival.
In soils receiving sewage sludge, most pathogens will
disappear or be reduced to low numbers in two to three months.
Although some pathogens have long survival time in soil
(Table 6), most do not survive long on plant surfaces. When
long survival times have been reported, initial inoculation
levels were high, most pathogens were subsequently detected
in low numbers, and no indication was given of the actual
disease potential. (88)
Table 6 contains part of the data extracted by Dunlop (89)
from his literature review pertaining to the survival of
pathogenic organisms in soil, water and crops. Except for
Ascaris ova, the table shows that most pathogenic organisms
die off within one year. The two studies reporting Ascaris
ova living 2-7 years were both conducted in Europe. Muller
(90) reported in Germany that Ascaris ova survived up to 7 years
-78-
-------
Table 6
Survival times of Pathogenic Microorganisms in various media
Organisms
Ascaris Ova
Endamoeba
Histolytics
cysts
Enteroviruses
Salmonella
Salmonella, other
-than typhi
Shigella
ffutiercle Bacilli
Medium
Soil
Soil
Plants and Fruits
SoU
Tomatoes
Lettuce
Roots of bean
plants
Soil
Tomato & pea roots
Strawberries
Soil
Soil
Soil
Pea plant stems
Radish plant stems
Soil
Lettuce & endive
Soil
Soil
Lettuce
Radishes
Soil
Soil
Vegetables
Tomatoes
Soil
Potatoes
Carrots
Cabbage and
gooseberries
Streams
Harvested Fruits
Market tomatoes
Market apples
Tomatoes
Soil
Grass
Type of
Application*
Not stated
Sewage
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
Infected feces
Infected feces
Infected feces
AC
AC
AC
Sprinkled with
domestic sewage
Sprinkled with
domestic sewage
Sprinkled with
domestic sewage
Sprinkled with
domestic sewage
Not stated
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
Survival time
2-5 years
Up to 7 years
1 month
8 days
18-42 hours
18 hours
At least 4 days
12 days
4-6 days
6 hours
74 days
70 days
At least 4 days
14 days
4 days
Up to 20 days
1-3 days
2-110 days
Several months
18 days
53 days
74 days
15-70 days
2-7 weeks
Less than 7 days
40 days
40 days
10 days
5 days
30 minutes to 4 days
Minutes to 5 days
At least 2 days
At least 6 days
2-7 days
6 months
14-15 months
Contamination
-79-
-------
in garden soil. Gudzhabidze (91) reported in the Soviet
Union that Ascaris ova survived 2-5 years in soil of irrigated
agriculture fields. The literature reviewed does not reveal
any studies in the United States where Ascaris ova survived
in sludge amended soils for more than one year.
Hess et al.(92) reported the survival of salmonellae on
grass contaminated with sludge for 40 to 58 weeks in a dry
atmosphere. McCarty and King (93) found that enteric pathogens
could survive and remain virulent for up to two months.
Rudolfs et. al. (94) concluded from field studies that the
survival of representatives of the Salmonella and Shigella
genera on tomato surfaces did not exceed seven days, even
when the organisms were applied with fecal organic material.
He attributed their short survival time to the lack of
resistant stages; thus making them more vulnerable to adverse
environmental conditions.
Martin (95), inoculating sterile virgin soils with E_.
typhosa, found they died out rapidly, but in sterilized
contaminated soils growth occurred and the bacteria survived
for numerous months. Rudolfs (94) in his literature review,
found that the survival time of E_. typhosa ranged from less
than 24 hours to more than two years in freezing moist
soils, but generally less than 100 days.
Approximately 90 different enteric viruses have been
recovered from municipal sewage. However, there are few
-80-
-------
published reports on the survival of viruses in soil, and
persistence on crops. Larkin et al. (96) described the
persistence of polioviruses for 14 to 30 days on lettuce and
radishes inoculated with sludge. According to Cliver (97)
the soil is generally not a very adverse environment for
viruses. Neither chemical nor biological inactivation
occurs very rapidly, but enteroviruses do lose infectiousness
as a function of time and temperature in the soil. Poliovirus
1, retained in sand from septic tank effluent, was inactivated
at a rate of 13 to 18 percent per day at 20 to 25 C and at
1.1 percent per day at 6 C to 8 C. (97)
Rudolfs et al. (94) reported that unlike pathogenic
bacteria, the parasitic amoeba, Endamoeba histolytica,
forms resistant cysts which enable the organism to survive
under adverse conditions. However, on the basis of laboratory
and field studies on the survival of Endamoeba histolytica
cysts, the cysts proved to be extremely sensitive to desiccation,
Rudolfs concluded from his studies that field-grown crops
contaminated with cysts of E^_ histolytica are considered
safe in the temperate zone one week after contamination has
stopped and after two weeks in wetter tropical regions.
It has been shown in the general survey of the literature
(94) that certain parasite eggs, especially those of Ascaris,
are markedly resistant to external conditions. Yoshida (98)
found that mature eggs of A_._ lumbriocoides were still viable
after five to six months under layers of soil in winter. He
-81-
-------
also found (99). that exposure to strong sunlight checked egg
development and eventually killed them.
Brown C100J reported that the type of soil was an important
factor in the viability of Ascaris eggs. Experiments showed
Ascaris eggs in feces deposited on sandy soil in the sun
were degenerated in 21 days. In the shade, however, 91
percent of the eggs contained mobile embryos in 35 days, and
decreased to 69 percent in 54 days.
Otto C1011. studied the moisture requirements of Ascaris
eggs and found they did not develop to embryonation in
atmosphere of less than 80 percent relative humidity, although
they remained viable for varying lengths of time in atmospheres
containing less moisture.
Spindler (102) in his studies on isolating Ascaris eggs
from soil, found the number of embryonated eggs to be suprisingly
small in spite of the fact that the soils were, in many cases,
being subjected to continuous application of sewage. Vassilkova
(103) in his study of contamination of sewage farm vegetables
with helminth eggs, reported that the Ascaris eggs found on
vegetables, only 36 percent were viable.
Except in the two reported cases (90,91) the literature
indicates that the survival time of most pathogens found in
wastewater sludge is limited to weeks or months, depending on
environmental conditions.
-82-
-------
3.13 Methods for Biological Examination of Solid Waste
Bacteria
Mirdza L. Peterson of EPA has published "Methods for
Bacteriological Examination of Solid Waste and Waste Effluents."
(104) After examining methods currently available for measuring
the bacteriological quality of solid waste, reliable methods
were established which are best suited to routinely measure,
under practical conditions, the bacteriological quality of
solid waste in and around waste processing areas. These methods
were not developed to be an all-inclusive battery of tests for
microorganisms in solid waste; rather, these methods test for
only a few of the possible microorganisms in the solid waste.
Three procedural lines of investigation were undertaken
in this effort: (1) to develop methods suitable for indicating
the sanitary quality of solid waste before and after processing
or disposal; (2) to develop methods suitable for determining
the efficacy of operational procedures in removing or destroying
the microorganisms; and, (3) to develop methods suitable
for indicating the health hazard of solid waste in which
pathogenic species may be present in small numbers. Methods
presented in this publication are ones for determining:
total viable bacterial cell number, total coliforms, fecal
coliforms, heat-resistant spores, and enteric pathogens,
especially Salmonella sp.
The determination of approximate total viable bacteria
multiplying at a temperature of 35 C may yield useful information
concerning the sanitary quality of a waste entering a processing
or a disposal site, and provide useful information in judging
-83-
-------
the efficiency of procedures employed in solid waste processing
and/or disposal operations.
The coliform bacteria have long been used in the United
States as indicators of fecal pollution in sanitary bacteriology.
Some members of the coliform group of organisms are found in
the feces of warm-blooded animals, in the guts of cold-blooded
animals/ in soils, and on many plants. Studies have shown that
warm-blooded mammal feces from humans/ animals/ or birds may
at any time contain disease-producing microorganisms. (105) It
was pointed out that cold-blooded animal feces are quantitatively
insignificant as a source of pollution/ but the coliform
bacteria from plants or soils that have the same significance
as those from feces; on the other hand, the coliform bacteria
deriving from soils or plants that have not been exposed to
recent fecal contamination has less public health significance.
The method for determining viable heat-resistant spore-
formers is used to detect spores that survive 80 C temperature
for as long as 30 minutes. With respect to survival under
heat stress/ most microorganisms in an actively growing (vegetative)
state are readily killed by exposures to temperatures of around
70 C for 1 to 5 minutes. (106) Cells inside of material such
as discarded meat products may resist heat longer because the
heat does not penetrate immediately into the center of solid
masses. Large masses of non-fluid solid matter require
-84-
-------
a long exposure time (1-1/2 to 2 hr) , even in an autoclave
(121 C) to be heated throughly so that the center reaches a
sporocidal temperature. Other reports (107) point out that
although internal air temperatures of municipal incinerators
usually range from 1200 to 1700 F (650 to 925 C) in continuous
operation, intermittent use, overcharging of the incinerator,
and high moisture content of the waste may slow the process
and interfere with sterilization of the residue.
Fecal pollution of the environment by untreated and
improperly disposed waste may add enteric pathogenic bacteria
to a body of water or a water supply. The most common type
of pathogen which may be found in untreated waste is Salmonella.
The wide distribution of the many types of Salmonella in
many species of animals with which man has contact or may
use as food makes it difficult to prevent transmission to
man. (108) Infections may occur through food, milk, or
water contaminated with infected feces or urine, or by the
actual ingestion of the infected animal tissues. (109) Salmonella
has been found in many water supplies (110), polluted waters
(111-113), raw municipal refuse and in incinerator residue (111-117)
General laboratory procedures, sample collection and
preparation procedures, and bacteriological examination
procedures for the organisms mentioned above can be found in
Appendix A-3.1.
Parasites
The FDA has recently prepared a methodology for Ascaris
determination in vegetable and sludge samples (118). The
-85-
-------
presence of Ascaris eggs, which exit from their host via the
feces, is of concern to EPA in sewage sludge. These eggs
are highly resistant to extreme temperatures, drying, and
chemical action, and have been known to remain alive in
digested sewage sludge for years. Ascaris methodology is
presented in Appendix A-3.3.
Viruses
Since evidence exists that viruses can survive secondary
waste treatment processes including terminal disinfection,
as well as the sludge digestion process, a method for determining
enteroviruses in solid waste is given. This method was developed
in an EPA study entitled "Evaluation of Health Hazards Associated
with Solid Waste Sewage Sludge Mixtures" (EPA contract No.68-
03-0128). (55) The method was employed by the Tennessee
Department of Public Health Laboratories in Nashville to
determine the presence of ECHO, Coxsackie, and Polio viruses.
The methodology, although given in a descriptive form in the
study, has been broken down into steps in Appendix A-3.2.
Since sampling procedures in the report were given for a specially
prepared windrow of solid wastes, they are not included in
Appendix A-3.2. Appendix A-3.1 should be consulted for sample
collection procedures.
Fungi
A method for identifying pathogenic fungi in solid waste
samples was developed in the same EPA report sited for virus
methodology, above. (12) Again, reference should be made to
Appendix A-3.1 for sampling procedures; the fungi methodology
is presented in Appendix A-3.4.
-86-
-------
3.14 REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water
Programs: Secondary Treatment Information.
Federal Register, 41(144): 30786-30789,
July 26, 1976.
Cooper, R.C. and C.G. Golueke. Public Health
Aspects of On-Site Waste Treatment. Compost
Science, 18(3): 8-11.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service, Center for Disease
Control of Biosafety, Classification of
Etiologic Agents on the Basis of Hazard.
Atlanta, Georgia, July 1974. 4th edition 13p.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Materials
Transportation Bureau. Hazardous Materials
Regulations: Interim Publication. Federal
Register, 41(229): 52086, November 26, 1976.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service. Code of Federal Regulations,
42(72.25): 457-459, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Thermal
Processing and Land Disposal of Solid Waste:
Guidelines. Federal Register 39(158); 29328-29338,
August 14, ^
Hanks, Thrift G. Solid Waste/Disease Relationships;
A Literature Survey. Public Health Service
Publication No. 999-UIH-6, Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office. 1967. 179p.
Morris, William, ed. The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language. Boston,
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976. 1550p.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Institutes of Health. Recombinant DNA
Research Guidelines: Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, Federal Register, 41(176): 38426-
38483, September 9, 1976.
-87-
-------
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Solid
Waste Management Glossary. Environmental
Protection Publication No. SW-108ts, Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 20p.
11. Block, S.S., J.C. Netherton, and J.B. Sharp. Non-
industrial Toxic and Hazardous Wastes. University
of Florida, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Final
Report. EPA grant No. R800189, 197_.
12. Ross Hofmann, Associates. A Study of Pneumatic
Solid Waste Collection Systems as Employed in
Hospitals. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA/530/SW-75C, 1974.
13. Iglar, A.F. and Bond, R.G. 1973 Hospital Solid Waste
Disposal in Community Facilities. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Develop-
ment. EPA-670/2-73-048. NTIS-PB-222-018.
14. Burchinal, J.C. and Wallace, L.P. 1971 A Study of
Institutional Solid Wastes. Department of Civil
Engineering, West Virginia University. 234p.
15. Esco/Greenleaf 1972 Solid Waste Handling and Disposal
in Multistory Buildings and Hospitals. Vol. 1 and
III from U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. Vol. II and IV from National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.
16. Litsky, W.; Martin, J.W.; Litsky, B.Y. 1972
Solid waste: a hospital dilemma. Am. J. Nurs.,
7_2, (Oct.), 1841-7.
17. Anonymous 1972c Canadian study shows that it's
cheap and safe to burn and dispose of infectious
wastes at the hospital. Modern Hospital, 119,
(Sept.), 53.
18. Anonymous 1972b When is infectious waste not
infectious waste? Hospitals, JAHA, 46, (iMay),
56, 60, 64, 65.
19. Bond, R.G. and Michaelson, G.S. 1964 Bacterial
Contamination from Solid Hospital Wastes. Report
on Study Performed under Research Grant EF 00007-
04. Minneapolis, Univ. of Minnesota, School of
Public Health, Aug. 1964.
20. Armstrong, D.H. 1969 Hospital Refuse-Chute
Sanitation. (M.S. Thesis) West Virginia University.
-88-
-------
21. Wallace, L.P.; Zaltzman, R.; Burchinal, J.C. 1972
Where solid waste comes from; where it should go.
Modern Hospitals, 118, (Feb.), 92-5.
22. Smith, R.J. 1970 Bacteriological Examination of
Institutional Solid Wastes. (M.S. Thesis) West
Virginia University.
23. Trigg, J.A. 1971 Microbial Examination of Hospital
Solid Wastes. (M.S. Thesis) West Virginia
University.
24. Oviatt, V.R. 1969 How to dispose of disposables.
Med.-Surg. Rev. Second Quarter, 1969, p. 58.
25. Small, W.E. 1971 Solid waste: please burn, chop,
compact, or otherwise destroy this problem.
Modern Hospital, 117, (Sept.), 100-10.
26. Fahlberg, W.G. 1973 The hospital (disposable)
environment. In Phillips, G.B. and Miller, W.S.
ed. Industrial Sterilization. Duke University
Press, Durham, NC. p. 399-412.
27. Salkowski, M.D. 1970 Disposal of Single-Use Items
from Health Care Facilities; Report of the Second
National Conference, Sept. 23-24, 1970.
28. Anonymous 1971b Plastic leachate found harmful.
Journal of Environmental Health, 34, (2), 196.
29, Paul, R.c. 1964 Crush, flatten, burn, or grind?
The not-so-simple matter of disposal. Hospitals,
JAHA, 3£, (1 Dec.), 99-101, 104-5
30. Walter, C.W. 1964 Disposables, now and tomorrow:
for the surgeon, many advantages, but still some
problems. Hospitals, JAHA, 38, (1 Dec.), 69, 70,
72. —
31. Mattson, G. 1974 Handling potentially dangerous
throwaways in Swedish hospitals. Solid Wastes
Management, 17, (2), 23, 46, 54.
32. Ostertag, H. and Junghaus, W. 1965 Use and
elimination of disposable linen in hospitals
and convalescent homes. Stadtehygiene, 16, (10)/
213-8 (Ger,).
-89-
-------
33. Peterson, M.L. 1974 Soiled disposable diapers—a
potential source of viruses. Am. J. Public
Health, 64_, (9) , 912-4.
34. Michaelson, G.S. and Vesley, D. 1966 Disposable
hospital supplies: some administrative and
technical implications. Hospital Management, 10^,
(Jan.), 23-8.
35. Baker, H.J. 1971 Unpublished paper. Cited in Iglar,
A.F. and Bond, R.G., Hospital Solid Waste Disposal
in Community Facilities. School of Public Health,
University of Minnesota.
36. Deschambeau, G.L. 1967 No more stray shots.
Modern Hospitals, 109, (Sept.), 80.
37. Hewer, C.L. 1971 Disposing of the undisposable.
British Medical Journal, 3_, (25 Sept.), 766.
38. Healy, J.J. 1965 Disposable hypodermic syringes and needles,
Journal of the American Medical Association, 191, (Jan.),
JL5J..
38a. Decker, W.M. and J.H. Steele. Health Aspects and
Vector Control Associated with Animal Wastes.
Management £f Farm Animal Wastes. Proceedings
National Symposium, May 5-7^1966; p. 18-20 St.
Joseph, Michigan, American Society of Agricultural
Engineers.
39. Beneson, Abram S., ed. Control of Communicable
Diseases in Man. American Public Health
Association, Harrisburg, Virginia, 1975.
40. Pomery, B.J., Siddiqui, Y., and Grady, M.K.
Salmonella in animal feeds and feed ingredients.
Proceedings of the National Conference on Salmon-
ellosis, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare,
74-77, 1964.
41. Steele, J.H. and Quist, K.D. Chain of infection-
animal to human. Proceedings of the National
Conference on Salmonellosis, U.S. Dept. of
Health, Education, and Welfare, 71-73, 1964.
42. Pike, Robert M. "Laboratory-associated Infections:
Summary and Analysis of 3921 cases," Health
Laboratory Science, vol. 13, No. 2, April 1976,
reprinted by U.S.Department of HEW, PHS.
-90-
-------
43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal
Sludge Management: Environmental Factors; Technical
Bulletin. Federal Register 22532-36, June 3, 1976.
42(211): 57420-27, November 2, 1977.
44. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Technology Transfer, Process Design Manual for
Sludge Treatment and Disposal. EPA Publication
No. 625/1-74-006. Washington, U.S. EPA,
October 1974.
45. Office of Solid Waste, Background Document for
§4004, P.L. 94-580: §257.4-5, Land Criteria,
June 24, 1977 (Draft.)
46. Love, G.L., Tompkins E. and Galke, W.A. "Potential
Health Impact of Sludge Disposal on Land" Nat.
Conf. on Sludge Management and Disp. (1975)
47. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, NCDC, PHS,
December 1976.
48. Malherbe, H.H.,-Cholemly, M. (Quantitiative Studies
on Viral Survival in Sewage Purification Process
49. Dupont, H.L. and Hornick, R.E., Clinical Approach
to Infectious Diarrheas. Med., 52(1973), 265.
50. Sepp. E. The Use of Sewage for Irrigation. A
Literature Review. Bureau of Sanitary Engineering,
California State Department of Public Health, 1963.
51. Kreuz, A. Hygienic Evaluation of the Agricultural
Utilization of Sewage. Gesundheitsing. 76:206-
211, 1955.
52. Kroger, E. Detection of S. Barelly in Sewage Sludge
and Vegetables from an Irrigation Field after
an Epidemic. & Hyg. Infektkr. 139:202-207, 1954.
53. Kabler, P. Removal of pathogenic microorganisms
by sewage treatment processes. Sewage and
Industrial Wastes 31:1373, 1959.
54. Cram, E.B., "The Effect of Various Treatment
Processes on the Survival of Helminth Ova
and Protozoan Cysts in Sewage." Sewage Works
Jour., 15, 6, 1119 (Nov. 1943).
-91-
-------
55. Gaby/ W.L. Evaluation of health hazards associated
with solid waste sewage sludge mixtures. EPA
Contract No. 68-02-0128.
56. Environmental Assessment of Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Sludge Utilization Practice"EPA
Contract No.68-01-3265.
57. Newton, W.L., Bennett, H.J., and Figgat, W.B.,
"Observations on the Effects of Various Sewage
Treatment Process upon Eggs of Taenia Saginata"
Amer. Jour. Hyg., 49, 164 (1949).
58. Pramer, D., Heukelekian, H., and Ragotzkie, R.A.,
"Survival of Tubercle Bacilli in Various Sewage
Treatment Processes. I. Development of a
method for the Quantitative Recovery of
Mycobacteria from Sewage." Pub. Health Rept. 65,
851, 1950.
59. Heukelekian, H., and Labanese, M., "Enumeration and
Survival of Human Tubercle Bacilli in Polluted
Waters. II. Effects of Sewage Treatment and
Natural Purification." This Journal, 28, 9. 1094
(Sept. 1956}
60. Jensen, K.E., "Presence and Destruction of Tubercle
Bacilli in Sewage." Bull. World Health Org., 10,
171 (1954)
61. Greenber, A.E., and Kupka, E. "Tuberculosis Trans-
mission by Waste Waters--A review." This
Journal, 29, 5, 524 (May 1957)
62. McKenney, N.E. Langley, H.E., and Tomlinson, H.D.
"Survival of Salmonella Typhosa During Anaerobic
Digestion." Sewage and Industrial Wastes Volume
31, 1959
63. Kenner, B.A. et al. Simultaneous quantitation
of Salmonella species and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
USEPA, NERC, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1971.
64. Rudolfs, W., Faulk, L.L., and Ragotzkie, R.A.
Literature Review on the Occurrence and Survival
of Enteric, Pathogenic, and Relative Organisms
in Soil, Water, Sewage, and Sludges and on
Vegetation. Sewage and Industrial Wastes. II
Animal Parasites 22: 1417-1427. 1950
-92-
-------
65. Clark, NA., et al., "Human Enteric Viruses in Water:
Source, Survival, and Removability." In Advances
in Water Pollution Research." Vol. 2, Pergamon
Press, London (1964).
66. England, B., et al., "Virological Assessment of
Sewage Treatment at Santee, California." In
"Transmission of Viruses by the Water Route."
G. Berg (Ed.), Interscience Publishers, New York,
N.Y. (1967).
67. Kelly, S.M., et al., "Removal of Enteroviruses from
Sewage by Activated Sludge." Jour. Water Poll.
Control Fed., 33, 1050 (1961).
68. Mack, W.N., et al., Entervorus Removed by Activated
Sludge Treatment. Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed.
34, 1133 (1962)
69. Lund, E., et al., "Occurrence of Enteric Viruses in
Wastewater after Activated Sludge Treatment."
Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed., 41, 169 (1969).
70. Clarke, N.A., et al., "Removal of Enteric Viruses
from Sewage by Activated Sludge Treatment."
Amer. Jour. Pub. Health, 51^1118 (1961).
71. Carlson, H.J., et al., "Effect of the Activated Sludge
Process of Sewage Treatment on Poliomyelitis Virus."
Amer. Jour. Pub. Health, 33, 1083 (1943).
72. Sproul, O.J. "Removal of Viruses by Treatment
Processes" Inter. Conf. on Viruses in Water,
Mexico City, WHO-PAHO 1974.
73. Kelly, S.M., Clark, M.E., and Coleman, M.B.,
"Demonstration of Infectious Agents in Sewage."
Amer. Jour. Pub. Health, 45, 1438 (1955)
74. Morrison, S.M., Martin, K.L. and Humble, D.E.
"Lime Disinfection of Sewage Bacteria at Low
Temperature" EPA Contract No. 660/2-73-017.
75. Wattie, E., and C.W. Chambers. Relative Resistance
of Coliform Organisms and Certain Enteric
Pathogens to Excess-lime Treatment. J. Amer.
Water Works Asso. 35:709-720, 1943.
-93-
-------
76. Amrami, A., "Agricultural Utilization of Sewage
and Public Health Problems." Tauriah (Israel).
1, 26 (Apr. 1957).
77. Anon., "Sewage in the Sea. 4: There is a Future
for Composting." Mun. Engr., P. 13 (1956)
78. Golueke, C.G., and Gotaas, H.B., "Public Health
Aspects of Waste Disposal by Composting."
American Journal Pub. Health, 44, 339 (Mar. 1954)
79. Gotass, H.B., "Composting—Sanitary Disposal and
Reclamation of Organic Wastes." WHO Mon. Ser. No.
31 (1956).
80. McCauley, R.F., "Recent Developments in the
Composting of Organic Wastes." Water and Sewage
Works, 103, 11, 522 (Nov. 1956).
81. Snell, J.R., "The Future of Composting." Proc. Loc.
Govt. Conf. on Refuse Disp. Methods, Univ. Pitts-
burgh, P. 74 (April 22-23, 1954).
82. Truman, H.A., "Disposal of Wastes—Composting."
New Zealand Inst. of Engrs., Proc., P. 35 (1948-9),
83. Wylie, J.zC., "Mechanized Composting." Inst. of
Pub. Cleansing, Pub. Works and Mun. Serv. Congr.,
18 pp. (Nov. 16, 1965).
84. Gotass, H.R. Composting - sanitary disposal and
reclamation of organic wastes. WHO Mono. Ser.
No. 31, 1956.
85. Berg, G., 1966. Virus Transmission by the Water
Vehicle II. Virus Removal by Sewage Treatment
Procedures, Health Library Science. 2(2), 90.
86. Hinesly, T.D., O.C. Braids, J.A.E. Molina, R.I.
Dick, R.L. Jones, R.C. Meyer, and L.Y. Welch,
1972a. Agricultural Benefits and Environmental
Changes Resulting from the Use of Digested Sewage
Sludge on Field Crops. Annual Report, University
of Illinois and City of Chicago, EPA Grant DO
l-Ul-00080, unpublished.
87. Dotson, G.K., "Constraints of Spreading Sewage
Sludge on Cropland. EPA-NERC pub. May 1973.
-94-
-------
88. Doran, J.W., Ellis, J.R., and McCalla, T.M. "Microbial
concerns when wastes are applied to Land" Proc.
1970, Cornell Ag. Waste Management Conference.
89. Dunlop, S.C., July 1968. Survival of Pathogens and
related disease hazards. Presented at the
Symposium on the Use of Sewage Effluent for Irri-
gation, Louisiana Polytechnic Institute, Huston,
Louisiana, July 1968.
90. Muller, G. "Investigations on the survival of
Ascaris eggs in garden soil," Zentralbl.
Bakteriol. 159:377 (1953).
91. Gudzhabidze, G.A. "Experimental observations on the
development and survival of Ascaris lumbricoides
eggs in soil of irrigated agricultural fields"
Med. Parazit., 28:578 (1959); Abst. Soviet Med.
4:979 (19601.
92. Hess, E., Lott, G., and Breer, C., "Klarschlamn and
Freilandbiologie von Salmonellen," Zentralbl
Bakteriol. Hyg., 1 Abt. Orign. B. 158 (1974), 446.
93. McCarty, P.L., and King, P.H., "The Movement of
Pesticides in Soils," Proc. 21st Ind. Waste Conf.,
Purdue Univ., Lafayette, Indiana, (1966), 156.
94. Rudolfs, W., Falk, LL., and Ragotzkie, R.A.,
"Contamination of Vegetables Grown in Polluted
Soil I. Bacterial Contamination Sew. Ind. Wastes.
23(1951), 253.
95. Martin, S., Annual Reports of the Medical Officer
of the Local Government Board (1897-1900).
96. Larkin, E.P., Tierney, J.T., and Sullivan, R.,
Persistence of virus on sewage-irrigated
vegetables. Jour. Env. Eng. Div., Proc. Amer.
Soc. Civil Eng., 1976, 102; 29-35
97. Cliver, D.O. "Surface Application of Municipal
Sludges." Proceedings on Virsus Aspects of
Applying Municipal Wastes to Land. Symposium
June, 1976, University of Florida.
98. Yoshida, S., "On the Resistance of Ascaris Eggs."
Jour. Parasit. 6, 132 (1920)
-95-
-------
99. Yoskida, S., "On the Development of Ascaris
Lumbricoides L" Jour. Parasit., 5, 105 (1919)
100. Brown, E.W., "Studies on the Rate of Development
and Viability of the Eggs of Ascaris Lumbricoides
and Trichuris Trichiura under Field Conditions."
Jour. Parasit., 14, 1 (1927)
101. Otto, G.F., "A Study of the Moisture Requirements
of the Eggs of the Horse, Dog, Human and the
Pig Ascarids." Am. Jour. Hyg., 10, 497 (1929)
102. Spindler, L.A., "On the Use of a Method for the
Isolation of Ascaris Eggs from Soil." Am. Jour.
Hyg., 10, 157 (1929)
103. Vassilkova, Z.G., "Evaluation of the Contamination of
Vegetables with Eggs of Helminths in Sewage Farms
with Different Methods of Cultivation." Med.
Parasit. and Parasitic Dis., Moscow, 10, 217
(1940); Trop. Dis. Bull., 40 318 (1943); Pub Health
Eng. Abs., 23, 11, 18 (1943)
104. Peterson, M.L. Methods for Bacteriological
Examination of Solid Waste and Waste Effluents
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publication
SW-68r.of, 1972, 30p.
105. Clark, H.F. and P.W. Kabler. Revaluation of the
significance of the coliform bacteria. Journal
of Am. Water Works Assoc., p. 931-936, 1964.
106. Frobisher, M. Fundamentals of microbiology. 6th
edition, p. 151, 152, 1957.
107. Barbeito, M.S. and G.G. Gremillion. Microbiological
safety evaluation of an industrial refuse
incinerator. Appl. Microbiology 16: 291 - 295,
1968
108. Dauer, Carl C. 1960 Summary of Disease outbreaks
and a 10-year resume. Public Health Report,
Vol. 76, No. 10, p. 915, Oct. 1961
109. Dubos, Rene. Bacterial and mycotic infections of
man. J.B. Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1958.
110. Weibel, S.R.F.R. Dixon, R.B. Weidner, and L.J.
McCabe. Waterborne-disease outbreaks 1946-1960.
J. Am. Water Works Association. Vol. 56, p. 947 -
58, August, 1964.
-96-
-------
111. Spino^D.F Elevated- temperature techniques for
from
112. Scarce, L.E. and M.L. Peterson. Pathogens in streams
tributary to the Great Lakes. In Proc. Ninth
Conf. on Great Lakes Res., March 28-30 1966,
- Public No* 15 An
113. Peterson, M.L. The occurrence of Salmonella in
streams draining Lake Erie Basin, in Proc
Tenth Conf. on Great Lakes Res., Apr? l5-12 1967
Toronto, p. 79. Ann Arbor, Univ. of Mich" '19 ll.'
. of Health, Education, and Welfare PHS
Communicable Disease Center, Laboratory branch,
Atlanta, Georgia, p. 1 - 39, September 1962
eva?Sa;io;L;f^d ^J' ftutzenberger. Microbiological
evaluation of incinerator operations. Appl.
Microbiological, Vol. 18, No.l, p. 8 - 13, 1969
117. Spino, D. Bacteriological study of the New Orleans
East incinerator. U.S. Environmental Pro?ectiSn
Agency. Office of Research and Monitoring? 1971.
118. Jackson, G'.J., j.w. Brer, W.L. Pavne T A f^rrM™
tsc?ri? Method^W. Chapter N?U977] I Bac?er£?'
logical Analytical Manulal. U.S. Pood and D?ug
Administration, Washington, 1977. (in press)
-97-
-------
DRA1
APPENDIX A-3
Methods for Biological Examination of Solid Waste*
A-3.1 Bacteriological Examination
A-3.2 Virological Examination
A-3.3 Determination of Ascaris spp. Eggs
A-3.4 Determination of Pathogenic Fungi
-------
A-3-1
METHODS FOR BACTERIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION
OF SOLID WASTE AND WASTE EFFLUENTS*
Mirdza L. Peterson
Germ* Laboratory fnctdum
Glassware washing.
All glassware known to contain infectious material must be sterilized by autoclaving before
washing. All glassware that is to be used in microbiological tests must be thoroughly washed before
sterilization, using a suitable detergent and hot water, and followed by hot water and distilled water
rinses. Six to 12 rinses may be required to remove all traces of inhibitory residues from the glass
Sterilization.
Dry heat is used for the sterilization .of glass, sampling bottles, foil-covered flasks, beakers,
graduates, pipettes packed tightly in sealed cans, or articles that are corrosively attacked be steam.
Recommended time-temperature ratio for dry heat sterilization is 170 C for 2 hr.
Saturated steam under pressure (or autoclaving) is the most frequently used sterilization method.
Media, dilution water, and materials (rubber, paper, cotton, cork, heat-stable plastic tubes, and
closures, for example) are sterilized by autoclaving at 121 C. Sterilization time for media and dilution
water (for volumes up to 500 ml) is 15 min; 1,000-ml quantities are held for 20 min, instruments
for 15 min, gloves for 20 min, and packs for 30 min (measured from the time the autoclave temper-
ature reaches 121 C).
Membrane filters are sterilized for 10 min at 121 C with fast steam exhaust at the end of the
sterilization process.
Heat-sensitive carbohydrates and other compounds are sterilized by pasvsji through a cellulose
either ibisau or Motim bacteria-retaining filter.
* rroa Phvaical. Ch«mie*lf and Microbiological Method, Qg
Solid waana Taitlna. n.«, PP&
-------
r^r% r
,. t>.h*S f :
Culture media.
The use of dehydrated media is recommended whenever possible, since these products offer the
advantages of good consistency from lot to lot, require less labor in preparation, and are more
economical. Each lot should be tested for performance before use.
Measurement of the final pH of a prepared culture medium should be accomplished colon-
metrically after autodaving and cooling. Acceptable pH range is 7.0 ± O.I.
Media should be stored in a cool, dry, and dark place to avoid dehydration, deterioration, and
adverse light effects. Storage in the refrigerator usually prolongs the shelf-life of most media. Media
should not be subjected to long periods of storage, because certain chemical reactions ma/ occur in
a medium even at refrigerator temperatures.
Many of the media referred to below can be obtained from commercial sources in a dehydrated
form with complete information on their preparation. These media will therefore be listed but not
described in this section. Described in this section are those media that are formulated from
ingredients or from dehydrated materials. Culture media (Difco or BBL products) are listed as
follows:
Bacto-agar
Bismuth sulfite agar
Blood agar
Brain heart infusion broth
Brilliant green agar
Brilliant green lactose bile, 2 percent
Coagulase mannitol agar
Dextrose
E. C. broth
Eosin methylene blue agar, Levine
Fluid thioglycollate medium
Gelatin
H-broth
Indole nitrite medium
KCN medium
-------
DRA
Lactose
Lactose tryptose broth
Lauiyl tryptose broth
Lysine decarboxylase medium
M-Endo broth
M-FC broth
MacConkey's agar
Malonate broth, Ewing modified
Maltose
Mannitol
Mannitol salt agar
Methyl red-Voges Proskauer medium
Nitrate broth
Nutrient agar
Phenol red broth base
Phosphate buffer, APHA, pH 7.2
Sabouraud's dextrose agar
Salmonella-Shigella agar
SBG enrichment broth
Selenite-F enrichment broth
SIM medium
Simmons citrate agar
Sucrose
Triple sugar iron agar
Ttypticase soy agar
Tryptone glucose extract agar
Urea agar base concentrate (sterile)
XLD agar
Culture media requiring preparation.
. Blood Agar: Suspend 40 g of trypticase soy agar in a liter of distilled water. Mix thoroughly.
tat with agitation and boil for 1 min. After solution is accomplished,, sterilize by autoclaving for
(Kin at 121 C. Cool agar to 45 to SO C, and add 5 to 7 percent sterile, defibrinated sheep blood,
being evenly throughout the medium. Four into sterile Petri dishes. After solidification, invert
foes and incubate overrate.
phenol Red Broth Base: Dissolve 15 g in a liter of distilled water. Add 5 to 10 g of desired carbo-
rdrate. Use Durham fermentation tubes for detection of gas formation. Arrange tubes loosely hi
(table containers and sterilize at 116 to 118 C for IS min.
phosphate Buffer Solution: To prepare stock phosphate buffer rotation, dissolve 34.0 g
Xassium dihydrogen phosphate, KH, PO4, in 500 ml distilled water, adjust to pH 7.2 with IN NaOH,
tt dilute to 1 liter with distilled water. Add 1.25 ml stock phosphate buffer solution to 1 liter
Willed water. Dispense in amounts that will provide 99 ± 2.0 ml or 9 ± 0.2 ml after autoclaving
121 C for 15 min.
-------
DRAs
Bacteriological Examination
COLLECTION AND PREPARATION OF SAMPLES
Method for Collection of Solid Waste or SemirSolid Waste Samples
Equipment and materials.
Necessary items are as follows:
1 . Sample containers, specimen cups, sterile, 200-ml size (Falcon Plastics, Los Angeles)
2. Sampling tongs, sterile (stainless steel, angled tips, 1 8 in. long)
3. Shipping container, insulated, refrigerated, 6 by 12 in. IJD.
4. Disposable gloves
Procedure.
1. Using sterile tongs, collect 20 to 40 random 100- to 200-g samples and place in sterile sampling
containers. When collecting samples from contaminated sources, wear disposable gloves and avoid
contaminating the outside of the container.
2, Identify samples on tag and indicate time and date of sampling. If incinerator residue samples are
taken, record operating temperatures of incinerator.
3. Deliver samples to laboratory. It is recommended that the examination be started preferably
within 1 hr after collection;* the time elapsing between collection and examination should in no
case exceed 8 hr.
Method for Collection of Liquid Samples-Quench and Industrial Waters or Leachate
Equipment and materials.
Necessary items include a screw-capped, 250-mi, sterfle sample bottle or a 16-oz, sterile plastic
bag.
Procedure,
Collect sample in bottle or plastic bag, leaving an air space in the container to facilitate mixing of
the sample before examination. When collecting samples from contaminated sources, wear disposable
gloves and avoid contaminating the outside of the container.
Identify and deliver samples to laboratory. When shipping samples to laboratory, protect con-
tainers from crushing and maintain temperature below IOC during a maximum transport time
of 6 hr. Examine within 2 hr. If water sample contains residual chlorine, a dechlorination agent
such as sodium thiosulfate is added to collection bottles to neutralize any residual chlorine and to
prevent a continuation of the bactericidal action of chlorine during the time the sample is in
transit to the laboratory. Enough sodium thiosulfate is added to the clean sample bottle before
sterilization to provide an approximate concentration of 100 mg per liter in the sample.
•If ample is shipped to a laboratory for analysis and examination cannot begin within 1 hr of collection, the
-------
DRAr
Method for Collection of Incinerator Stack Effluents
Equipment and materials.
Necessary items include an Armstrong portable sampler (2), equipped with sampling assembly
(Figure 1). The sampler is mounted on a steel plate (6 by 12 in.) and can be enclosed by a metal
cover with a handle attached. On one side of the base is a vacuum pump with a 6-ft cord and
switch. The pump is capable of drawing up to 1 cu ft per min of air (vacuum of 5.6 in. 1 1 4.3 cm] of
water). On the other side of the base, a 700-ml, wide-mouth, Pyrex bottle contains 300 ml of 0.067
M phosphate buffer solution (pH 7.2) prepared by standard methods (3). The two-hole rubber
stopper has a 1-in. (2.54 cm) piece of cotton-plugged glass tubing in one of the two holes. The
stopper, Bias* tube, and contents of the bottle are maintained sterile. The bottle is held to the
base plate by three removable spring clips, which are attached at the base and at a wire triangle
slipped over the top of the bottle. The sampling probe is made of stainless steel tubing of appropriate
diameter (e.g., 0.25-in. I.D. [0.64 cm]). The probe end has a right-angle bend so that the opening
faces the stack-gas current. The tubing must be long enough to reach all parts of the stack; The tubing
is coiled to permit additional cooling of the gases and is straight for I or 2 ft (30.48 or 60.96 cm) at
a right angle to the other straight length. Before use, the sampling probe is sterilized by dry heat
sterilization. It is important to keep the inside of the probe dry to minimize adsorption of micro-
organisms on the walls of the tubing. When sampling, the probe is inserted into the stack at locations
that will yield a representative sample. The other end of the sterile probe is inserted through the
sterile rubber stopper to approximately 0.5 in. (1.27 cm) above the buffered water. This is done to
reduce the frothing that would occur if the probe were inserted below the surface; enough froth
in capturing the microorganisms.
jocedure.
1. Draw stack effluent through the sterile stainless steel tube by a 1.0 cfm vacuum pump; cool
the tube with a water jacket.
2 Obtain a 10-cu-ft sample by drawing the stack effluent for 10 min.
3] Identify sample on tag and examine within 4 hr. The Armstrong portable sampler provides
a" method for qualitative, nonisokinetic sampling and is adjustable to isokinetic conditions.
Method for Collection of Dust Samples
Equipment and materials.
Necessary items include the following:
?|p Andersen sampler (4)
2. Trypticase soy agar containing 5 percent sheep blood (6 plates per sample)
3, Eosin methylene blue agar
froeedure.
I. Draw air through the sterile, assembled sampler at 1.0 cfm with a vacuum of 15 in. of mere
£ Remove agar plates from the sampler, cover, and incubate at 35 ±0.5 C. Use aseptic techniq
throughout the procedure.
-------
81
CARRYING CASE
6"
PHOSPHATE BUFFER
II
II
SAMPLING PROBE
FLOWMETER
VACUUM
PUMP
Q=
12'
Figure I. Portable sampler for microorganisms in incinerator stack emission.
-------
Method for Preparation of Solid and Semi-Solid Samples for Analyses
Equipment and materials.
Necessary items are as follows:
1. Cold phosphate buffer, 0.067 M, pH 7.2, sterile (3)
2. Blender, Waring (Model 1088), sterile
3. Balance, with weights, 500-g capacity
4. Tongs, sterile
5. Beakers, two, 5,000 ml and 1,000-ral sizes, sterile, covered with aluminum foil before sterili-
zation.
procedure.
\. Using aseptic technique, composite all random samples into a 5,000-ml beaker. Mix well.
2! Weigh 200 g of the subsample into a 1,000-ml beaker.
3. Transfer the weighed sample to a sterile blender.
4. Add 1,800 ml of sterile, phosphate buffered solution to the blender.
5] Homogenize for 15 sec at 17,000 rpm (5).
5* Prepare a series of decimal dilutions as described below in "Methods for Preparation of Decimal
Dilutions of a Solid, Semi-Solid, or Liquid Waste Material."
Solid waste and residue samples for enteric pathogenic bacteria are examined directly without homog-
•nization.
BACTERIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF WASTE AND RELATED MATERIALS
Method for Preparation of Decimal Dilutions of a Solid, Semi-Solid, or Liquid Waste Material
Immediately after homogenization of any sample (see procedure under Method for Preparation of
Solid and Semi-Solid Samples for Analyses) transfer a 1-ml portion of the homogenate (10M dil)
to a dilution bottle containing 99 ml of phosphate buffered solution. Stopper and shake the bottle
25 times.
Prepare dilutions as indicated in Figure 2. Again shake each dilution vigorously 25 times after
adding an aliquot of sample.
These dilutions are used to inoculate a series of selected culture media for the detection of various
groups of microorganisms as described in the following sections of this paper.
Methods for Total Viable Bacterial Cell Number
The chief cultural method for determining total viable bacterial densities has been the agar plate
method (3, 6, 7). Experience indicates that an enumeration of total number of viable bacteria
multiplying at a temperature of 35 C may yield useful information concerning the sanitary quality
of the waste entering a processing or a disposal site and provide useful information in judging the
efficiency of procedures used in solid waste processing and/or disposal operations. The viable
microbial count also provides valuable information concerning the microbiological quality of
nvironmental aerosols existing in or around a waste processing plant or a disposal site.
-------
Solid or semi- solid
waste sample
20(
QMS
Blend with
1800ml
buffered water
Liquid sample
90ml
buffered
water
99ml
buffered
water
99ml
buffered
water
Figure 2. Preparation of decimal dilutions.
-------
Equipment, materials, and culture media.
I. Pipettes, 1.1 ml with 0.1 ml and 1 ml graduations
2. Dilution blanks, phosphate buffered solution, 99 ml ± 1 ml (cold)
3. Culture dishes (100 x 15 mm), plastic, sterile
4. Water bath for tempering agar, 45 ± 1 C
5. Incubator 35 ± 0.5 C
6. Colony counter, Quebeck
7. Sterile glass spreader, bent rod
8. Trypticase soy agar with 7 percent defibrinated sheep blood (TSA + blood)
9. Tryptone glucose extract agar (TGE)
Prepare TGE agar as indicated on label and hold in a melted condition in the water bath (45 C).
Dissolve ingredients of TSA and heat to boiling. Sterilize by autoclaving at 121 C for 15 min.
Cool to 45 C and add sheep blood. Dispense in Petri plates and allow to solidify. Invert plates and
place them in incubator overnight to dry.
ocedure for bacterial count by pour plate.
Pipette 1 ml, 0.1 ml, or other suitable volume of the sample into each of appropriately marked,
Duplicate culture plates, being sure to shake each dilution bottle vigorously 25 times to resuspend
material that may have settled out
2. Add 10 to 12 ml of melted TGE agar to the sample in the Petri plate.
3. Mix dilution and the agar medium by rotating or tilting the plate.
4. Allow plates to solidify as rapidly as possible after pouring.
5. Invert plates and incubate them at 35 C ± 0.5 C for 24 ± 2 hr.
6. Count all colonies using Quebeck colony counter, the objective being to count plates with
30 to 300 colonies.
7. Compute the colony count per gram of waste (wet weight) or related solid material, and per
100 ml of water. The number of bacteria should not include more than two significant figures.
Procedure for bacterial count by streak plate.
1. Dispense 0.1 ml samples of the serially diluted homogenate (or liquid) on the surface of each
of appropriately marked, duplicate TSA + blood agar plates.
2. Using a sterile glass spreader and starting with the highest dilution plates, spread the inoculum
evenly over the agar surface.
3. Invert plates and incubate them at 35 C for 24 hr ± 2 hr.
4. Count the number of colonies on plates with 30 to 300 colonies.
5. Select and mark colonies for further testing.
-------
Methods for Presence of Members ofColiform Group
The presence of fecal matter in "waste and related materials is determined by the standard tests
for the coliform group described in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste
Water (3). The completed Most Probable Number (MPN) procedure is employed, The testing method
includes the elevated temperature test (44.5 C) that indicates the fecal or nonfecal origin of
cohform bacteria. Comparative laboratory studies conducted showed that the MPN estimate is the
most suitable method for achieving a representative enumeration of the coliform organisms in solid
waste and waste effluents (9). ...
Equipment and materials.
1. Pipettes, sterile-deliveries to 10 ml, 1 ml (1.1 ml), and 0.1 ml
2. Media prepared in fermentation tubes: f
Lauryl tryptose broth
Brilliant green lactose bile broth, 2 percent
Lactose tryptose broth
E.G. broth
3. Media for plating:
Eosin methylene blue ngur plates
Nutrient agar slants
4. Dilution blanks, phosphate buffer solution, sterile, 99-mi or 90-ml amounts
5. Incubator, adjusted to 35 C ± 0.5 C
6. Water bath, adjusted to 44.5 C ± 0.2 C
Procedure for total coliform group.
Presumptive Test.
1. Inoculate a predetermined volume of sample into each of 5 lauryl tryptose broth tubes. The por-
tions of the sample used for inoculation should be decimal multiples and submultiples of 1 ml.
2. Incubate the fermentation tubes at 35 ± 0.5 C for 24 i 2 hr.
3. Examine for the presence of gas. If no gas is formed, incubate up to 48 ± 3 hr. Record the
prsscr.ci or absence of gas formation at each examination of the tubes, regardless of the amount.
Confirmed Test.
1. Submit all presumptive test tubes showing any amount of gas at the end of. 24- and 48-hr
incubation to the confirmed test. Using a sterile platinum loop 3 mm in diameter, transfer one loop-
fui of medium from, the presumptive test fermentation tube to a fermentation tube containing
brilliant green lactose bile broth.
2. Incubate the inoculated brilliant green lactose bile broth tube for 48 ±3 hr at 35 ± 0.5 C.
The presence of gas in any amount in the fermentation tube of the brilliant green lactose bile
broth within 48 ± 3 hr indicates a positive confirmed test.
-------
r •:>•
T t
Completed Test.
1. Submit all confirmed test tubes showing any amount of gas to the completed test. Streak an
eosia msthylene blue agar plate from each brilliant green bile broth tube as soon as possible after
the appearance of gas.
2. Incubate the plates at 35 ± 0.5 C for 24 ±2 hr.
3. Fish one or more typical or atypical colonies from plating medium to lactose tryptose broth
fermentation tubes and nutrient agar slants.
4. Incubate the broth tubes and the agar slants at 35 ± 0.5 C for 24 ± 2 hr or 48 ± 3 hr if gas is
not produced in 24 hr.
5. Prepare gram stained smears from the nutrient agar slants if gas is produced in any amount
from lactose broth.
6. Examine smears under oil immersion. If typical coliform staining and morphology are found
on the slant, the test may be considered completed and the presence of coliform organisms demon*
strated.
Procedure for fecal coliform group (E. C broth).
1. Submit all gas positive tubes from the Standard Methods presumptive test (lauryl tryptose
broth) to the fecal coliform test. Inoculate an E. C. broth fermentation tube with a 3-mm loop of
broth from a positive presumptive tube.
2. Incubate the broth tube in a water bath at 44.5 ± 0.2 C for 24 hr. AH E. C. tubes must be
laced in the water bath within 30 min after planting.
Gas production in the E. C. broth fermentation tubes within 24 hr ± 2 hr is considered a posi-
ve reaction indicating fecal origin.
Computing and recording most probable number (MPN).
The calculated estimate and the 95 percent confidence limits of the MPN described in the
13th edition of Standards Methods for Examination of Water and Waste Water (3) are presented in
Table 1. This table is based on five 10-ml, five 1.0-ml, and five 0.1-ml sample portions.When the series
of decimal dilutions such as 1.0, 0.1, and 0.01 ml are planted, record 10 times the value in jthe table;
if a combination of portions of 0.1, 0.01, and 0.001 ml are' planted, record 100 times the value in
the table. MPN values for solid samples are calculated per g of wet weight; MPN for liquid samples
are recorded per 100 ml.
Method to Determine the Presence of Viable Heat-Resistant Spore Number
Equipment and materials.
1. Test tubes, sterile, screw capped, 20 x 150 mm
2. Pipettes, sterile, graduated, 10-ml
3. Water bath, electrically heated, thermostatically controlled at 80 ± 0.5 C, equipped with
thermometer (range 0 to 110 C), NBS certified. Volume of water should be sufficient to absorb
cooling effect of rack of tubes without drop in temperature greater than 0.5 C.
4. Test tube support for holding tubes
-------
TABLE 1.
MPN INDEX AND 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LIMITS FOR
VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE RESULTS
WHEN FIVE 10-ML PORTIONS, FIVE 1-ML PORTIONS, AND FIVE
0.1-ML PORTIONS ARE USED.*
No. of Tubes Giving
Positive Reaction out of
5 of 10
ml Each
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
mm
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5 of 1
ml Each
0
0
I
2
0
0
1
1
2
0
o
w
i
A
1
2
3
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
0
0
1
1
1
2
5 of O.I
ml Each
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
&
o
w
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
I
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
MPN
Index
per
100 ml
<2
2
2
4
2
4
4
6
6
5
7
r
9
9
12
8
11
11
14
14
17
17
13
17
17
21
26
22
95% Con-
fidence Limits
Lower
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
i
4
1
A
2
2
3
1
2
2
4
4
5
5
3
5
5
7
9
7
Upper
7
7
11
7
11
11
15
15
13
17
* /
21
21
28
19
25
25
34
34
46
46
31
46
46
63
78
67
No. of Tubes Giving
Positive Reaction out of
5 of 10
ml Each
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5 of 1
ml Each
2
3
3
4
0
0
0
1
I
I
t
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4.
5
5
5
5
5
5
5 of 0.1
ml Each
1
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
5
MPN
Index
per
100ml
26
27
33
34
23
31
43
33
46
63
49
70
94
79
110
140
180
130
170
220
280
350
240
350
540
920
1600
52400
95% Con-
fidence Limits
Lower
9
9
11
12
7
11
15
11
16
21
17
23
28
25
31
37
44
35
43
57
90
120
68
120
180
300
640
Upper
78
80
93
93
70
89
110
93
120
150
130
170
220
190
250
340
500
300
490
700
850
1,000
750
1,000
1,400
3,200
5,800
'Source: Staiuhnl MetJtotJs fur the Examination of Water and Wauewuter. 13th cii.
Published, 1971. p. 673. Reproduced by permiuion. American Public Health Akocution.
American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation.
-------
1. Transfer 10 ml from each original sample and from each successive dilution thereof to screw-
capped test tubes, being careful to avoid contaminating the lip and upper portion of tube with
sample.
2. Place tubes in a rack.
3. Place rack of tubes in water bath at 80 C for 30 min. Tubes should be immersed so that the
water line is approximately l'/i in. above the level of samples in the tubes.
4. At the end of the 30-min holding period, remove the rack of tubes from the water bath and
place in cold water for 5 min to cool.
5. Determine viable heat-resistant spore count by agar pour-plate method (see, Procedure for
Bacterial Count by Pour Plate under Methods for Total Viable Bacterial Cell Number).
6. Report results as "viable heat-resistant spore count per gram."
Methods to Detect, Enteric Pathogenic Bacteria
Equipment, materials and media.
I. Incubator, 37 C
2c Water baths, constant temperature, 39.5 C and 41.5 C
Flasks, wide-mouth, 500-ml
Membrane filter holder
Flasks, vacuum, 2,000-ml
xj. Balance, with weights, 100-g capacity
7. Needle, inoculating _
8. Media and reagents"'
Selenite brilliant green/sulfa enrichment broth
Selenite F enrichment broth
Eosin methylene blue (EMB) agar
Salmonella-Shigella (SS) agar
Bismuth sulfite (BS) agar
McConkey's agar
Brilliant green (BG) agar
Triple sugar iron (TSI) agar
Urea medium
XLD agar
Salmonella antiserums
Shigella antiserums
Biochemical media (IS)
9. Diatomaceous earth (Johns-Manville, Celite SOS), sterile
Procedure to detect pathogens in solid waste and incinerator residue.
1 Add a previously weighed, 30-g sample to each of two flasks containing 270 ml Selenite F
enrichment broth, and also to each of two flasks containing 270 ml Selenite brilliant green/sulfa
'SBG) enrichment broth. Sliakc to mix.
Incubate one Selenite F and one SBG flask at 39.5 C and the other two at 41.5 C for 16 to
,3 hr.
-------
Solid wait* or residua
Sample 30 gms
SolonitoF
270ml
VDC
Selenite brilliant
Or««n/Sulfa270ml
I
Incubate at 39.5 C and 41.5 C
SS
Agar
I I
BS BG
Agar Agar
•4 plates each—-
I
MacConkey's
Agar
Incubate at 37 C
TripU Sugar Iron ogar
I
Uroo medium (Chr8t»>m«n)
I
|2- to 4-hour reading of urea medium )
*
Prefect
group
1
(R*incwbal» n«gativ«
ur«a mvdium)
(TSI agar)
Salmonella polyvaUnt
antisorums
I
1
5hig»llo polyvalent antUarwmi
Salmon»//a polyvaUnt antiwrumi
+
Identify ••rolog<*
icolly; confirn
blechomically.
Do biochemical
te»t$.
I
I
Identify »erologically;
confirm biochemically.
1
Do biochemical
tostt.
I
If not readily identifiable,
proceed to biochemical tests.
Figure 3. Isolation and preliminary identification.
14
-------
TABLE 2. DIFFERENTIATION OF ENTEROBACTERIACBAE BY BIOCHEMICAL TESTS.
TEST or SUBSTRATE
INMIL
tlt.TNYl.IH>
VOCES -PIOSCAUCI
SWMOKf* CITIATS
•VDftOGEN WtnU (IB)
llEAiC
•CM .
UOTIt-ITY
OCLATIN (MO
L1TMIC OrCUXUYLAK
ACCtMBiC DfOTMOLASt
OtJlTHIKe PECA«WX«.*«
PKiJfYUILAfrB'C OFAMMASC
tuLMATC
C«5 riOM CttCOM
LACTOSC
sucaosc
MANDITOL
PULCnrOL
»AUCUI
AMKITOL
omnw.
nunot
ABAUHOX
•ArnMX
UAUHOSC
EsaiEmaiiEAE
.-*
4
<•
-
-
-
-
-
*«t-
-
d
d
d
-
-
4
4
d
4-.
d
d
.
-
*
*
d
d
-
~» 4
4
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[-M
din
-
-
-«"
.««»
.<«
+ •-
d
-
.
-
d
d
, d
d
EDWARD
SIELLEAE
—
4
4
-
4
-
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ti «. M inml «» ••» M«llfc» It 1 • 1 1..*. ..Mu>
SALMONELUAE
«-~
•
4
•
A
t
•
•
*
4
(*)«*
*
•
-
«•
-
-
4'
4*1
-
-
d
4
4l»
-
*
-
4
-
4
4
-
+
w
*
*••(*)
4
-
*
*
d
-
4-
•
•
-
-
4
4
-
*•
A (.*«•« IMMM HMH
,^.
•
4
-
4
4«.
d«
4
4
-
-
d
d
-
d
*
d
d
,
d
d
.
-
4
4
d
*
KLEBSIELLEAE
ri»t«i>M>
• •»
•
4
4
-
4
4
•
-
»
-
*
-
*
*
*
4
4
•«r*
4>
*•»-
4-
*•
4
4
*
r-.»i^«
—
-
-
4
4
-
».-
»
4
M--
-
4
4
-
*—
+
*
*
4
..4
4«W
•«4
d
4
*
*
*
-~
•
•
4
4
-
-
4
4
--<*»
4
-
4
-
t W.
*
4
4
4
•
4
•4
4
4
4
*
*
I*...
ne
-
*••• -
*«-
M«"
-
-
4
4
-
-
4-
— M
d
-
d
•
-
-
*
-
*
IIC
-
-
+
d
-
-
4
-
4
-
-
4--
-*w
d
-
d
-
-
.
*
-
+ •
l«*M-«»i» 4
^t
ttc
•
4« -
-«4
*
•
4
d
*•»-
-
•
-
d
•4
-
4
'd
4
4
4
*
-
uc
•
4«I -
4
-
-
+
+
4
-
-
-
<*>
4
*
d
4
' *
.#
*
-
*«*.
-
4
4
-
d-
4
»
4
•
-
•
—w
4
-
4
d
d
4
.
-
-
• -*-•*• MUM
J-.rt.Ur**
tic
•••*
-M*
d
•
d-
4--
•*—
4-(»)
*
• « 4
-
-
-W4
•«+
d
*
*
-
4
.
-
-
*
*«w
d
PROTEF.AE
f'Utt*
4
-
d
4
4
4
4
4«<*>
•
-
-
4
-
4«-
-
*
.
d
*
*•
.
.
-
•
.-.,-..
•
-«4
+ -(*)
4
4
4
4
4
•
-
4
4
-
4
-
d
.
d
.
-
.
.
-
-
4
-
-
-
4
4
4
-
-
-
4
4
-
d
-
*
.
.
.
.
.
.
•
-
ttttftn
4
-
4
-
4
,
4
-
-
*
.
4
-
-» 4
-
d
.
d
d
4
d
.
-
4«r >
*.«*.«<
• MlltfMWM
4 .
4
-
4
-
-
4
4
-
-
-
-
4
•
4«r -
-
d
.
.
4
*
.
• .
-
-
4
4
-
4
-
-
4
4
-
-
-
.
4
•
-
-
d
d
.
.
.
4
d
.
•
-
•Source: Identification of t'nterobaetrriaceae by P-R- Edwards and W.H. Ewing. Thltd edition. 1972. p. 24. Reproduced by pentiUdtm.
-------
J9 >4
* ?,«>• - * -: « ••'
W ift A3 3
3. After incubation, streak one loopful from each enrichment medium on each of four plates of
Salmonella-Shigella and other selective enteric media.
4. Incubate the plates at 37 C for 24 to 48 hr and pick suspicious colonies to triple sugar iron
agar slants.
5. Incubate the slants at 37 C for 24 hr and complete identification by appropriate methods as
described by Edwards and Ewing (20). Isolation, preliminary identification, and biochemical testing
are described in Figure 3 and in Table 2.
Procedure to detect pnthcsstis in quench or Industrial waters and in leachate.
1. Place enough sterile diatomaceous earth on the screen of a stainless steel membrane filter
holder to form a 1-in. layer.
2. Filter 800-ml sample through the earth layer.
3. Remove one-half the diatomaceous earth layer with a sterile spatula and place into 90 ml of
Selenite F enrichment broth; place other half of the earth layer into 90 ml of Selenite brilliant
green/sulfa enrichment broth. Shake both flasks to mix.
4. Incubate both flasks in a water bath at 39.5 C for 16 to 18 hr.
5. Proceed as directed in steps 3 through 5 of Procedure to Select Pathogens in Solid Waste and
Incinerator Residue.
Method for Examination of Stack Effluents ~~
"" °f "" "toocuu"«1" """"h". b«ffer»l»tkmtlm,u1Ih,0.45B HA men*™.
: MSISS^
•
Method for Examination of Dust
"•""• **** 1"taobial —•-*•*.«- — ^
-------
REFERENCES
.. Hanks, T.G. Solid waste/disease relationships. U. S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service Publ. No. 999-UIH-6, Cincinnati, National Center for Urban and Indus-
trial Health, 1967.
2. Armstrong, D.H. Portable sampler for microorganisms in incinerator stack emissions. Applied
Microbiology, 19 (1): 204-205, 1970.
3. American Public Health Association. Standard methods for the examination of water and
waste water. New York, American Public Health Association, 1971. :
4. Andersen, AJL New sampler for the collection, sizing and enumeration of viable airborne
particles. Journal of Bacteriology, 76:471-484, 1958.
5. Peterson, M.L. and FJ. Stutzenberger. Microbiological evaluation of incinerator operations.
Applffl Mirmhinlngv lflnV.8-13. 1969. -•
o. American Public Health Association, Inc. Standard methods for the examination of dairy
products microbiological and chemical New York, American Public Health Association, Inc.
1960.
7. Harris, A.H., and M.B. Coleman. Diagnostic procedures and reagents..New York, American
Public Health Association, Inc. 1963.
8. Clark, H.F., and P.W. Kabler. Revaluation of the significance of the coliform bacteria. Journal
of American Water Works Association, 56:931-936,1964.
9. Smith, L., and MJL Madison. A brief evaluation of two methods for total and fecal coliforms
in municipal solid waste and related materials. Cincinnati, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Environmental Research Center. Unpublished data, 1972.
10. Frobisher, M. Fundamentals of microbiology, 6th ed. Philadelphia, W. B. Saunden Co., 1957.
p. 151-152.
Barbeito, M. S. and G.G. Gremillion. Microbiological safety evaluation of an industrial refuse
incinerator. Applied Microbiology, 16:291-295, 1968.
i z. Dauer, Carl C. 1960 Summary of disease outbreaks and a 10-year resume. Public Health Report,
76, no. 10, Oct. 1961. p 915.
13. Dubos, Rene. Bacterial and mycotic infections of man. Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott, 1958.
14. Weibel, S. R., F.R. Dixon, R.B. Weidner, and LJ. McCabe. Waterborne-disease outbreaks
1946-1960, Journal of the American Water Works Association, 56:947-958, Au*. 1964.
15. Spino, D.F. Elevated-temperature techniques for the isolation of Salmonella from.streams.
Applied Microbiology, 14:591, 1966.
16. Scarce, L.E. and M.L. Peterson. Pathogens in streams tributary to the Great Lakes. In:
Proceedings; Ninth Conference on Great Lakes Research, Chicago, March 28-30, 1966.
Public No. 15. Ann Arbor, Univ. of Mich., 1966. p. 147.
17. Peterson, M.L. The occurrence of Salmonella in streams draining Lake Erie Basin. In: Proceed-
ings; Tenth Conference on Great Lakes Research, Toronto, Apr. 10-12,1967, Ann Arbor, Univ.
of Mich., 1967. p. 79.
18. Peterson, M.L. and AJ. Kie*. Studies on the detection of salmonellae in municipal solid
waste and incinerator residue. International Journal of Environmental Studies, a: 125-132,1971.
19. Spino, D. Bacteriological study of the New Orleans East Incinerator. Cincinnati, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, National Environmental Research Center, 1971.
20. Edwards, P.R. and WJi Ewing. Identification of Enterobacteriaceae. Minneapolis, Burgess
Publishing Co., 1972.
-------
A-3.2 METHOD for VIROLOGICAL EXAMINATION of SOLID WASTE
1. Place 2 g of sample in flask containing 20 ml of
cold, sterile distilled water and glass beads.
2. Vigorously shake flask.
3. Pour contents into sterile centrifuge tube.
4. Clarify suspension by centrifugation in a refrigerated
centrifuge (4 C) at 1500 rpra for 20 minutes.
5. Pour off supernate and recentrifuge for 1 hr. at
3000 rpm.
6. Remove clear supernate from sediment.
7. Add an antibiotic solution to give a final concentration
per ml of 1000 units of penicillin and 1000 ug of
streptomycin.
8. Hold sample at room temperature for 30 rain.
9. Inoculate sample into 3 tubes of primary monkey
kidney cells (e.g. African Green).
10. Inoculate sample also into 3 tubes of Hep 2 cells.
11. Incubate tubes in roller drum at 98.6 F (37 C) for
8 to 9 days.
12. Observe cell cultures daily for virus activity.
-------
A-3.3 DETERMINATION OF ASCARIS spp. EGGS in SOLID WASTE
1. Materials
1.1 Balance: 10 g *- 1 kg capacity.
1.2 Beakers: 150 ml & 600 ml
1.3 Bottle: 125 ml, Wheaton.
1.4 Bottle shaker.
1.5 Brush: B-8695 Scientific Products.
1.6 Centrifuge: rotor radius 14.6 cm.
1.7 Centrifuge tubes: 15 ml and 50 ml.
1.8 Cheesecloth: FSN 8305-00-205-3496.
1.9 Counter: differential
1.10 Culture dish: with 2 mm grid.
1.11 Inverted microscope
1.12 Pipettes: Pasteur type and 5 ml serological.
1.13 Rubber bulb: ca. 2 ml
1.14 Tray: round, 10.5 inches diameter, 3 inches high
e.g., Beckman Instrument Co. 82-018.
2. Reagents
2.1 Saline: 0.85% NaCl in HjO.
2.2 Nacconol: 0.4% of concentrate in H20
2.3 Hydrochloric acid: 2% solution in H20.
2.4 Solvent: alcohol:acetonerxylene in 1:1:2 ratios.
3. Sample Preparation
3.1 Vegetable Samples
3.1.1 The sample size for vegetables is 1 kg.
Leafy vegetables occuring in heads (cabbage, lettuce
-------
etc.) are first separated into individual leaves.
3.1.2 Dispense 250 ml of the nacconol solution
into the tray.
3.1.3 Individual vegetables are placed in the
tray, and thoroughly scrubbed with the brush.
3.1.4 Allow the vegetable to drain for 10 seconds
and then set aside.
3.1.5 Steps 3.1.2 & 3.1.3 are repeated until the
entire sample is washed; nacconol solution is replaced
as necessary.
3.1.6 Pour the contents of the tray into a 600 ml
beaker.
3.1.7 Rinse the tray 3 times with 25 ml of the
nacconol solution and add each rinse to the beaker.
3.1.8 Distribute the suspension into 50 ml centrifuge
tubes.
3.1.9 Rinse the beaker 3 times with 10 ml nacconol
solution, then add each rinse to the centrifuge tubes or
to an additional centrifuge tube.
3.2 Sludge Samples
3.2.1 Weight out 10 g of sludge and add it to 90
ml of saline in the 125 ml bottle.
3.2.2 Place the bottle on the shaker; shake
vigorously for 5 minutes (the speed control of an
International Size-2 Shaker ( International Equipment
Company, Model 2) is set at the midpoint).
3.2.3 Pour the suspension through 1 layer of wet
cheesecloth into a 150 ml beaker.
-------
3.2.4 Rinse the bottle 3 times with 5 ml saline
and add each rinse to the beaker.
3.2.5 Transfer the contents of the beaker to
seven 15 ml centrifuge tubes.
3.2.6 Rinse the beaker 3 times with 5 ml of
saline and add each rinse to the centrifuge tubes.
Centrifugation Procedure
4.1 Centrifuge the tubes collected in 3.1 and/or 3.2
at 2,000 rpm (radius 14.6 cm) for 4 minutes.
4.2 Remove and discard the supernatant.
4.3 Add 2 ml of saline to each tube.
4.4 Combine the sediments into one tube using a Pasteur
pipette to transfer the sediment and to rinse each tube
3 times with 2 ml of saline. Each rinse is also added
to the collecting tube.
4.5 When the collecting tube is full, it is balanced
with a blank, centrifuged at 2,000 rpm for 4 minutes;
supernatant is discarded. Repeat if necessary.
4.6 Add saline to the 15 or 50 ml graduation mark on
the collecting tube and resuspend the sediment; centrifuge
at 2,000 rpm for 4 minutes.
4.7 Discard the supernatant; add 2 ml of saline and
resuspend the sediment.
4.8 Transfer the suspension to the culture dish; rinse
the tube 3 times with 2 ml of saline and add each rinse
to the culture dish. Add 8 ml of the 2% hydrochloric
acid to the dish (to prevent mold growth) and cover the
dish.
-------
5. A Warning
Ascaris app. ova are infective to humans. Areas which
become contaminated should be wiped with the solvent
solution*
6. Viability Determination
6.1 Culture dishes from step 4.8 are allowed to incubate
at room temperature (ca 24 C) for 3 weeks.
6.1 Check the fluid levels in the culture dishes twice
weekly; a depth of 3 ma should be maintained by addition
of H2).
7. Microscopic Examination
7.1 Systematically search the bottom of the dish with
the aid of an inverted microscope, using the grid
markings as guides.
7.2 With American Optical 1810 equipment 24X objective
and 10X eyepieces, the 2 no grid width is just spanned.
7.3 Count the embryonated and the unembryonated eggs
with the differential counter.
7.4 Ascaris spp. eggs are usually 60 to 70 urn long and
40 to 50 mm wide; the outer covering, a rough albuminous
coat, is often yellowish brown in color; beneath the
coat there is a thick layer of clear shell. If the
center of the egg is amorphous orslightly granular,
the egg was not fertilized and will not develop. An
organized center indicates a fertilized egg. With
-------
incubation (step 6 above), fertilized eggs develop into
embryonated eggs which contain a second-stage nematode
larva in a cuticular sheath. Types of Asearis spp.
eggs are illustrated in the following references.
References
8.1 Faust, B.C. Beaver, P.C., Jung, R.C. 1968. Animal
Agents and Vectors of Human Disease. Lea and Febiger,
Philadelphia.
3.2 Markell, E.K. and Voge, M. 1971. Medical Parasitology,
Saunders, W.B., Philadelphia.
-------
A-3.4 METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING PATHOGENIC FUNGI IN SOLID WASTE
1. ""^Sample Preparation
1.1 Add 5 g of composite sample to 100 ml of sterile
physicological saline (0.85% salt solution).
1.2 Shake to suspend sample.
1.3 Separate supernatant and centrifuge at 2500 rpm for
15 min.
1.4 Decant supernatant
1.5 Thoroughly mix sediment and add to sterile
screw cap vials containing 10,000 units of penicillin
and 10 mg of streptomycin.
1.6 Allow suspension to stand at room temperature
for 20 min.
2. Swiss Mice Inoculation
2.1 Inoculate three white Swiss mice (4 to 6
weeks of age)intraperitoneally with 0.5 ml of concentrated
sediment.
2.2 At the end of 3 weeks sacrifice mice.
2.3 Remove liver and entire spleen and place in
sterile petri dish.
2.4 Mince tissues.
2.5 Use small portions of minced tissues to
inoculate two tubes of Sabouraud's agar and two tubes of
Sabouraund's agar containing 0.5 mg of Actidione
(cycloheximide) per ml and 0.05 mg of chloromycetin per
liter.
-------
2.6 Incubate cultures for 4 weeks, making weekly
examinations (make smears of suspicious colonies;
identify fungi by cultural characteristics.)
3. Actidione and chloromycetin inoculation
3.1 Prepare two tubes of Sabouraud's agar and two
tubes of Sabouraud's agar containing 0.5 mg Actidione
per ml and 0.05 g of chloromycetin per liter.
3.2 Inoculate with a small portion of concentrated
sediment.
3.3 Incubate all tubes at 25 C and examine weekly.
3.4 At the end of 6 weeks make smears of suspicious
colonies and identify by cultural characteristics.
-------