PROGRAM FOR THE MANAGEMENT
OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
CONTRACT NO. 68-01-0762
FINAL REPORT
JULY 1
O Batteiie
Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Richland, Washington 99352
-------
PROGRAM FOR THE MANAGEMENT
OF
HAZARDOUS WASTES
for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
CONTRACT NO. 68-01-0762
FINAL REPORT
July 1973
BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE
PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORIES
P.O. Box 999
Richland, Washington 99352
TWs report wa. prepared tor the U.S. Environ'
mental Protection Agency and l» issued as sub-
mitted by the Contractor, issuance does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environment-
•I Protection Agency, nor does mention of com.
merclai products constitute endorsement of
recommendation tor use by the u. S, Gov't.
-------
ii
-------
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report has been prepared by Battelle Memorial Institute,
Pacific Northwest Laboratories over the period September 1,
1972 to March 1, 1973 under Contract No. 68-01-0762 with the
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
Assistance was provided by a number of the Battelle-Columbus
staff including G. S. Stacey, N. L. Drobny, J. E. Flinn, H.
Nack, D. E. Manty, P. W. Lerro, K. M. Duke, J. S. Lawson,
and J. L. Moore. Mr. J. Dowd of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey,
Cincinnati, Ohio, provided input in the review of legislation.
Assistance was also obtained under subcontract from the Dow
Chemical Company (Dr. James P. Flynn) of Midland, Michigan,
and from Envisors Inc. (Mr. R. D. Vaughan and Dr. C. J.
Touhill) of Rockville, Maryland. The contributions from all
are gratefully acknowledged.
In addition to independent work, material has been drawn from
prior and concurrent work conducted by Booz-Allen Applied
Research, TRW Systems Group, and Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
also under contract to the Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs.
Battelle-Northwest staff participating included G. W. Dawson,
J. G. Droppo, the late W. A. Haney, P. L. Hendrickson, G.
Jansen, B. W. Mercer, D. F. Newman, G. F. Schiefelbein, K.
J. Schneider, A. J. Shuckrow, D. D. Tillson, and W. K.
Winegardner. W. H. Swift served as program manager.
The secretarial efforts of Ms. Bobbi Lyons, Shirley Rose,
Chris Jacobsen, Sheree Whitten, Jan Greenwell, Loretta
Howard, Diane Larson, Velva Harris, Charlene Miller and
Dee Parks are greatfully acknowledged. Leila Counts
served as Technical Editor.
Special thanks must go to various members of the Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs. Mr. Sam Morekas, project
officer, and Mr. Don Marlow, project monitor, provided very
helpful guidance throughout the program.
iii
-------
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Chapter I - BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
Chapter Contents 1
The Resource Recovery Act of 1970—Public
Law~a.l-512, Section 212 3
Congressional Intent and the Establishment
of a National Goal 3
Issues and Variables Involved ii_. Lhe Problem 4
Technical Issues 4
Economic Issues 9
Implementation and Administrative Issues 11
Framework of Evaluation 13
Chapter II - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Chapter Contents 15
Identification and Designation of Hazardous
Wastes 17
Waste Management Methods and Costs 18
Radioactive Wastes 21
Siting Considerations 23
Implementation 24
Chapter III - DEFINITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF
HAZARDOUS WASTES
Chapter Contents 26
Brief 29
Definition of Hazardous Wastes 30
Hazards of Concern 31
Existing Definitions of Hazardous Materials 35
The Pure Compound Approach 36
The Hazardous Waste Decision Model 42
Application of Model to Waste Streams 53
Inventory of Hazardous Wastes 54
Department of Defense Wastes 64
Biological/ Chemical, and Explosive Wastes 6 6
Priority of Concern 73
Chapter IV - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT METHODS
AND COSTS
Chapter Contents 81
Brief 83
Description of Site Types 84
Hazardous Waste Processing Facility 84
Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility 85
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No.
Chapter IV (Continued)
Process Selection 85
Potential Processes 85
Selected Processes 8 5
Treatment and Disposal 88
Process Design 91
Treatment Facility 91
Receiving, Segregation, and Storage Module 93
Ammonia Stripping Module 95
Chemical Treatment Module 101
Liquids-Solids Separation Module 107
Carbon Sorption Module 115
Incinerator Module 115
Evaporation Module 118
Landfills 118
Brine Disposal 123
Process Performance Levels 124
Resource Recovery 124
Candidate Recovery Materials 127
Reprocessing I34
Fuel for Evaporation/Concentration of Aqueous
Wastes 134
Fuel for Boiler Plant I35
Effluent Monitoring 135
Transportation of Wastes for Processing 137
Cost Estimates 138
Chapter V - RADIOACTIVE WASTES
Chapter Contents 147
Brief 151
Findings and Conclusions for Radioactive Wastes 151
Background of Radioactive Waste Management
Policies and Radiation Protection Regulations
in the U.S. 157
Overall Legislative History 157
General Dose and Effluent Considerations 159
Disposal or Long-Term Storage of Wastes 161
Administrative Arrangements 161
Federal Regulation and Control 162
State Regulation and Control 164
Radioactive Wastes and a National System for
Hazardous Waste Management 165
Categories of Radioactive Wastes in a National
Disposal System 167
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No.
Chapter V (Continued)
Potential Radiological Toxicities Associated
With Radioactive Wastes 168
Sources of Radioactive Wastes 168
Radioactive Wastes from the Commercial Nuclear
Power Industry j 17 0
Quantities, Constituents, Disti.jjuution 171
Prospective Wastes from the Nuclear Fuel Cycle 171
Radioactive Wastes from Miscellaneous Private
Sources 181
Radioactive Wastes from Government Sources 183
Atomic Energy Commission Sources 183
Distribution and Types of Wastes 184
Department of Defense Sources 196
Transportation of Radioactive Wastes 199
Regulations for Transportation of Radioactive
Wastes 199
Transportation Safety Requirements 200
Bases for Transportation System Requirements 200
Design of Transportation Systems for Radio-
active Wastes—Containers and Protection 201
Radioactive Waste Management System Design 205
Bases for Radioactive Waste Disposal 205
Types and Quantities of Radioactive Wastes 207
High-Level Radioactive Waste—Strategy of
Disposal 210
Criteria and General Description for
Retrievable High-Level Radioactive Waste
Repository 214
Transportation Costs for High-Level Radio-
active Wastes 225
Low-Level Radioactive Wastes 22 8
Strategy for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive
Wastes 229
Criteria and General Description for Retrievable
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage System 2 32
Transportation Costs for Low-Level Radioactive
Wastes 244
Chapter VI - SITING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE PROCESSING
AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Chapter Contents 249
Brief 251
Goals and Objectives of Site Selection 255
Health, Safety and Environmental Considerations 256
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No.
Chapter VI (Continued)
Development of Site Selection Criteria 257
Earth Sciences 258
Geological Criteria 258
Hydrological Criteria 260
Soil Criteria 261
Climatological Criteria 263
Transportation 265
Ecology 267
Human Environment and Resources Utilization 269
Site Screening Procedures 271
Area Size Determination 272
Information Sources 272
Regional Divisions 273
Ranking and Weighing Systems--Development and
Application 276
Characteristics and Locations of Existing and
Potential Sites 279
Existing and Potential Hazardous Waste Sites 282
Site Monitoring Requirements 28 3
Evaluation and Extension of the Rating System 285
Siting Considerations as Related to Disposal
Methods 286
Deep-Well Injection of Brines 286
Land Burial Disposal 291
Ocean Disposal of Hazardous Waste Materials 296
Conclusions 303
Chapter VII - IMPLEMENTATION
Chapter Contents 305
Brief 309
Institutional Alternatives 311
Discussion of Alternatives 312
Alternative One: No Change in Existing System 312
Alternative Two: State Responsibility and
Standards 313
Alternative Three: State Responsibility and
Standards with Federal Subsidy to Finance State
or Locally Operated Systems 314
Alternative Four: State Responsibility and
Standards with Federal Tax Incentives to
Encourage Satisfactory Hazardous Wastes Manage-
ment 314
Alternative Five: State Responsibility with
Standards Meeting Federal Guidelines 315
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No,
Chapter VII (Continued)
Alternative Six: State Responsibility and
Standards Meeting Federal Guidelinew with
Federal Subsidy to Finance State or Locally
Operated Systems 317
Alternative Seven: Federal Responsibility
and Standards with No Management System 318
Alternative Eight: Federal Responsibility
and Standards with Federal Subsidy to Finance
State or Locally Operated Systems 319
Alternative Nine: Federal Responsibility
and Standards with No Management System but
with Federal Tax Incentives to Encourage Sat-
isfactory Waste Management 320
Alternative Ten: Federal Responsibility and
Standards with Private Facility Ownership
Operating Under State Licensing and Enforce-
ment 321
Alternative Eleven: Federal Responsibility,
Standards, and Facility Ownership, with
Operation by Private Enterprise Under
Federal Contract 322
Alternative Twelve: Federal Responsibility,
Facility Ownership, and Operation 323
Institutional Alternatives Matrix 324
Summary and Conclusions 327
Legislative Review - State Legislation/Regulations 327
Federal Legislation/Regulations 329
Substantive Aspects 332
Legislative References 339
Recent Legislation 340
Transportation Aspects 341
Inadequacies of the Present Federal System of
Controlling Transportation of Hazardous Wastes
in Interstate Commerce 346
Summary 350
Policy-Making 350
Financing Considerations 352
Chapter VIII - REFERENCES 353
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page No,
FIGURE 1 4 3
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
DECISION MODEL
FIGURE 2 9 2
CONCEPTUAL MODULAR FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 3 96
WASTE RECEIVING, SEGREGATION, AND STORAGE MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR RECEIVING AND
STORAGE OF LIQUID AQUEOUS WASTES
FIGURE 4 9 7
WASTE RECEIVING, SEGREGATION, AND STORAGE MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR RECEIVING AND
STORAGE OF ORGANIC SOLIDS, SLUDGES, SLURRIES,
AND SOLUTIONS
FIGURE 5 9 8
WASTE RECEIVING, SEGREGATION, AND STORAGE MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR RECEIVING AND
STORAGE OF CYANIDE FREE, INORGANIC SOLIDS,
SLUDGES, AND SLURRIES
FIGURE 6 99
WASTE RECEIVING, SEGREGATION, AND STORAGE MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR RECEIVING AND
STORAGE OF CYANIDE RICH, INORGANIC SOLIDS,
SLUDGES, AND SLURRIES
FIGURE 7 100
WASTE RECEIVING, SEGREGATION, AND STORAGE MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR C-5 AQUEOUS
ORGANIC CONTAINING-WASTE STREAMS
FIGURE 8 102
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC OF AMMONIA STRIPPER
MODULE
FIGURE 9 103
CHEMICAL TREATMENT MODULE CONCEPTUAL FLOW
SCHEMATIC FOR REDUCTION AND PRIMARY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10 105
CHEMICAL TREATMENT MODULE CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHE-
MATIC FOR OXIDATION AND SECONDARY PRECIPITATION
X
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page No.
FIGURE 11 108
CHEMICAL TREATMENT MODULE CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHE-
MATIC FOR RECEIVING AND STORAGE OF LIME AND
POLYELECTROLYTE
FIGURE 12 109
CHEMICAL TREATMENT MODULE CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHE-
MATIC FOR RECEIVING AND STORAGE OF NITROGEN,
SULFUR DIOXIDE, AND CHLORINE
FIGURE 13 HO
CHEMICAL TREATMENT MODULE CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHE-
MATIC FOR RECEIVING AND STORAGE OF HYDROCHLORIC
ACID AND SODIUM SULFIDE
FIGURE 14 HI
LIQUID-SOLIDS SEPARATION MODULE CONCEPTUAL FLOW
SCHEMATIC FOR PRIMARY CLARIFICATION AND SLUDGE
FILTRATION
FIGURE 15 112
LIQUID-SOLIDS SEPARATION MODULE CONCEPTUAL FLOW
DIAGRAM FOR SECONDARY CLARIFICATION AND SLUDGE
FILTRATION
FIGURE 16 113
LIQUID-SOLIDS SEPARATION MODULE CONCEPTUAL FLOW
SCHEMATIC FOR CLARIFICATION OF INCINERATOR
SCRUBBER WATER AND FILTRATION OF ASH SLUDGE
FIGURE 17 114
LIQUID-SOLIDS SEPARATION MODULE CONCEPTUAL
FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR BRINE FILTRATION
FIGURE 18 116
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR CARBON SORPTION
MODULE
FIGURE 19 117
INCINERATION MODULE CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC
OF INCINERATION SYSTEM
FIGURE 20 119
CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATIC OF SUBMERGED COMBUSTION
EVAPORATOR
XI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page No.
FIGURE 21 122
CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATIC OF SECURED LANDFILL
FIGURE 22 125
CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATIC OF INJECTION WELL
FIGURE 23 129
FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE RECOMMENDED METAL RECOVERY
SCHEME FROM METAL-FINISHING WASTES
FIGURE 24 132
SCHEMATIC OF SOLVENT RECOVERY PROCESS
FIGURE 2 5 14 3
RAIL AND BARGE SHIPMENT COSTS AS A FUNCTION OF
DISTANCE
FIGURE 26 212
HEAT GENERATION RATE OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE
WASTES FROM A TYPICAL LIGHT WATER REACTOR AS A
FUNCTION OF TIME AFTER DISCHARGE
FIGURE 27 213
TYPICAL CANISTER FOR HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE
WASTES
FIGURE 28 216
ACTIVITIES IN A RETRIEVABLE SURFACE STORAGE
FACILITY FOR HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES
FIGURE 29 217
WATER BASIN CONCEPT FOR RETRIEVABLE SURFACE
STORAGE FACILITY FOR HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE
WASTES
FIGURE 30 220
LAYOUT OF WATER STORAGE BASIN FOR RETRIEVABLE
SURFACE STORAGE FACILITY FOR HIGH-LEVEL RADIO-
ACTIVE WASTES
FIGURE 31 221
BASIN WATER PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FOR RETRIEVABLE
SURFACE STORAGE FACILITY FOR HIGH-LEVEL RADIO-
ACTIVE WASTES
xii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page No.
FIGURE 32 224
SEALED STORAGE CASK CONCEPT FOR RETRIEVABLE
SURFACE STORAGE OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES
FIGURE 33 235
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROCESSING AND
STORAGE FACILITY
FIGURE 34 238
OVERALL LAYOUT OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
STORAGE FACILITY
FIGURE 35 275
SITE SELECTION REGIONS
FIGURE 36 281
SEISMIC PROBABILITY MAP
FIGURE 37 287
DEEP WELL DISPOSAL SITES
FIGURE 38 300
PACIFIC COAST DISPOSAL AREAS
FIGURE 39 301
ATLANTIC COAST DISPOSAL AREAS
FIGURE 40 302
GULF OF MEXICO DISPOSAL AREAS
xiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page No,
TABLE 1 37
POSSIBLE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CRITERIA FOR
CATEGORIZATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
TABLE 2 40
NONRADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS COMPOUNDS EMPLOYED
FOR PURE COMPOUND SELECTION PROCEDURE
TABLE 3 49
LIMITING DOSAGES DIFFERENTIATING TOXIC AND
NONTOXIC SUBSTANCES ACCORDING TO ROUTE OF
ADMINISTRATION TO EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS OF
A MAXIMUM SINGLE (ACUTE) DOSE CAUSING DEATH
TABLE 4 58
SUMMARY DATA FOR NONRADIOACTIVE WASTE STREAMS
TABLE 5 65
REGIONAL SUMMARY DATA FOR TOTAL QUANTITY OF
NONRADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTES
TABLE 6 6 8
LOCATIONS AND AMOUNTS OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PRESENTLY STORED AT MILITARY ARSENALS
TABLE 7 70
COMPOSITION OF SALT RESIDUES FROM DEMILITARI-
ZATION OPERATIONS
TABLE 8 72
OBSOLETE CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS HAZARDOUS
MATERIAL CONTENTS AND GROSS WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION
BY STATE—SCHEDULED FOR DISPOSAL BY THE DEPART-
MENT OF DEFENSE
TABLE 9 74
EXPLOSIVE MANUFACTURING WASTES - POUNDS PER
YEAR SOLID WASTE
TABLE 10 86
CLASSIFICATION OF WASTE DISPOSAL/RECOVERY PRO-
CESSES AS DEVELOPED BY TRW
XIV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page No.
TABLE 11 8 7
WASTE DISPOSAL/RECOVERY PROCESSES SELECTED
FOR APPLICATION TO HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT
AS SPECIFIED BY TRW
TABLE 12 89
PROCESSES SELECTED FOR INCLUSION IN MODEL
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROCESSING/DISPOSAL FACILITY
TABLE 13 126
BEST CURRENTLY EXISTING PERFORMANCE LEVELS
FOR BRINE WASTES
TABLE 14 131
TYPES, PROPERTIES, AND QUANTITIES OF SOLVENTS
ESTIMATED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR RECOVERY
TABLE 15 139
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR MEDIUM
SIZE PROCESSING FACILITY
TABLE 16 140
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR SMALL
SIZE PROCESSING FACILITY
TABLE 17 141
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR LARGE
SIZE PROCESSING FACILITY
TABLE 18 146
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR A MEDIUM AND A
LARGE TREATMENT FACILITY
TABLE 19 15 3
SUMMARY OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES FOR DISPOSAL
IN 1980
TABLE 20 166
STATE REGULATIONS FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE
DISPOSAL
TABLE 21 172
SUMMARY OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM COMMERCIAL
NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY TO BE PRODUCED IN 198 0
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page No,
TABLE 22 175
SUMMARY OF GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF RADIO-
ACTIVE WASTES FROM COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER
INDUSTRY IN 1980 (FRACTION OF RADIOACTIVITY
IN EACH REGION, T < 0.05)
TABLE 23 176
PROSPECTIVE WASTE STREAMS FOR NATIONAL DIS-
POSAL SITES FROM COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER
INDUSTRY IN 1980
TABLE 24 182
ESTIMATED RADIOISOTOPE DISPOSAL FROM MISCEL-
LANEOUS PRIVATE SOURCES
TABLE 25 185
IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR AEC SITES PRODUCING
RADIOACTIVE WASTES
TABLE 26 187
QUALITATIVE INDICES TO TYPES OF RADIOACTIVE
WASTES HANDLED AT AEC SITES
TABLE 27 190
QUANTITIES OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES HANDLED PER
YEAR AT AEC SITES
TABLE 2 8 192
ESTIMATED BACKLOG OF SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTES
AT VARIOUS AEC BURIAL GROUNDS
TABLE 29 194
ESTIMATED PLUTONIUM CONTENT OF ACCUMULATED
RADIOACTIVE WASTES AT AEC SITES (AS OF END OF
FY 1972)
TABLE 30 197
TYPICAL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DESCRIPTION
TABLE 31 198
RADIOACTIVE SOLID WASTE FROM U.S. NAVAL
NUCLEAR-POWERED SHIPS AND THEIR SUPPORT
FACILITIES FOR 19 66 THROUGH 1970
TABLE 32 204
AVERAGE ONE-WAY DISTANCES BETWEEN SOURCES AND
DISPOSAL SITES FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTES
XVI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page No.
TABLE 3 3 226
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF TOTAL COST FOR HIGH-
LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE RETRIEVABLE SURFACE
STORAGE FACILITY
TABLE 34 2 31
INCINERATOR COSTS AT LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE
WASTE STORAGE FACILITY FOR 1980 THROUGHPUT
TABLE 35 24 3
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS FOR LOW-LEVEL
WASTE RETRIEVABLE SURFACE STORAGE FACILITY
TABLE 36 24 6
1973 OPERATING COSTS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES IN 1980
TABLE 37 2 53
INDUSTRIAL WASTE PRODUCTION CENTERS
TABLE 38 298
MARINE DISPOSAL AREAS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES
(BY REGION AND WASTE TYPE)
TABLE 39 325
INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVE MATRIX
TABLE 40 330
SUMMARY OF STATE LEGISLATION SURVEY
xvii
-------
CHAPTER CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
Page No.
THE RESOURCE RECOVERY ACT OF 1970--PUBLIC LAW
91-512, SECTION 212 3
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND THE ESTALLISHMENT OF
A NATIONAL GOAL 3
ISSUES AND VARIABLES INVOLVED IN THE PROBLEM 4
Technical Issues 4
Definition and Designation 5
Wastes as Mixtures 5
Multiplicity of Sources 5
Time Dependence of Quantities and Nature 6
Different Types of Hazards 6
Sophistication Level Involved 6
Waste Management System Elements and
Methods 7
Siting of Hazardous Waste Processing
and Disposal Operations 7
Standards and Measures of Performance 8
Priorities 8
Information Needs 9
Economic Issues 9
Management System Cost 9
Equitable Distribution of Burden 10
Maintenance of Competition 10
Cost of Perpetual Care 10
Public Sector Financial Involvement 10
Availability of Private Sector Capital H
Resource Recovery Potential H
Implementation and Administrative Issues 11
Implementation Options 11
Effectiveness of the System 11
Federal Cost and Employment 12
Legislative Requirements 12
-------
CHAPTER CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No.
Compatibility with Environmental Protec-
tion Programs as a Whole 13
Private Sector Involvement 13
FRAMEWORK OF EVALUATION 13
2
-------
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
THE RESOURCE RECOVERY ACT OF 1970—PUBLIC LAW 91-512,
SECTION 212
In October 1970 the Congress enacted Public Law 91-512, The
Resource Recovery Act of 1970. Section 212 of this Act calls
for a feasibility study for a system of national hazardous
waste disposal sites. The Congress specifically directed
that:
The Secretary* shall submit to the Congress no
later than two years after the date of enactment
of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, a compre-
hensive report and plan for the creation of a
system of national disposal sites for the storage
and disposal of hazardous wastes, including radio-
active, toxic chemical, biological, and other
wastes which may endanger public health or welfare.
Such report shall Include: (1) a list of materials
which should be subject to disposal in any such
site; (2) current methods of disposal of such
materials; (3) recommended method# of reduction,
neutralization, recovery, or disposal of such
materials/ (4) an inventory of possible sites
including existing land or water disposal sites
operated or licensed by Federal agencies/ (5) an
estimate of the cost of developing and maintain-
ing sites including consideration of means for
distributing the short- and long-term costs of
operating such sites among the users thereof; and
(6) such other information as may be appropriate.
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL GOAL
In reviewing the letter and spirit1 of Section 212 of the
Resource Recovery Act and related subsequent legislation,2'3'*
the Environmental Protection Agency recognized several common
elements of Congressional concern.
*Under the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970* responsibility
for carrying out the provisions of the Resource Recovery Act
was assigned to the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agestcy,
3
-------
1. Hazardous materials and wastes, regardless of origin,
represent a substantial and growing threat to public
health and environmental quality.
2. Management of such wastes is presently inadequate and
the need for responsible stewardship will increase in
the future.
3. The problems posed in the management of hazardous
wastes do not necessarily recognize state boundaries,
and the materials in question derive from a variety
of sources, both private and public; therefore, con-
sideration should be given to the feasibility of
establishing a national system of disposal sites.
The Congress1 has indicated
...that further information is needed on the
desirability and feasibility of a system of
solid waste disposal sites for hazardous
materials.
Considered in their entirety, the elements enumerated above
call for the establishment of a national goal:
In order to protect the public health and welfare and
the quality of the environment, present practices in
disposal of hazardous waste materials must be signifi-
cantly improved, and a framework for responsible
stewardship established.
ISSUES AND VARIABLES INVOLVED IN THE PROBLEM
In assessing the goal stated above and the means available for
achieving it, the Environmental Protection Agency found that a
wide range of issues and variables are involved, including:
• Technical Issues
• Economics Issues
• Implementation and Administrative Issues
To a large degree, these areas are interwoven and must be con-
sidered in the context of the whole. Nevertheless, it is use-
ful to briefly discuss them separately in an effort to more
carefully define the scope and nature of available options. A
more thorough discussion of each issue is given in the follow-
ing pages of this report.
Technical Issues
The technical issues involve definitions of the nature and
magnitude of the problems to be solved and the approaches
4
-------
which can be used; that is, the technical issues are the basic
physical "what" and "how" of the system.
Definition and Designation
Section 212 of Public Law 91-512 speaks of
... radioactive, toxic chemical, biological, and
other . . .
This designation is adequate for framing a broad goal but lacks
the detail necessary for boundi*.^ the problem and arriving at
solutions. A more precise definition is suggested;
The term "hazardous waste" means any waste or combina-
tion of wastes which pose a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or living organisms
because such wastes are lethal, nondegradable, per-
sistent in nature, biologically magnified, or other-
wise cause or tend to cause detrimental cumulative
effects. General categories of hazardous waste are
toxic chemical, flammable, radioactive, explosive
and biological. These wastes can take the form of
solids, sludges, liquids, or gases.
Even this definition, however, fails to specify and quantify
the elements of the inherently relative term hazardous.
Therefore, a rational and consistent system for the designa-
tion of hazardous wastes has been developed for the purposes
of this study and is discussed in detail in Chapter III.
Wastes as Mixtures
By far the majority of waste materials and streams are mixtures,
and hazardous wastes are -no exception. In terms of quantity,
the hazardous constituents may be a very minor portion of the
total waste. Thus management techniques, in both processing
and disposal, may be controlled as much by the nonhazardous
materials as by the hazardous constituents. The presence of
nonhazardous constituents may also markedly effect the be-
havior of trace hazardous constituents.
Thus the issue of hazardous wastes as mixtures has relevance
to both their designation and to their management. This is
further discussed in Chapters III, IV and V.
Multiplicity of Sources
Hazardous wastes in the United States are generated by both
the public and private sectors and the sources are widely
5
-------
distributed geographically. The majority of hazardous wastes
are produced by industry and occur in approximate proportion to
population density. Sources in the public sector (e.g., the
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and Department of Defense) tend to
be more concentrated and localized. Whether private or public,
however, waste sources vary widely in size and occur in every
state, at locations of industrial production activities and at
points of consumption.
Time Dependence of Quantities and Nature
Waste quantities, makeup, and compositions vary with time either
gradually or as step functions. A number of factors can affect
the rate and direction of change. For example, application of
air and water pollution control regulations can be expected to
result in greater demands for disposal to land; application of
these same regulations may produce economic shifts that will in-
fluence the continuance or abandonment of industrial processes
which currently produce hazardous wastes and may result in the
adoption of new technologies that avoid or circumvent waste
production. On the other hand, growth in application of certain
new technologies such as nuclear energy production will give rise
to increasing problems in other sectors.
Thus it is essential to recognize that regardless of the means
adopted for solving the problems associated with hazardous
wastes, new and different problems will eventually arise, and
one measure of the effectiveness of any program will be its
ability to accommodate change.
Different Types of Hazards
In addition to viewing a hazard specifically as either a threat
to public health and welfare or to the whole environment, it
must be recognized that hazards can be manifest in distinctly
different modes and the units of measurement of hazard levels
are not necessarily the same.
For example, it is extremely difficult to quantitatively compare
the hazard level of an explosive or flammable material to that
of a toxic material—the probability of occurrence and extent
of effects are too dependent upon the circumstances involved.
Sophistication Level Involved
Hazardous wastes require a markedly higher level of technical
knowledge and management control than do ordinary wastes. For
purposes of perspective, it is expected that the level of
sophistication involved will be comparable to that employed
in a diverse chemical manufacturing and processing operation.
6
-------
Major elements will be quality and performance control and
operational safety.
Waste Management System Elements and Methods
A hazardous waste management system, considered from the point
of generation to the point of ultimate disposition, can poten-
tially include a number of elements:
1. collection, concentration, and storage of wastes
at point of origin;
2. processing—destruction, inerting, detoxification,
or isolation at site of origin;
3. transport of hazardous wastes to a separate
processing site;
4. processing (as in 2) at separate processing
sites;
5. transport of hazardous residues;
6. disposition of hazardous residues; and
7. disposition of nonhazardous bulk residuals.
In this program the elements of special importance pertain
to hazardous wastes processing (2 and 4 above) and disposi-
tion of residuals (6 and 7). Discussion of these elements
will take place in Chapters IV and V. In general, the other
elements listed above do not present special technical
problems or are a matter of common practice and experience.
It should be noted, however, that hazardous wastes are not
technically covered by most transportation regulations;
furthermore, because of the decreased value of the waste
hazardous material, it is believed that without regulation
even less care would be exercised in transporting such material.
Siting of Hazardous Waste Processing and Disposal Operations
A number of factors are involved in considering siting of
processing and disposal facilities:
1. proximity to points of origin of hazardous wastes
in order to reduce the cost and some incremental
risk in transportation;
2. isolation from populous areas in order to prevent
public exposure to a threat (this may be anti-
thetical to 1 above);
7
-------
3. the earth sciences aspects of potential sites as they
influence design or performance of the facilities
(i.e., geology, hydrology, seismicity, flood potential,
and meteorology); and
4. relationship to alternative land uses.
Since the term "hazardous wastes" has the connotation of threat,
the natural tendency is to suggest siting such facilities as far
from the populace as possible. Hazardous wastes, however, with
few exceptions, do not in reality present threats significantly
greater than many more prevalent articles of commerce, provided
that management practices—processing, handling and ultimate
disposal--are appropriately designed and carried out. This is
particularly true of waste processing facilities where the
hazard inventory at any one time is relatively low and engineer-
ed safeguards can provide the necessary level of isolation and
control.
The case of ultimate hazardous wastes disposal sites, however,
is a different matter. The inventory of hazardous materials
will be high, although presumably the level of hazard will have
been reduced significantly, and in addition there will be a
need for some degree of long-term or perpetual care. With
these considerations in mind, it is apparent that proliferation
of ultimate disposal sites or repositories is a situation to
be avoided.
A discussion of siting considerations is given in Chapter VI.
Standards and Measures of Performance
In any system for the management of hazardous wastes, standards
and criteria are necessary as points of reference for measuring
performance. In the present context technical criteria will
be required for site selection and for performance of the waste
management system elements. Since hazardous wastes management
is only one of several aspects of environmental and public
health protection, the need for compatibility with other
standards and criteria is apparent.
Priorities
As previously mentioned, the term "hazardous" is qualitatively
and quantitatively ambiguous; several types of hazards and a
wide variety of wastes can be so designated. Therefore, a
priority-of-concern system should be applied to identify and
quantify wastes with the greatest potential for harm to public
health or the environment.
8
-------
The issue of definition and designation of hazardous wastes
has been mentioned. Definition and designation must be
arrived at by evaluation of the intrinsic properties of the
wastes in question. While this type of analysis achieves the
appropriate designation of a waste as hazardous, it deliber-
ately falls short of establishing priorities for action
because the extrinsic elements in the system (those elements
other than the simple existence of a hazardous material) are
not considered.
The ultimate potential threat of a given waste depends upon
the quantity of the waste involved, the extent to which
present treatment technology and regulatory activities
mitigate the threat, and the existing pathways to man or
other critical organisms, i.e., the rates and routes of the
intrinsic hazard to the point where damage can occur.
The concept of priority-of-concern ranking is further discussed
and applied in Chapter III.
Information Needs
In order to physically institute a system for the management
of hazardous wastes, a considerable information and technical
data base is necessary. As pointed out earlier, points of
origin of hazardous wastes are widely and unequally distri-
buted throughout the United States. Similarly, wastes vary in
makeup even if derived from presumably identical source types.
Facilities design will be highly dependent upon the characteri-
ses of the region served by the processing and disposal sites.
The information presently available on waste quantities, com-
positions, and distribution is sufficient to establish the
national scope of the problem. To a more limited degree,
regional judgments can be made. However, the specific facts
necessary to support a firm design are not presently known
and detailed regional surveys will be necessary.
Economic Issues
The economic issues of hazardous waste management relate
principally to 1) cost, 2) methods of financing and distribution
of the burden, 3) integration into the national economic frame-
work, and 4) peculiarities arising from the properties of
hazardous materials (e.g., perpetual stewardship requirements).
Management System Cost
The cost elements in a program of hazardous waste management
include 1) capital facilities and real estate costs,
9
-------
2) operating costs, 3) transportation costs, and 4) costs in-
curred in implementing and assuring that the system performs
as intended. Compared to conventional waste management systems,
hazardous waste systems will be more capital intensive.
Equitable Distribution of Burden
The method of distributing the costs of hazardous waste manage-
ment will affect 1) the total net economic impact on society,
2) the equity of the distribution, and 3) trends in the future
magnitude of the problem. If a system initially distributes
costs to the waste producer, this may provide sufficient in-
centive for reduction in the quantities of hazardous wastes
produced.
Maintenance of Competition
Since private industry is collectively the largest producer of
hazardous wastes, the competitive economic framework must be
recognized, as must the recent development and growth of
service industries, particularly waste management organizations.
A number of these firms are already operating in the hazardous
waste disposal field in varying degrees.
Cost of Perpetual Care
When hazardous waste components cannot be recovered, destroyed,
detoxified, or chemically or physically inerted, the problem of
perpetual care is raised unless some means of ultimate disposal
can be achieved.
Public Sector Financial Involvement
Public sector financial involvement will depend heavily upon
the system adopted for implementation. It can range from
simply bearing the costs of auditing to assure compliance with
regulations up to assuming the responsibility for design, con-
struction, and operation of the system with arrangements for
distributing costs to the waste-generating entities.
In certain cases such as obsolete or unwanted munitions and
waste generated in the course of nuclear weapons production,
it is apparent that the public sector must bear the full
burden. In other cases wherein the hazards are potentially
much greater than society normally experiences and perpetual
custodianship is necessary (as with radioactive wastes from
the commercial nuclear power industry), the Federal Government
has assumed responsibility for interim and ultimate disposal
with full costs flowing back to the waste producer and ulti-
mately to the electric power consumer.
10
-------
Availability of Private Sector Capital
Although the costs of hazardous waste management can be
returned to the wastes' originators, the question of avail-
ability of private sector capital for initial design and
construction is one that should be considered. As previously
noted, some private sector involvement is already apparent.
Future involvement will depend largely upon the apparent
incentive. The latter will in turn be conditioned by the
manner in which a waste management program is implemented.
Resource Recovery Potential
The possible recovery of valuable materials in the course of
hazardous waste management from both the hazardous constituents
of the waste streams and the nonhazardous bulk materials is
of economic interest. For instance, the economic viability
of recovery of waste oils and solvents possibly contaminated
with hazardous heavy metals is readily apparent.
Implementation and Administrative Issues
Considerations other than those of physical facilities and
operations, namely institutional arrangements, must be
considered in seeking improved management of hazardous wastes.
Implementation Options
Implementation of a system for hazardous waste management can
be achieved by any of a wide spectrum of alternative approaches.
At one end of this spectrum would be a Federally owned and
operated system of processing plants and disposal sites with
strict enforcement of requirements that wastes designated by
the Federal Government as hazardous be treated and disposed of
at these sites. The other end of the spectrum would see
little more than the present voluntary practice. For example,
the next incremental step in obtaining improved protection
might be the development of recommended guidelines with the
expectation of voluntary follow-through.
Within this spectrum of alternatives are numerous options with
varying degrees of stringency in control. The objective is tn
select that option which achieves the national goal in the most
cost effective manner.
Effectiveness of the System
The effectiveness of the system will be demonstrable and measur-
able by several parameters, including:
11
-------
1. technical effectiveness in controlling hazardous
wastes to assure environmental protection;
2. protection of the public interest through provision
of appropriate public safeguards;
3. administrative workability including effective
minimization of the cost of implementation to
users and regulators;
4. ability to equitably allocate costs;
5. effectiveness in assuring efficient resources
utilization;
6. enforcement provisions; and
7. achievement of desired goals within specified time
limits.
Federal Cost and Employment
Paralleling the wide range of options in implementation is a
great variation in the cost to the Federal Government and the
level of Federal employment required. Federal involvement can
take one of two forms: 1) operational and regulatory, or 2)
regulatory only. Note that the first option includes the
regulatory role, which is necessary to make the operational
system viable. Depending upon the option chosen, the cost to
the Federal Government can range from a relatively small in-
vestment sufficient to set standards and regulations and to
provide some elements of monitoring and enforcement to the
total costs of physical facilities, operational staff, and
the parallel regulatory and enforcement program.
Since all implementation options which will achieve the national
goal will ultimately involve similar capital facilities and
operating costs, it follows that as Federal outlays diminish,
private sector investment will increase in inverse proportion.
Legislative Requirements
Regardless of the implementation alternative selected, new
legislation will be required. This can range from enactment of
fairly simple laws establishing a regulatory system to the
complex legislation necessary for a system incorporating tax
incentives.
12
-------
Compatibility with Environmental Protection Programs as a Whole
Systems for environmental and public health protection must be
established and operated compatibly, so that efforts to elimi-
nate one problem do not create different problems in another
sector.
Private Sector Involvement
It is both desirable and inevitable that the private sector
assume a major role in the management of hazardous wastes for
several reasons:
1. the majority of such wastes are currently produced
by the private sector;
2. the technology and know-how involved in handling
and processing hazardous materials rests primarily
in industry; and
3. private sector capital is already specifically
involved in the management of hazardous wastes
as an identifiable industry in its own right.
FRAMEWORK OF EVALUATION
In response to the mandate presented by Section 212 of the
Resource Recovery Act of 1970, and in view of the problems
indicated by the preceding discussion, the Environmental
Protection Agency has conducted a comprehensive study and
prepared the proposed Hazardous Waste Management Act of
1973 to meet national needs for improved management of
hazardous wastes. In conducting this evaluation, resources
of both the Environmental Protection Agency and the profes-
sional community have been utilized to the fullest extent.
The following report summarizes Battelle-Northwest*s detailed
findings and conclusions relating to the technical and ad-
ministrative aspects of the problems involved and the means
for achieving their solutions. Quite clearly/ and as
recognized by Section 212, a firm definition is needed at
the outset as to what constitutes hazardous wastes, where
they arise, what their properties are, and how they can be
treated. Obtaining these essential definitions has con-
stituted a major effort in the program.
Secondly, it has been necessary to evaluate processing and
disposal techniques to determine 1) whether technical and
engineering means are available for safe handling and
disposition, 2) what types and sizes of facilities will
13
-------
potentially be required, and 3) what their capital and
operating costs will be on a nationally averaged basis.
In developing this information, estimates of waste quanti-
ties, types, and geographic distribution were developed,
leading to the concept of a "model" waste treatment and
disposal facility system capable of handling a complete
spectrum of hazardous wastes. The service area is of rea-
sonable size in order not to incur undue transportation
costs on one hand or to lose the economies of scale on the
other. The "model" concept serves the very useful purposes
of establishing feasibility, highlighting practical con-
siderations, and allowing an assessment of economic impact.
Thirdly, it was recognized that hazardous wastes by their
very nature present a potential threat to public health and
the environment over either short time periods prior to their
destruction or over very long periods when detoxification can-
not technically be achieved. Thus questions regarding the
siting or processing and disposal systems were reviewed and,
again, "model" siting concepts were developed and the feasi-
bility of establishing such sites confirmed.
Finally, it was necessary to seek means of defining and im-
plementing an improved system with due regard for the tech-
nical, economic, and administrative issues involved.
This report documents the development of the concept outlined
above. Separate chapters are devoted to each of the principal
elements involved in this program for the management of
hazardous wastes.
14
-------
CHAPTER CONTENTS
CHAPTER II
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Page No.
IDENTIFICATION AND DESIGNATION OF HAZARDOUS
WASTES 17
WASTE MANAGEMENT METHODS AND COSTS 18
RADIOACTIVE WASTES 21
SITING CONSIDERATIONS 23
IMPLEMENTATION 24
15
-------
16
-------
CHAPTER II
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter the principal conclusions developed during the
course of this study are summarized. These are arranged into
five key areas:
1. Identification and Designation of Hazardous Wastes
2. Waste Management Methods and Costs
3. Radioactive Wastes
4. Siting Considerations for Waste Treatment and Disposal
5. Imp1ementation
More detailed discussions of findings and conclusions can be
found at the beginning of each chapter.
IDENTIFICATION AND DESIGNATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
• Ideally, wastes should be designated as hazardous on
the basis of the properties of the waste stream as an
entity rather than according to the properties of
individual constituents. When individual constituents
only are considered, the potential for interactions
between components of the waste and possible sub-
sequent degradation products that may result after
disposal are ignored. The hazardous properties of
some wastes may be overlooked due to the constraints
imposed by a necessarily limited list of known
hazardous substances. The final disadvantage of this
approach is the rather weak technical position which
can result from oversimplification.
• The data necessary for proper evaluation of the true
hazard potential of most wastes is unavailable. In
order to generate the necessary data, a standard set
of hazard potential testing evaluations such as those
suggested in Chapter III of this report should be
established and applied to waste streams.
• Implementation of such a hazard potential testing pro-
gram could be accomplished through adoption of a broad-
er waste discharge permit program covering discharges
of all kinds, liquids, solids and gases.
17
-------
• Due to the lack of sufficient waste stream property
data, an interim technique is required for estimating
the physical-chemical-toxicological characteristics of
a waste. This can be done by assuming joint-additive
properties of individual constituents within a waste.
The approach then takes advantage of pure compound
data for interim use in the waste stream decision -model.
• Wastes should be designated as hazardous solely on the
basis of intrinsic characteristics. Discharge of any
waste designated as hazardous should be prohibited.
Rather, such wastes should be treated onsite or trans-
ferred to a certified treatment or disposal facility.
• With further refinement, the hazardous waste decision
model developed in this program may be employed as the
tool for definition 6f hazardous wastes.
• The priority ranking system described in this report
may be employed to develop a priority-of-concern
system for fund allocation, resource utilization, and
regulatory attention with regard to hazardous wastes
management.
• A survey conducted during the course of this program
led to an estimate of the current annual rate of non-
radioactive hazardous waste generation in the United
States as approximately 10,000,000 tons.
• Available information on the composition and quan-
tities of potentially hazardous waste discharges in
the United States is generally inadequate. A major
effort should be expended to develop a comprehensive
inventory of waste discharges on as detailed a level
as possible.
• Existing and proposed discharge permit programs could
provide continual update of the waste inventory.
• Areas of the country where hazardous wastes have been
improperly buried or indiscriminantly dumped should
be sought out, catalogued, and detoxified, if feasible.
Since local knowledge is of paramount importance in
this effort, State agencies concerned with public
health and environmental protection would appear to be
the most logical organizations to conduct this effort.
WASTE MANAGEMENT METHODS AND COSTS
Treatment capabilities required at hazardous waste processing
facilities will depend on the types and volumes of hazardous
18
-------
wastes generated in the vicinity of the facility. Broad
treatment capabilities may be required for a facility located
in a heavily industrialized area whereas only limited treatment
capability may be necessary for a facility located in a light-
ly industrialized area. For the purposes of this phase of the
study, a model facility capable of processing a wide variety
of hazardous wastes (excluding radioactive and DOD wastes)
was considered. Conceptual design and cost estimates were
prepared for a complete waste management system to process and
dispose of the wastes. Findings and conclusions are summarized
as follows:
• Hazardous wastes are generally complex mixtures of
. several chemical species. Therefore, more than one
treatment method is frequently required to convert
the waste to a form suitable for disposal and/or reuse.
Treatment for non-hazardous constituents within a
hazardous waste may dictate the type of process used
and may entail the most significant operational costs
(e.g., acid neutralization).
• Major site types required for a national hazardous
waste management system include a processing site to
treat the wastes and a disposal site for burial of
the hazardous residue generated at the processing site.
Processing sites may be located near the sources of
the wastes while the disposal sites may be located in
arid regions of the Western United States to avoid
potentially high costs of non-leachable containment.
• Regulations should be considered for specifying incin-
eration or some other form of destructive disposal for
all wastes defined as hazardous solely on the basis of
explosivity or flammability.
• Thirty-nine potential physical, chemical, and biolog-
ical treatment processes were reviewed for possible
use in the model processing facility. Because of the
toxic nature of the hazardous wastes, expected vari-
able chemical character, and throughput, biological
processes were rejected and the following physical/
chemical processes were selected to provide broad
treatment capabilities in the model processing
facility:
1. Neutralization (of acids and bases)
2. Oxidation (of cyanides and other reductants)
3. Reduction (of chromium-6 and other oxidants)
4. Precipitation (removal of heavy metals)
19
-------
5. Flocculation, sedimentation and filtration
(separation of solids from liquids)
6. Carbon sorption (removal of organics)
7. Incineration (of combustible wastes)
8. Ammonia stripping (removal of ammonia)
9. Evaporation (concentration of waste brines)
Using the best technology that has been demonstrated
on an engineering or plant scale, conceptual designs
were prepared for a medium-sized model processing
facility capable of treating 122,000 gallons per day
of wastewater and 74 tons per day of combustible waste.
Preliminary capital and operating cost estimates for the
medium size processing facility are $24,000,000 and
and $39,000 per day, respectively. Wastewater process-
ing costs were estimated to average 20 cents per gallon
and incineration costs to average $17 5 per ton.
Preliminary capital and operating cost estimates were
prepared for a small facility capable of processing
25,000 gallons per day of wastewater and 15 tons per day
of combustible waste. A capital cost of $7,300,000 and
an operating cost of $14,000 per day was estimated.
Wastewater processing cost was estimated at 35 cents
per gallon and incineration cost at $400 per ton.
Preliminary capital and operating cost estimates were
also prepared for a large facility capable of process-
ing 1,000,000 gallons per day of wastewater and 600 tons
per day of combustible waste. A capital cost of
$86,000,000 and an operating cost of $186,000 per day
were estimated. Wastewater processing cost is 12 cents
per gallon and the incineration cost is $100 per ton.
On an overall national basis it is expected that
plant sizes and geographic distribution will evolve
as a consequence of market forces. A reasonable
prediction, however, is that the national needs
can be met in the near term by five large-sized and
fifteen medium-sized processing plants. On this
basis, the overall national costs will be about
$800 million in capital investment and about $580
million per year for operating costs.
20
-------
• Disposal methods for liquid and solid wastes generated
by the processing facility include ocean dumping and
deep well injection for liquid brine wastes which do
not contain hazardous constituents and landfilling for
solid wastes. Landfills consist of two types:
(1) secured landfills especially designated for the
disposal of sludges containing significant concentra-
tions of hazardous substances (e.g., arsenic), and
(2) conventional landfills for burial of solid wastes
which do not contain significant concentrations of
hazardous substances. Perpetual surveillance will be
maintained over the secuied landfill as in a radio-
active waste burial site.
• It is anticipated that private processors will design
treatment facilities to process both hazardous and non-
hazardous (polluting) wastes to benefit from economies
of scale. The volume of nonhazardous wastes may ex-
ceed the volume of hazardous wastes by considerable
margins in many areas.
• Resource recovery is expected to be practiced in the
non-hazardous waste processing area, particularly for
waste solvent recovery. Heavy metal and oil recovery
may also be economically attractive.
• Further studies on burial of waste sludges in land-
fills are recommended to determine the long term
stability and leachability of the sludges under a
variety of conditions, including the admixture of
fixation agents.
• A paucity of data exists on the concentration of
specific hazardous substances (e.g., pesticides) in
the gaseous wastes from different incineration systems
under variable operating conditions.
RADIOACTIVE WASTES
Radioactive wastes present a special case in that (1) their
associated hazards are several orders of magnitude higher than
those of any other materials, (2) they are already regulated
to a high degree, (3) the rate of generation during the fore-
seeable future is expected to increase dramatically, and
(4) the traditional Federal Government role in their manage-
ment is being expanded. Key findings are as follows:
• Techniques exist for safe interim storage of radio-
active wastes for time periods in the order of 100
years using high-integrity man-made structures.
21
-------
However, no fully evaluated and technically acceptable
concept for ultimate disposal of radioactive wastes
exists today.
By the year 1980, the total volumes of high- and low-
level radioactive wastes after processing to achieve
volume reduction are expected to exceed 1 x 10^ and
7 x 105 cubic feet per year, respectively.
The nuclear electric power industry, the major source
of such wastes, is expected to increase by a factor of
eight between 1980 and the year 2000.
The long-term hazards associated with radioactive wastes
are not necessarily proportional to whether they are
high or low level; many low-level wastes have signifi-
cantly higher long-term hazards than many high-level
wastes. Waste management practices should strongly
reflect consideration of these long-term hazards.
Planning is currently underway by the AEC for an
interim retrievable surface storage system for high-
level wastes at a Federal repository. This facility
will be designed to accommodate wastes generated by the
nuclear power economy through the year 2000. The
expected service life of this facility will be a mini-
mum of 100 years, with the expectation that an ultimate
disposal concept will be developed during that period.
So-called low-level radioactive wastes, e.g., those
not requiring special management techniques as a con-
sequence of their heat generation, are currently dis-
posed of by shallow burial at six State-licensed sites
under regulations promulgated by the Federal Govern-
ment. Considering the expected growth of the nuclear
power economy, proliferation of such sites can be
expected if the present system of disposal is continued.
These private State-licensed disposal sites are
designed and operated with little or no consideration
of future retrieval for ultimate disposal. In con-
trast, USAEC contractor-operated sites presently
require that disposal practices provide for future
retrieval within a minimum of twenty years.
Planning for improved management of low-level wastes
should be initiated. This document describes an initial
conceptual design for a retrievable storage system for
low-level wastes. It would be desirable to have imple-
mentation of plans for high-integrity storage of low-
22
-------
level wastes in effect by the early 1980"s, or before
the effects of the expected rapid growth period in
nuclear electrical power are felt.
• Two concepts are described for retrievable storage
repositories to be operable by about the early 1980's
for radioactive wastes: one for high-level waste
which requires significant cooling provisions and one
for low-level wastes. The high-level waste repository
concept, which was derived from AEC studies, accepts
only previously solidified and encapsulated wastes and
stores them in modular water basins. The low-level
waste repository accepts untreated liquid or solid
wastes and encapsulated pretreated solid wastes, con-
centrates and converts the liquid wastes to solids,
incinerates all combustible wastes to ashes, cans the
final solid waste forms, and stores them in special
modular warehouses.
• The capital costs for the conceptual high-level radio-
active waste repository with capacity for the wastes
which will be accumulated through 1980 were estimated
at $37,000,000 and the operating costs at $3,300,000
per year. Transportation operating costs for 1980
were estimated at $2,600,000 per year. All costs are
in 1973 dollars.
• The capital costs for the conceptual low-level radio-
active waste repository with capacity for wastes which
will be accumulated through 1980 were estimated at
$44,000,000 and operating costs at $6,900,000 per
year. Transportation operating costs for 1980 were
estimated to be $31,000,000 per year. All costs are
in 1973 dollars.
SITING CONSIDERATIONS
• In selecting sites for the processing and disposal of
hazardous wastes, consideration must be given to
four principal categories of information:
1. earth sciences;
2. transportation;
3. ecology; and
4. human environment and resources utilization.
• In general, hazardous waste processing (as distinct
23
-------
from disposal) facilities, their operations, and level
of hazard to the surrounding population are fairly-
similar to present-day experience in the chemical
industry. Thus, siting of waste processing facilities
can be achieved with considerable flexibility provided
appropriate engineered safeguards are applied.
• Processing site selection will be determined largely
by the quantities and geographic distribution of waste
sources within the region to be served, i.e., the
"market", and the availability of suitable disposal
sites for nonhazardous but often bulky residual mater-
ials.
• There are two notable exceptions to this: (1) the
processing of radioactive wastes to a solidified form
(in which case the siting criteria for nuclear facili-
ties must be applied), and (2) the processing of
obsolete unconventional chemical munitions. In both
these cases, much greater emphasis should be given to
the demographic and environmental siting of these
facilities.
• In the case of final disposal sites for hazardous
wastes, i.e., when detoxification or destruction cannot
be practically achieved, the hazard inventory will be
markedly higher and can well exist in perpetuity. In
these instances, careful attention should be given to
the aforementioned criteria areas.
• At the present time site standards for the land dis-
posal of hazardous wastes have not been established.
It would appear that such standards should be developed
and promulgated with the intention that they be used
as guidance in site selection and qualification as well
as for licensing.
IMPLEMENTATION
• In considering means of implementing a system for the
management of hazardous wastes, it has become apparent
that a wide range of options is available, particularly
in the institutional arrangements which can be employed.
• Of the twelve institutional arrangements analyzed in
this report (ranging from a totally Federally owned
and operated system to little more control than is
presently exercised), it appears that the most effec-
tive alternate is a combination of Federal responsibi-
lities and standards for hazardous waste management
24
-------
with the operation of privately owned waste pro-
cessing, storage, and disposal facilities under a
license issued and controlled by the Federal Govern-
ment. State participation in implementation and
enforcement appears desirable.
• To be effective, any implementation plan, regardless
of how constituted, will require the establishment
of standards and the regulatory and enforcement mach-
inery necessary to obtain adherence.
• It is expected that the implementation of a regu-
latory program will result in modest restructuring
of business practices and will in effect create a
market for an already emerging hazardous waste
management service industry. The rate of this emer-
gence will be highly sensitive to the nature of the
standards and regulations, and even more so to their
degree of enforcement.
• State and lower jurisdictional level legislative
activities in hazardous waste management are, for
the most part, minimal. Of sixteen States surveyed,
only Oregon and California have enacted comprehensive
hazardous wastes disposal leglislation.
25
-------
26
-------
CHAPTER CONTENTS
CHAPTER III
DEFINITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
Page No.
BRIEF 29
DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES 30
Hazards of Concern 31
Flammability 31
Reactivity 31
Toxicity 32
Radioactivity 33
Bioconcentration 34
Irritation 35
Genetic Change Potential 35
EXISTING DEFINITIONS OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS . 35
The Pure Compound Approach 36
The Hazardous Waste Decision Model 42
Radioactivity 44
Bioconcentration 44
Flammability 45
Reactivity 46
Oral Toxicity 47
Inhalation Toxicity 48
Dermal Penetration 50
Dermal Irritation 50
Aquatic Toxicity 51
Phytotoxicity 51
Genetic Effects 52
Application of Model to Waste Streams 53
INVENTORY OF HAZARDOUS WASTES 54
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WASTES 6 4
27
-------
CHAPTER CONTENTS (Continued)
I'a g e No .
Biological , Chemical, and Explosive Wastes 66
Biological Agents 66
Chemical Agents 67
Explosive/Ordnance 71
PRIORITY OF CONCERN 7 3
28
-------
CHAPTER III
DEFINITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
BRIEF
Many wastes generated by man's activities are hazardous in
nature and consequently require special management techniques.
The hazards posed by these wastes result both from intrinsic
properties and from extrinsic circumstances of exposure.
Various classification systems have been devised for designat-
ing materials or wastes which pose hazards greater than those
which can be handled by normal management practices. Since
these classification systems were designed for specific
purposes, their characteristics vary widely, and each places
emphasis on particular properties of materials in light of the
needs for which the respective schemes were devised. No
single system has been formulated to cover all of the concerns
related to disposal of hazardous wastes.
To remedy this situation preliminary classification methodol-
ogies have been suggested based on evaluation of the hazardous
properties of the pure constituents of the wastes. Such an
approach, however, is unrealistic since it completely ignores
the potential for interaction among various components in a
waste and thus potentially misstates the waste's actual hazard.
Data pertaining to the physical-chemical-toxicological properties
of pure chemicals can be helpful, but should not be used as the
sole basis for assessing the nature and hazards of a complex
waste.
To meet the need for a workable designation tool, Battelle
formulated a hazardous waste decision model which evaluates
waste stream parameters and compares them to established
threshold levels. Thresholds for a number of parameters
which can cause damage to man or the environment have been
delineated and wastes which exceed any of these threshold
levels are designated hazardous. Each threshold level is handled
as an individual module to retain maximum flexibility in the
model. Changes in regulatory position or new information bearing
on the true nature of various hazards can be accommodated quickly
through modification of the pertinent threshold in the decision
model.
The decision model is viewed as a comprehensive regulatory device.
The body of wastes found to qualify as hazardous define the area
of control for hazardous wastes legislation. Wastes so qualify-
ing are restricted from normal disposal operations. Rather, they
29
-------
must be treated at the point of generation so as to no longer
fall in the category of hazardous, or they must be transferred
to a certified hazardous waste processing and disposal facility.
A formulation was also developed by Battelle to rank waste
streams on an ordinal scale representative of the priority of
concern they deserve. The formulation addresses itself to
volume of production and mobility as well as the intrinsic
hazard inherent in the waste.
During the progress of the study reported herein, data were col-
lected on various waste streams qualifying as hazardous under
preliminary pure constituent criteria. This information was
found to be inadequate for proper management of hazardous
wastes. The required data on waste stream volumes, composition,
and location are not available. There is an urgent need for
development of a complete inventory of wastes being discharged
into the biosphere.
A waste volume survey conducted during the course of this pro-
gram let to an estimate of the current annual hazardous wastes
generation in the United States as approximately 10,000,000 tons.
Fifteen medium sized hazardous wastes processing and disposal
facilities, each with a 122,000 gallon per day capacity, and
five large plants with 1,000,000 gallons per day capacities
would be required to handle this quantity of waste.
DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
Hazardous wastes in general have been defined as:
...those materials or combinations of materials which
require special management techniques because of their
acute and/or chronic effects on the health or welfare
of the public (or those individuals who handle them)
when they are disposed of by waste management pro-
cesses . . .
Such a definition is too broad to govern the selection and
designation of specific hazardous wastes. It leaves to in-
dividual judgment such decisions as: what levels of acute
or chronic effects require "special" management techniques?
Indeed, what are "special" management techniques? Consistent,
30
-------
objective decision making requires a quantitative formulation.
In order to design such a formulation, it is first necessary to
define hazards of concern.
Hazards of Concern
The term "hazardous" has two distinct connotations, one of which
relates to the intrinsic properties of the waste itself, or the
amount of damage that it can render to man or the environment.
The second connotation relates to extrinsic factors: the degree
of exposure of man or the environment to the hazard, including
quantity, behavior, delivery mechanism, and circumstances sur-
rounding exposure. In the former case, the information required
for assessing the degree of hazard is specific to the waste;
in the latter the information depends upon individual disposal
situations. Clearly, a general decision model cannot take into
account the multitude of variables involved with extrinsic
factors. Therefore it is the intrinsic factors, or hazards of
concern, upon which designation of hazardous wastes must hinge.
Hazardous wastes are generally flammable, reactive, toxic,
radioactive, irritating, and/or genetically active to an un-
acceptable degree. For numerous reasons these intrinsic pro-
perties are cause for concern.
Flammability
Highly flammable wastes can pose both acute handling and latent
disposal hazards. Handling problems involve safety hazards
to personnel at the site of origin, during transport, and at
the disposal site. An example of a latent disposal hazard is
the potential damage caused by unintentional or spontaneous
combustion of flammable residues at a disposal site. Fear of
such consequences has lead to a ban on the landfilling of
flammable liquids in many areas.
Both acute and latent hazards relate to injury, destruction
of property, and/or rapid depletion of resources. A 9,000
gallon tank truck and a 30,000 gallon tank car of flammable
liquid are likely to be associated with kill radii of 115 and
230 feet respectively if ignited during handling or transport
operations.6 Secondary effects beyond the initial disaster
area may include ignition of nearby inflammables and detonation
of heat sensitive substances in the vicinity. Hazards related
to disposal sites may exceed those of transportation and hand-
ling if sufficient waste volumes are involved. Flammable wastes
may include contaminated solvents, oils, pesticides and plasti-
cizers; complex organic sludges; or off-specification chemicals.
Reactivity
Highly reactive wastes may be detonated by several mechanisms:
31
-------
thermal shock, mechanical shock, electrostatic charge, or contact
with incompatible materials. Like flammable wastes, highly
reactive ones may threaten life and property in an acute and a
latent sense in that detonation may occur before or after "dis-
posal". In the first case, handling, shipment, or disposal
operations can initiate violent reactions, resulting in an ex-
plosion. In the second case, reactive materials may be buried
in a landfill and, like a time-bomb, await the appropriate con-
ditions for detonation.
Typically, the kill radius for explosive wastes will be less
than that for comparable volumes of flammable liquids. Prior
experience with transportation-related explosions indicates a
casualty radius of 100-200 feet.6 Detonation of a single waste
may be followed by secondary explosions or fire. The magnitude
of the hazard existing after completion of disposal activities
may exceed the handling hazard if sufficient waste inventory is
accumulated.
Reactive wastes include explosive manufacturing wastes, con-
taminated industrial gases, and old ordinance.
Toxicity
Toxicity is the ability of a waste to produce injury upon contact
with a susceptible site in or on the body of a living organism.
Toxicity hazard is the risk that injury will be caused by the
manner in which the waste is handled.7 Wastes may be acutely
or chronically hazardous to plants or animals via a number of
routes of administration. Phytotoxic wastes can damage plants
when present in the soil, atmosphere, or irrigation water.
Phytotoxicity is the result of a reduction of chlorophyl pro-
duction capability, overall growth retardation, or some speci-
fic chemical interference mechanism. A typical example of a
phytotoxic substance is boron.
Wastes which are acutely toxic to mammals may be active when
inhaled, ingested, and/or contacted with the skin. Acute
effects are generally evidenced within hours of inhalation or
after a single dermal or oral dose. Data pertinent to a single
route of administration may not be applicable to alternate routes.
Hence, beryllium dust is toxic at very low levels when present
in the air, but beryllium dissolved in water poses no ingestive
threat at low levels.
Wastes may be chronically toxic to mammals if they contain mate-
rials which 1) are bioaccumulated or concentrated in the food
chain, or 2) cause irreversible damage that builds gradually to
a final, unacceptable level. Classic examples of chronic toxi-
cants are the heavy metals and halogenated aromatic compounds.
32
-------
Wastes can also be highly toxic to aquatic organisms. Much
data exists on the effects of various materials on fish and
fish food organisms. (Toxicity ift these cases may result from
transfer of toxic materials across the gill membrane surface
and hence toxicity information may not always be deduced from
existing information on mammalian toxicity.)
Because of the various routes of exposure which may ultimately
lead to hazardous effects, toxicity must be viewed as a function
of the transport media, the physical characteristics of the
waste, and type of disposal practices involved.
Although water is perhaps the most pervasive vector, atmos-
pheric emissions may well travel faster and spread farther.
Direct contact is the most easily controlled route of exposure.
Toxic wastes can be derived from practically any industry.
Toxicity may be the result of pure constituents within the
stream, the total effects of several similar waste stream compo-
nents, or the combined action of two individually nontoxic
materials (binary synergism) .
Radioactivity
Ionizing radiation results from an instability of the nucleus
of an atom. The drive toward stability causes a radioactive
release which may be manifested in one of many forms. The
four major types of radiation are listed below:8
1. Alpha particles consist of two protons and two neutrons
and are the largest and heaviest of the emissions.
Interaction with orbital electrons slows alpha par-
ticles considerably and thus they do not travel more
than three inches when emitted in air. Consequently,
they are incapable of penetrating the dead outer layer
of human skin. Ingestion, inhalation, or adsorption
of alpha emitters can be extremely hazardous, however,
because of their potential ability to damage internal
organs unprotected by epidermal layers. Elements with
an atomic number of 84 or greater are typical alpha
emitters.
2. Beta particles are electrons emitted at high speeds.
Their small size and great velocity allow beta particles
to travel as far as 10-100 feet in air, and yet few can
penetrate human skin by as much as half an inch. Ex-
cessive external doses can produce skin burns while
internal doses can be highly hazardous even at very low
levels. Effects include debilitation of reproductive
capability and injury to specific organs.
33
-------
3. Gamma radiation is electromagnetic energy rather
than matter. In contrast to alpha radiation, gamma
radiation poses an extreme external as well as inter-
nal exposure hazard because of its ability to travel
great distances and deeply penetrate human tissue.
Gamma rays may not be as hazardous when present inter-
nally because of their ability to exit the body without
colliding with electrons and causing damage. Many
radioisotopes of common elements are gamma emitters.
4. Neutrons separated from the nucleus and traveling at
very high speeds constitute a fourth form of radiation.
While human exposure is rare, it is extremely dangerous
due to tissue penetrating capabilities exceeding several
feet.
Several major health hazards may result from exposure to radi-
ation: 1) large acute external doses may result in burns or
damage to internal organs; 2) large acute internal doses may
result in damage to internal organs; 3) low level chronic inter-
nal doses may accumulate in the body until toxic action results;
4) radiation can interfere with the normal functioning of the
nucleus of human cells leading to malignancy; and 5) irradiation
of reproductive organs can lead to sterility or possibly harm-
ful mutations.
Wastes containing radioactive materials may cause any and all
of the above effects. Acute exposure could result from improper
handling by employees or improper disposal to nonsecured loca-
tions. Chronic exposure could potentially result from leaching
of landfills, volatilization of radioactive materials, or casual
proximity to unmarked repositories.
Bioconcentration
The term bioconcentration is used to describe the hazard posed
by materials which can be concentrated in a single organism or
magnified by successive levels in the food chain until they
reach toxic levels. The hazard is one of chronic exposure and
generally occurs when the contaminant is present in the envir-
onment at low levels.
Wastes may possess this characteristic as a result of the pre-
sence of bioconcentrative constituents such as cadmium, lead,
mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, or carbon tetrachloride.
Improper disposal of these wastes can lead to release of low
levels of bioconcentrative materials to the environment.
Organisms may then pick up and concentrate these materials
until concentration reaches a sufficient level to cause death.
Concentration to the threshold toxic level often occurs in
34
-------
higher life forms such as fish, birds, and mammals, including
man.
Irritation
Some wastes, namely those containing allergens capable of
sensitizing skin, agents which cause contact dermatitis, or
substances which are corrosive to living tissues, can cause
severe discomfort if contacted. Examples of these wastes are
concentrated acids and alkalis, waste warfare agents, and
waste substances with allergenic properties. Such wastes pose
a hazard when discharged to waterways or uncontrolled land-
fills where accidental exposure cannot be prevented.
Genetic Change Potential
Wastes may contain materials with carcinogenic, mutagenic, or
teratogenic properties, evidenced as malfunctions of the
genetic process either in mitosis or meiosis. When chemically
induced such effects may be the result of chemical modification
of DNA nucleotides in the target species. Exposure routes are
usually direct and continuous.
Dye plant wastes and petroleum sludges can contain geneti-
cally active materials. The California Hazardous Wastes
Working Group9 notes that
Most proofs of carcinogenesis in humans are limited
to occupational exposur es but there is probably a
general population exposure of unknown magnitude.
Various reports substantiate this assumption in one
way or another and give emphasis to the urgent need
for comprehensive chemical, experimental, and epi-
demiologic studies to determine actual hazards.
EXISTING DEFINITIONS OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
It has been noted in prior studies that while numerous writers
have struggled with the term "hazardous material", no single,
satisfactory definition has evolved. In fact, even the term
"toxic" has been the subject of continuing recent controversy.10
Agreement can be reached at the extremes. All parties agree
that high explosives, radioactive substances, and deadly
poisons are hazardous, while most foodstuffs and natural
products are not. The debate focuses on the gray area between
these extremes.
Because hazard connotes previously discussed extrinsic factors
as well as inherent hazard, the ambiguous area between the
extremes has been divided in different ways by various interest
groups, each striving to analyze hazard within the context of
35
-------
a narrow range of situations. Consequently, each has derived a
unique set of criteria for assessing hazard. Most schemes devel-
oped to date, however, have recognized that any material may be
hazardous in a given context. Potter has stated,
It is absolutely indisputable that any given substance in
the proper time or proper place or proper ci rcumstances
can be hazardous.
To make a point: water, if deep enough, is hazardous to someone
who cannot swim.
Given this context, most work in the past has focused on cate-
gorizing or grouping materials in a hierarchical relation and
labeling each group, such as Class A poisons and Class B poisons.
By 1970 there were more than 30 major classification systems
being employed to characterize hazardous substances during trans-
portation operations. Table 1 illustrates the various types of
criteria which can be applied for these classification schemes.
Past classification schemes, however, have not addressed them-
selves to wastes. Rather, they have dealt with pure substances
and commercial products. Systems for evaluating fire and ex-
plosion hazard have generally been based on graded levels re-
lated to initiation of combustion or explosive action.1 3'1"
Systems emphasizing toxic or irritating materials typically
select gdose thresholds at or below that at which given reactions
occur. ~ Radioactivity and carcinogenicity are usually speci-
fied as either present or not present.
Since hazardous wastes may pose any or all of these problems, no
single existing system is adequate for classifying all wastes;
a hybrid system is required for use in defining hazardous waste
types. Development, of such a system was attempted by TRW
Systems Group, Inc. and can be identified as the pure
compound approach.
The Pure Compound Approach
The pure compound approach is predicated on the assumption that
the hazardous properties of a waste will be those of the most
hazardous pure compound within the waste. Using threshold
levels established for the various hazardous properties, wastes
containing compounds with values less than or equal to these
thresholds are classified as hazardous. This approach takes
advantage of the available hazard data on pure chemicals and
avoids speculation on potential compound interactions within a
waste stream.
The criteria for selection of hazardous compounds were chosen
to emphasize two major concerns: the existence of a hazard, and
the inability to sufficiently reduce that hazard on-site. TRW
employed four criteria during their selection process. 19
36
-------
TABLE 1
POSSIBLE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CRITERIA FOR
CATEGORIZATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS12
Identification of Hazardous Material
A. Name
B. Chemical class
C. Physical and chemical properties
D. Toxicology
Specification of Nature of Hazard
A. Overall effect
B. Attack by hazardous material
C. Possible accident
D. Chemical and physical effects
E. Hazard class
Specification of Degree of Hazard
Specification of Mode of Transport
A. Truck
B. Rail
C. Air
D. Water
E. Pipe
F. Combinations
of modes
Specification of Handling Activity Required or Expected
A. Transport
B. Store
C. Use en route
D. Combination
Specification of Expected Environmental Stresses in
Handling
A. Thermal
B. Mechanical shock or vibration
C. Abrasion
D. Compression
E. Impact
37
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
F. Puncture
G. Pressure
H. Moisture
I. Combinations of stresses
7. Specification of Corrective Actions to be Taken in Case
of Accident
8. Specification of Exemptions and Exceptions to Above
9. Compatibility with Other Substances
10. Detectability
11. Availability of Techniques for Neutralization of a Spill
38
-------
1. Material has an estimated 24 hr TLV < 1 ppm.
2. Material is spontaneously combustible in air.
3. Material is highly explosive, rated < 5 inches on
the Picatinny Arsenal scale using a 2 Kg drop weight.
(The 5 inch level was selected since it differen-
tiates between primary and secondary explosive mate-
rials. )
4. Material requires costly or highly sophisticated
technology for disposal.
Candidate materials for consideration as hazardous were selected
by Booz-Allen in a recent study on the basis of their intrin-
sic properties and production quantities.10 TRW then re-
viewed these candidates with respect to the aforementioned
criteria. Table 2 lists the compounds tentatively designated
as hazardous under this selection procedure. Any waste
stream containing one of these constituents at a significant
level was subsequently classified as hazardous. Beryllium
and asbestos were deleted from the list though considered
as aerosol hazards. Subsequent findings indicate that both
should have been retained on the list.
The pure compound approach has one major advantage in that
pure compound data is more readily available than waste stream
data. This is a source of weakness also, however, since this
system fails to recognize that the interactions of various
waste stream constituents can drastically alter the hazardous
nature of a waste. The classic example of interactive alter-
ation is synergism, the working together of two or more mate-
rials to create a combined toxicity greater than the sum of
their individual effects. For instance, chlorinated aromatics
become far more toxic in the presence of various solvents.
Heavy metals like cadmium and selenium can be synergistic to
each other. Other interactions which cause alterations include
antagonism, (the functional opposite of synergism in which the
combined toxicity is less than the sum of the parts) complex
formation, and chemical reaction potential.
Another significant weakness in the original selection criteria
is the failure to consider the full range of hazard types.
While explosiveness, flammability, and inhalation'toxicity are
important considerations, they do not reflect the entire range
of significant hazards. Of particular concern are dangers
related to oral ingestion, dermal contact, aquatic toxicity,
phytotoxicity, and genetic change potential. These proper-
ties cannot be deduced from inhalation data. In many instances
39
-------
TABLE 2
NONRADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS COMPOUNDS
EMPLOYED FOR PURE COMPOUND SELECTION PROCEDURE
MISCELLANEOUS INORGANICS
AMMONIUM CHROMATE
AMMONIUM DICHROMATE
ANTIMONY PENTAFLUORIDE
ANTIMONY TRIFLUORIDE
ARSENIC TRICHLORIDE
ARSENIC TRIOXIDE
CADMIUM (ALLOYS)
CADMIUM CHLORIDE
CADMIUM CYANIDE
CADMIUM NITRATE
CADMIUM OXIDE
CADMIUM PHOSPHATE
CADMIUM POTASSIUM CYANIDE
CADMIUM (POWDERED)
CADMIUM SULFATE
CALCIUM ARSENATE
CALCIUM ARSENITE
CALCIUM CYANIDES
CHROMIC ACID
COPPER ARSENATE
COPPER CYANIDES
CYANIDE (ION)
DECABORANE
DIBORANE
HEXABORANE
HYDRAZINE
HYDRAZINE AZIDE
LEAD ARSENATE
LEAD ARSENITE
LEAD AZIDE
LEAD CYANIDE
MAGNESIUM ARSENITE
MANGANESE ARSENATE
MERCURIC CHLORIDE
MERCURIC CYANIDE
MERCURIC DIAMMONIUM
CHLORIDE
MERCURIC NITRATE
MERCURIC SULFATE
MERCURY
NICKEL CARBONYL
NICKEL CYANIDE
PENTABORANE-9
PENTABORANE-11
PERCHLORIC ACID (TO 72%)
PHOSGENE (CARBONYL CHLORIDE)
POTASSIUM ARSENITE
POTASSIUM CHROMATE
POTASSIUM CYANIDE
POTASSIUM DICHROMATE
SELENIUM
SILVER AZIDE
SILVER CYANIDE
SODIUM ARSENATE
SODIUM ARSENITE
SODIUM BICHROMATE
SODIUM CHROMATE
SODIUM CYANIDE
SODIUM MONOFLUOROACETATE
TETRABORANE
THALLIUM COMPOUNDS
ZINC ARSENATE
ZINC ARSENITE
ZINC CYANIDE
HALOGENS & INTERHALOGENS
BROMINE PENTAFLUORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE PENTAFLUORIDE
CHLORINE TRIFLUORIDE
FLUORINE
PERCHLORYL FLUORIDE
MISCELLANEOUS ORGANICS
ACROLEIN
ALKYL LEADS
CARCINOGENS (IN GENERAL)
CHLOROACETOPHENONE
40
-------
CHLOROPICRIN
COPPER ACETYLIDE
COPPER CHLOROTETRAZOLE
CYANURIC TRIAZIDE
DIAZODINITROPHENOL (DDNP)
DIMETHYL SULFATE
DINITROBENZENE
DINITRO CRESOLS
DINITROPHENOL
DINITROTOLUENE
DIPENTAERYTHRITOL HEXANITRATE
(DPEHN)
GB (PROPOXY(2)-METHYLPHOSPHORYL
FLUORIDE)
GELATINIZED NITROCELLULOSE
(PNC)
GLYCOL DINITRATE
GOLD FULMINATE
LEAD 2,4-DINITRORESORCINATE
(LDNR)
LEAD STYPHNATE
LEWISITE (2-CHLOROETHENYL
DICHLOROARSINE)
MANNITOL HEXANITRATE
NITROANILINE
NITROCELLULOSE
NITROGEN MUSTARDS (2,2' ,2"
TRICHLOROTRIETHYLAMINE)
NITROGLYCERIN
ORGANIC MERCURY COMPOUND
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PICRIC ACID
POTASSIUM DINITROBENZFUROXAN
(KDNBF)
SILVER ACETYLIDE
SILVER TETRAZENE
TEAR GAS (CN) (CHLOROACETO-
PHENONE)
TEAR GAS (CS) (2-CHLOROBEN-
ZYLIDENE MALONONITRILE)
TETRAZENE
VX (ETHOXY-METHYL PHOSPHORYL
N,N DIPROPOXY-(2-2), THIO-
CHOLINE)
PESTICIDES &
ORGANIC HALOGEN COMPOUNDS
ALDRIN
CHLORINATED AROMATICS
CHLORDANE
COPPER ACETOARSENITE
2,4-D (2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXY-
ACETIC ACID)
DDD
DDT
DEMETON
DlELDRIN
ENDRIN
ETHYLENE BROMIDE
FLUORIDES (ORGANIC)
GUTHION
HEPTACHLOR
LINDANE
METHYL BROMIDE
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL PARATHION
PARATHION
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
(PCB)
41
-------
materials are highly toxic to plants or aquatic life but only
moderately or slightly toxic to man. Materials such as beryl-
lium are extremely dangerous when inhaled but relatively harm-
less when dissolved in drinking water. Clearly, thresholds
must be established for the full range of hazards rather than
relying on a single toxicity measurement for extrapolation to
other sectors in the biosphere and alternate routes of exposure.
Finally, the pure compound approach was designed to assess
treatability. This is a judgmental decision and clouds the
objectivity of the screening criteria. Regulations controlling
designation of hazardous wastes will be more technically de-
fensible and more practical for use in the future if this sub-
jective judgment can be eliminated. In order to accomplish this,
a hazardous waste decision model has been formulated.
The Hazardous Waste Decision Model
The hazardous waste decision model is designed to reorient the
pure compound approach to a more objective methodology. The
use of comparative threshold levels is retained, but the basic
criteria for judgment are expanded to cover a full range of
hazard types. Constituent interactions are taken into account
as fully as possible by use of available waste stream data.
The selection process is analogous to a screening operation.
Candidate wastes are examined in a manner illustrated by the
logic diagram, Figure 1. Affirmative response to any of the
criteria, or screens, automatically qualifies the waste as
hazardous. All wastes are considered candidates for the screen-
ing procedure, regardless of production quantities. While low
volume streams will be unimportant in designing individual
treatment facilities, they must be classified and regulated as
hazardous if their intrinsic properties so warrant.
A subjective treatability assessment is avoided by evaluating
waste streams as they exit the plant's boundaries. Hence, if
on-site processing adequately reduces waste stream properties
below the designated thresholds, the resulting discharges will
not be classified as hazardous. On the other hand, sludges
or concentrates resulting from on-site treatment may well be
sufficiently dangerous to qualify as hazardous. These by-
product streams would then be so designated.
This concept allows for continual updating of designations and
regulations as new production techniques and treatment systems
modify existing wastes and as new wastes are produced. The
rationale for the thresholds selected for use in the hazardous
waste decision model follow.
42
-------
FIGURE 1
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE DECISION MODEL
WASTE STREAMS
YES
NO
YES
IS WASTE SUBJECT TO
BIOCONCENTRATION?
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
HAZARDOUS WASTES
NONHAZARDOUS WASTES
DOES WASTE HAVE AQUATIC
96 HRTLM < 1000 mg GRADE 77
DOES WASTE HAVE AN ORAL LO,
< 50 mgIt?
DOES WASTE CAUSE GENETIC
CHANGES?
IS WA STE FLAMMA B) LI TY
IN NFPA CATEGORY 4?
IS WASTE PHYTOTOXICITY
lt50< 1000 MG/L?
IS WASTE DERMAL PENETRATION
TOXICITY LD„<200 mgfltg?
DOES WASTE CONTAIN
RADIOACTIVE CONSTITUTES
>MPC LEVELS?
IS WASTE INHALATION TOXICITY
<200 PPM 6 GAS OR MIST?
LC„<2 mg/LAS OUST?
43
-------
Radioactivity
The purpose of this screen is to designate all waste streams
containing radioisotopes above the accepted maximum per-
missible concentration (MPC) levels as hazardous. The actual
MPC levels as set by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) are
in a state of transition; therefore the screen is formulated
to accommodate whatever standards exist at the time of the
evaluation. Present values are currently under review and
may be reduced in the near future. Should this occur, re-
evaluation of radioisotope-bearing streams may be necessary.
The MPC levels are appropriate for use in a scheme such as
this, since they are in part developed to specify discharge
levels. Consequently, their use renders the screen compa-
tible with existing AEC regulations and draws on the wealth
of research and experience which stands behind the initial
selection of those values.
Bioconcentration
The terms bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnifi-
cation are often used interchangeably to describe the pheno-
menon by which living organisms concentrate an element or
compound to levels in excess £f those in the surrounding
environment. Kneip and Lauer define the three terms in
the following manner:
Bioconcentration refers to the ability of an organism
or a population of many organisms of the same trophic
level to concentrate a substance from an aquatic system.
Bioaccumulation refers to the ability of an organism
to not only concentrate, but to continue to concentrate
essentially throughout its active metabolic lifetime,
such that the 'concentration factor', if calculated
would be continuously increasing during its lifetime.
Biomagnification is the term which should be used when
a substance is found to exist at successively higher
concentrations with increasing trophic levels in
ecosystem food chains.
It should be noted that concentration factor is defined here
as the ratio of the concentration of the material of interest
in the organism to the concentration of that material in the
environment or the preceding link in the food chain.21
Employing these definitions, the purpose of the screen is to
identify and designate as hazardous those wastes which dis-
44
-------
play a concentration factor in higher organisms, here defined
as mammals, fish, birds, mollusks, macrocrustacea, reptiles
and amphibians. The screen is not relevant to materials with
cumulative effects or materials for which substantial nutri-
tional requirements have been established. In general, biocon-
centrated materials as defined here are ones for which the
detoxification-excretion mechanism is either non-existent or
extremely slow.
Bioconcentrative materials can be grouped into two categories
based on retention mechanisms. The first includes the heavy
metals such as mercury and lead. These materials, through a
strong affinity characteristic with sulfhydryl groups and di-
sulfide bonds, are capable of inactivating or denaturing
enzymes and proteins, thus blocking normal metabolic pathways,
interfering with control mechanisms and crippling cellular
integrity. The second category of bioconcentrative substances
is represented by persistent organic materials such as DDT and
PCBs. These materials concentrate through an affinity for
non-polar solvents and low solubility in water. The contami-
nants quickly migrate to fatty tissues or lipid cellular frac-
tions where they typically cause hepatic disorders (disorders
of the functions of the liver).
Evaulating the data on bioconcentration can be very difficult
since no standard bioassay or testing procedure has been adopted
by which the bioconcentration potential of a material can be
consistently assessed. Present plans call for such a protocol
to be developed by the EPA.1,7 Until such a standard testing pro-
cedure is developed, literature sources documenting environ-
mental build-up of a material or laboratory studies indicating
less than complete elimination or detoxification of a material
by one of the higher organisms of animal life one week after
exposure will be used to select substances under this criterion.
This evaluation is presently included in the selection procedure
proposed by the Division of Oil and Hazardous Materials (DOHM)
of the EPA for designation of hazardous substances. Use of this
criterion and any standard testing protocol devised by the EPA
will insure compatability with related governmental activities.
Flammability
All waste streams qualifying as Category 4 flammable materials
by the National Fire Protection Associatiorf 3 will be included
as hazardous wastes. Included in the Category 4 flammability
rating are
very flammable gases, very volatile flammable liquids,
and materials that in the form of dusts or mists readily
form explosive mixtures when dispersed in air.
45
-------
Examples of pure compounds receiving the Category 4 flam-
mability rating are methyl ethyl ether and n-butane. Im-
proper disposal of materials such as these would constitute
a public hazard.
Wastes may include a variety of constituents which in
combination qualify as Category 4 or whose interactive by-
products qualify as Category 4. In practice, wastes may or
may not be readily classified utilizing only data on the
constitutents in the waste streams. The decision to classify
materials as Category 4 is a judgmental one. In general,
materials qualify as Category 4 flammables if they are:
1. flammable gases;
2. flammable liquids with boiling points below 100°F
and vapor densities £l.l (density is measured as
the ratio of the weight of a volume of vapor to
an equal volume of dry air under similar conditons);
3. flammable liquids with flash points below 100°F
and vapor-air densities 2:1.1; and
4. spontaneously combustible in air.
The vapor and vapor-air density data are meant to account for
the hazard of vapors traveling along the ground to an
ignition source and then flashing back. This could be a
real hazard in landfill operations where heavy equipment
exhaust or sparks could ignite escaping vapors. The Cate-
gory 4 rating is roughly equivalent to a Grade 4 rating
on the NAS fire hazard scale.17
All waste streams qualifying as Category 4 reactive materials
by the National Fire Protection Association13will be included
as hazardous wastes. Included in the category 4 reactivity
rating are those
...materials which in themselves are readily capable
of detonation or of explosive decomposition or explosive
reaction at normal temperatures and pressures.
Examples of materials in the Category 4 reactivity rating
include contaminated benzoyl peroxides and off-spec nitro-
methane. Improper disposal of materials in this category
would constitute a public hazard.
46
-------
Judging the reactive hazard level of complex wastes will be a
difficult task. The major areas of concern will include:
• Detonation by Electrical Shock - Some materials can
be detonated by electrostatic charge and as such pose
a reactive hazard in various environments. Data
pertinent to this hazard can be found in the National
Electrical Code (NFPA No. 70)22.
• Oxidizing Materials - Strong oxidizing agents such as
chlorates, perchlorates, bromates, peroxides, nitric
acid, nitrates, nitrites, and permanganates are highly
sensitive to heat, friction, and impact when in the
presence of combustible materials. Mixtures of oxi-
dizing and combustible materials should be considered
Category 4 reactive. This would include Grade 4
self-reactive materials in the NAS rating system.17
• Polymerization - Certain hazardous wastes are capable
of autopolymerization. By-product heat and pressure
increases present a danger. Wastes containing
materials with this potential should be considered
Category 4 reactive. The presence of inhibitors may
not be sufficient to reduce the hazard since biolog-
ical, chemical or thermal action may negate the
inhibiting effect. This would include Grade 3 self-
reactive agents in the NAS rating system.17
• Explosiveness - Wastes containing primary high explo-
sives at any but dilute concentrations should be
considered Category 4 reactive. Primary high explo-
sives are defined as those materials which detonate,
releasing energy very rapidly and creating very high
pressures. Detonation can result from friction, impact,
shock or heat. Primary high explosives are rated at
5 inches or less on the Picatinny Arsenal scale.
• Water or Air Reactive - Wastes may also be considered
Category 4 if they react violently when exposed to
air or water. This would include materials rated as
Grade 4 water reactive in the NAS rating system.17
Many of these decision factors have not been quantified. The
NFPA selection committee relied largely on a consensus
approach. Their findings, however, on pure compounds should
serve as guidelines for extrapolation to wastes.
Oral Toxicity
Waste streams found to have an oral LD50 to man or rats less
than or equal to 50 mg/kg body weight are considered hazardous.
47
-------
The LD50 is defined as the dose at which 50 percent of the test
population succumbs. The level of 50 mg/kg was selected to
comply with existing EPA regulations (40 CFR Section 162.8) and
DOT advanced notice of proposed rule making (Docket No. Hm-51,
Fed. Reg., Vol. 36, No. 30, February 12, 1971) designating sub-
stances either extremely or highly toxic. An LD50 of 50 mg/kg
or less also matches the NAS toxicity rating of Grade 4.17
The EPA Division of Oil and Hazardous Materials is also pro-
posing this threshold for designation of hazardous substances.
A large quantity of data on test organisms other than humans or
rats and on routes of administration other than oral are avail-
able. Often these data may be extrapolated to estimate an oral
LD50 value for man or rats. Table 3 lists comparative toxic
levels outlined by the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare23 which may be used for this purpose.
The oral ingestion route is selected to represent the potential
for leaching of landfilled materials into water supplies.
Testing procedures for oral toxicity should provide for single
dose administration followed by a 14 day observation period.
Further information on detailed test conditions can be found in
Title 21 of CFR, Section 191.10; the Federal Register, Vol. 36,
No. 30, February 12, 1971; and Title 40 of CFR, Section 162.8.
Inhalation Toxicity
Wastes demonstrating an inhalation LC50 of 200 ppm or less as
a vapor or 2 mg/1 or less as a dust or aerosol are considered
hazardous. The LC50 is the concentration at which 50 percent
of the test population succumbs. The levels selected comply
with those set by EPA regulations (40 CFR Section 162.8) and
DOT advanced notice of proposed rule-making (Docket No. HM-51,
Fed. Reg., Vol. 36, No. 30, February 12, 1971) to designate
extremely and highly toxic materials. The Division of Oil and
Hazardous Materials within the EPA is also proposing this
threshold for designation of hazardous substances.
Inhalation toxicity can be of importance for a variety of waste-
related activities including vapors escaping from landfills,
off gases from combustion processes, and operator exposure
during processing, shipment, and disposal. A great deal of
information on exposure limits for eight hour working days has
been published as Threshold Limit Values (TLV's).16 While these
regulated levels are not of interest in the decision model
itself, they are typically estimated on LC50 data. These
initial toxicological findings should provide an excellent
source of data on pure compounds.
48
-------
TABLE 3
LIMITING DOSAGES DIFFERENTIATING TOXIC AND NONTOXIC SUBSTANCES
ACCORDING TO ROUTE OF ADMINISTRATION TO EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS
OF A MAXIMUM SINGLE (ACUTE)1 DOSE CAUSING DEATH3
ROUTES OF ADMINISTRATION (WITH LIST ABBREVIATIONS)
Oral
Inhalation
Skin
Parenteral
(orl)
(ihl)
(skn)
Intraperitoneal
Subcutaneous
Intravenous (ivn)
Other
Unreported
SPECIES
Rectal
8 hr.
(ipr)
(scu)
Intramuscular (ims)
(par)
(unk)
(with list
(rec)
Intrapleural
Intradermal
Ocular (ocu)
designations)
(ipl)
(ktr)
Implant
(imp)
Intracerebral
(ice)
Intratracheal
(itr)
mg/Kg
ppm
mg/M
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
Mouse (mus), Hamster (ham),
2500
5000
1000
1400
1000
5000
750
1000
2500
Frog (frg), Geibil (gib)
Rat (rat), Squirrel (sql)
50001
10000
2000
2800
2000
100002
1500
2000
5000
Mammal, unspecified (mam)
Rabbit (ibt) Guinea Pig
10000
20000
4000
28002
4000
20000
3000
4000
10000
(gpg). Chicken (ckn),
Pigeon (pgn), Quail (qal),
Duck (dek), Turkey (trk),
Bird (brd)
Dog (dog). Monkey (mky),
10000
20000
4000
5600
4000
20000
3000
4000
10000
Cat (cat) Pig (pig).
Cattle (ctl), Domestic
Animals: sheep, goat,
Itone (dom)
'Applies to those substances for which acute toxicity characterizes the response, fast-acting substances, irritants, narcosis-producing substances, most drugs, does ru>t apply to
substances whose characteristic response results from prolonged exposure, e.g., silica, lead, benzene, carbon disulfide, carcinogens. Concentrations moi< appropriately
characterizing the toxicity of long- or slow-acting substances arc derived from long-term, chronic toxicity studies.
2From Hine and Jacobson, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assn. Quart. 15, 141, 1954.
3Calculated from experimental data (Stokinger).
-------
Tests to determine the inhalation toxicity hazards of wastes
should be designed around a 24 hour exposure time followed by
a 14 day observation period. Further information on testing
procedures can be found in Title 40 CFR, Section 162.8; Title
21 CFR, Section 191.10; and the Federal Register, Vol. 36, No.
30, February 12, 1971.
Dermal Penetration
A waste with a dermal LD50 of 50 mg/kg body weight or less is
considered hazardous. The LD50 is defined as the dose at which
50 percent of the test population succumbs. The level of 50
mg/kg was selected to comply with existing EPA regulations
(40 CFR, Section 162.8) and DOT advanced notice oi proposed
rule making (Docket No. HM-51, Fed. Reg., Vol. 36, No. 30,
February 12, 1971) designating substances either extremely or
highly toxic. The Division of Oil and Hazardous Materials
within the EPA is also proposing this threshold for designa-
tion of hazardous substances.
The dermal penetration route of administration must be consid-
ered since a contact hazard exists both for landfill areas and
discharges into surface waters. Data on dermal penetration
can be found in classical toxicology manuals as well as in the
reports of Smyth, et al.18'2" 30
Testing procedures for dermal toxicity should provide for one
hour of exposure followed by a 14 day observation period.
Further details for testing can be found in Title 40 CFR,
Section 162.8, Title 21 CFR, Section 191.10; and the Fed. Reg.
Vol. 36, No. 30, February, 19 71.
Dermal Irritation
Wastes scoring eight or better on the FDA skin irritation eval-
uation are considered hazardous. This threshold represents
moderate or severe edema and erythema on rabbit skins after a 24
hour exposure period. Tests are made on shaved and abraded skin
as prescribed in Title 21 CFR, Section 191.1. Additionally,
wastes rating Grade 8 or better on the irritation evaluation
10-grade ordinal scale devised by Smyth, et al^ 8'2 ** 30 can
also be classed hazardous. Here, the material rating is derived
as the severest reaction obtained on any of five albino rabbits
after a 24 hour exposure of .01 ml of sample or solution
in water, acetone, or propylene glycol.
Grade 1 on the above scale indicates no irriation; Grade 2
is evidenced by the least visible capillary injection from
the undiluted chemical. Grade 6 indicates necrosis when
applied undiluted; Grade 8 indicates necrosis after appli-
50
-------
cation of a 1 percent solution; and Grade 10 relates to
necrosis from a .01 percent solution. A Grade 8 rating was
selected for the threshold because it represents severe
irritant effects after a dilution of 100 to 1.
Aquatic Toxicity
A waste displaying a 96 hour TLm of 1000 ppm or less is
considered hazardous. TLm refers to the median threshold
limit, or the concentration at which a material is lethal
to one-half of the test population. A limit of 1000 ppm
was selected to comply with thresholds now being proposed
by the Division of Oil and Hazardous Materials within the
EPA. This justification is based upon concentration
levels likely to occur after 1, 3, and 6 hour discharges
of tank truck, tank car, and tank barge quantities into
various sized streams. Employing a general dispersion
model, materials with a 96 hour TLm of 1000 ppm or less may
persist at those levels long enough to cause significant
damage to aquatic life. Materials with higher TLm values
are not likely to cause significant damage. The 1000 ppm
or less level correlates with NAS ratings of Grade 2-4 for
aquatic toxicity.17
Aquatic hazards may result from landfill leachate or direct
dumping. The threat is of importance to various fish varie-
ties and fish food organisms.
Testing should follow accepted static or flow-through bioassay
techniques for a 96 hour exposure period. Detailed procedures
are available in Standard Methods.31 A great deal of data on
aquatic toxicity of pure compounds and wastes has been
collected by McKee and Wolfe®2 and by Battelle-Columbus.33
Phytotoxicity
A waste displaying an ILm of 1000 ppm or less is considered
hazardous. The ILm is defined as the median inhibitory
limit, or that concentration at which a 50 percent reduction
in the biomass , cell count, or photosynthetic activity of
the test culture occurs when compared to a control culture over
a 14 day period. The 1000 ppm level was selected for reasons
similar to those for selection of the aquatic toxicity thresh-
old.
Plant toxicity is of concern both from the standpoint of damage
to commercial operations and damage to aquatic plants which form
an important link in the food chain. Plants may be threatened
by landfill leachate or direct dumping into surface waters or
waters destined for irrigation use.
51
-------
While no standard testing procedures have been published to date,
personnel at the EPA National Environmental Research Center (NERC)
in Cincinnati will soon issue a manual containing the necessary
testing details.22 Data on phytotoxicity of pure materials and
wastes can be found in McKee and Wolfe,32 The Water Quality
Criteria Data Book, Volume 3s3 and the Oil and Hazardous
Materials - Technical Assistance Data System (OHM-TADS) files
maintained by the EPA.31*
Genetic Effects
Wastes found to give positive results to standard genetic
effect tests are considered hazardous. Effects may be grouped
into three major subcategories :
Carcinogens - Standard tests for carcinogenic behavior
have been promulgated and catalogued by the National
Cancer Institute.35 Any of the accepted procedures
described in various NCI publications should be adequate
for testing.
Mutagens - Standard mutagen tests have been developed
by Weissgunger at the National Cancer Institute.35 There
are also several standardized procedures described by
Epstein and Legator.36 Mutagenic effects in bacterial
and plant cultures have never been translated into impact
on man, but mutagenesis in any sector of the environment
may ultimately be of importance and should be considered
hazardous until potential correlations are more clearly
defined.
Teratogens - Standard teratogenic potential tests are
quite well accepted. They are typically conducted on
pregnant New Zealand rabbits. Detailed procedures can
be obtained from the National Cancer Institute.
Because genetic effects potential testing is both time-consuming
and costly, all wastes should not be subjected to a rigid
battery of evaluations. Rather, tests should be required only
of those wastes in which known carcinogens, mutagens, or tera-
togens are known to occur or are strongly suspected of occurring.
The National Cancer Institute publishes a list of known car-
cinogens.35 Similarly, Epstein has catalogued mutagens.36
Data on teratogens is somewhat more scattered, but can be found
in Volumes 1 and 2 of the Water Quality Criteria Data Book.37''6
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare also identi-
fies genetic effects potential in their Toxic Substances
publication.2 3
52
-------
This screen should be modified continuously as genetic change
potential becomes better understood and as shorter, more
reliable tests are developed. Fapermeister at Edgewood
Arsenal and Shields at Cincinnati are presently developing
new testing techniques which could be of major importance.35
Application of Model to Waste Streams
The decision model is designed to handle and evaluate waste
streams rather than general industry wastes. Consequently,
a plant or specific industry may be evaluated for liquid
discharges, sludges, solid wastes, and atmospheric emissions.
Each of the four waste streams is judged on the basis of its
properties and inherent hazards. When separate waste streams
such as two discretely different liquid effluents, are dis-
charged by an industry each is evaluated individually.
If the pitfalls of the pure compound approach are to be
avoided, information must be collected on waste streams per
se. At the present time there is a paucity of such data.
McKee and Wolfe32 report aquatic toxicity levels for some
industrial wastes. Beyond this, no single source of
reliable hazard evaluation results exists. This does not
invalidate the decision model. Rather, it suggests that
alternate means of estimating waste stream hazard data must
be employed until such actual numbers are derived. Ulti-
mately, the waste stream data may be obtained by requiring
appropriate hazard testing for all plant effluents prior to
issuance of discharge permits. Such a requirement would
lead to the collection of the necessary data within a few
years time. This, coupled with inventories of discharge
volumes, would allow much closer observation and control of
accumulative environmental effects.
In the interim, however, an alternate method is required.
This system must take advantage of existing pure compound
data without suffering the pitfalls of the pure compound
approach discussed earlier. To do so, it is assumed that
all constituents are additive in their effects. This
necessitates compound calculations for waste streams.
Technical judgments will be needed on the non-quantifiable
screens. Estimation procedures for each screening module
are described in Appendix A. It must be emphasized that
this is not the pure compound approach. It is merely a
compromise technique for calculating waste stream data
53
-------
based on existing pure compound data. The decision model is
still employed. The only deviation from the recommended model
rests in the method of generating the waste stream data. The
hazard parameters, such as LD50, are determined mathematically
from those of the constituents, rather than experimentally for
the waste stream itself.
Clearly, the model will be best employed when comprehensive
waste data are required. Regulations can then be structured
around the decision model. Initially, wastes qualifying as
hazardous under the model will define the boundary of authority.
Discharges of wastes so designated can be prohibited. These
wastes must then be treated on-site so as to no longer qualify
as hazardous or must be routed to a certified hazardous wastes
processing and disposal facility. The certified disposal
operation is then charged with eliminating the properties that
qualified the waste as hazardous or securing it at a properly
designated repository.
The model is designed to accommodate changes in regulatory
posture, in that thresholds can be set at any level deemed
appropriate. Hence, toxic levels can be raised or lowered to
reflect new information acquired by Federal agencies and judg-
mental decisions can be rendered more objective as specific
methodologies are derived. It appears essential that any
regulatory criteria system adopted for waste materials retain
a degree of flexibility. This need derives from the fact that
all potential wastes cannot now be identified, let alone their
composition detailed. Most will change with time, and the
administrative burden in predesignating hazardous wastes would
be substantial.
INVENTORY OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
Hazardous wastes both chemical and biological in origin are
generated by many of man's daily activities. According to
the California Hazardous Wastes Working Group9:
Included in the category of hazardous wastes are
industrial chemicals and sludges; residues of chem-
icals, paints, dyes, solvents, adhesives, oils,
plating and pickling liquors remaining on metal
cuttings, sawdust, paper, wood or cloth, or remain-
ing in discarded containers,' explosives and flam-
mable materials; fines and dusts from exotic
materials/ exotic liquids, and acids and caustic
liquids and solids; leachings from mineral wastes;
leachings from landfills, herbicides and herbicide
containers; pesticides, by-products of pesticide
production, and pesticide containers; pathological
54
-------
and infectious wastes, disposable syringes, pills,
and drugs from physicians' offices, clinics, hos-
pitals and veterinary facilities; radioactive mater-
ials; sewage treatment/ and other similar materials.
Of these, many will qualify as hazardous depending upon the
circumstances surrounding their production, the type and
degree of treatment they are subjected to prior to discharge,
and the extent to which wastes are blended or segregated.
Hazardous wastes may be liquid discharges, sludges, slurries
or muds, solid wastes, or atmospheric emissions. During the
course of this study the majority of hazardous waste dis-
charges identified were liquid effluents and sludges. This
distribution of waste types is not necessarily completely
representative of the actual situation. It reflects in
part the fact that liquid wastes and sludges have been
studied and characterized to a far greater extent than other
types of wastes as a result of extensive water pollution-
oriented studies conducted over the past twenty years.
Atmospheric emissions have come under much finer scrutiny
in the last decade, but large areas remain undefined.
Extensive studies are needed to identify individual species
in various exhausts such as the off-gases from incineration
of halogenated aromatics. Solid wastes, tars, and slurries
have received the least attention and consequently remain
the major unknown.
Regardless of the type of discharge, work identifying
individual hazardous constituents, hazardous waste volumes,
and the collective hazard of given wastes is nowhere near
that required for adequate management of discharges. Booz-
Allen Applied Research10 notes that waste quantification for
specific materials does not exist. Among the principal
reasons for this situation are:
... historically, there has been no interest or objec-
tive in quantifying waste amounts of specific mater-
ials, with the exception of radioactive wastes, which
are subject to a stringent control system;
for certain materials, such as pesticides and herbi-
cides, the utilization and disposal cycles were one
and the same, but geographic location data were not
recorded;
in nearly all waste disposal processes, whether
industrial, governmental, or domestic, materials
being wasted are thrown together and become streams
of mixed wastes; and
55
-------
pre-disposal waste treatment, where employed at all,
has been applied to a limited number of waste stream
characteristics, rather than to characteristics of
specific materials.
It follows that without waste quantity data for spe-
cific materials, geographic location cannot be con-
sidered. The impact of the latter two factors above
on the hazardous waste quantification problem cannot
be overstated. The difficulties imposed can be more
succinctly observed when it is noted that mixed
waste streams:
• can have ha zardous materials as input;
• are not analyzed in detail, if at all;
• might be chemically indeterminate, as a
result of unknown reactions;
0 might exhibit some, all, or none of the
characteristics of individual input
materials; and
• might become ha zardous in themselves
through combinations of nonhazardous
input materials.
Even some of the most recent studies aimed at profiling indi-
vidual industries fail to identify the potentially hazardous
constituents in various waste streams. Rather, they focus on
total liquid and atmospheric discharge volumes and broad con-
taminant indicators such as BOD, pH, suspended solids, tur-
bidity, NOx, and particulates. Such work overlooks many of
the more hazardous aspects of wastes and fails to account for
by-product sludges, tars, and solid wastes resulting from on-
site treatment of effluents.
There can be little doubt that a comprehensive waste inventory
is necessary to develop the data required for the proper assess-
ment and management of the hazardous wastes problem. Such an
inventory must be based on detailed analysis of waste volumes
of all types, their physical-chemical characteristics, and
their significant constituents. The data is required on a per
industry basis at a seven digit SIC level or better and should
include geographical distribution information. Approaches
short of these requirements will add little to the sketchy
collection of data presently available. Once such an informa-
tion base has been established, astute use of a discharge
permit program should provide a continual update capability.
56
-------
During the present study estimates of distribution and volume
data were collected by Battelle on those waste streams designated
as hazardous under the TRW pure compound criteria. These data
are presented in Table 4. Detailed data sheets describing
the volumes, constituents, concentrations, hazards, disposal
techniques, and data sources for each waste stream considered
are presented in Appendices C through F. It must be
emphasized that these data are gross estimates and do not
reflect any on-site treatment or management practices which
could significantly alter waste quantities and characteristics.
They are, however, the best estimates that can be made at
this time. An indication of the degree of confidence that
can be placed in each quantity can be obtained from the
reference source section of the individual data sheets
presented in Appendices c - F. The final column in Table 4
identifies the specific data sheet of interest.
Waste streams from food and kindred products industries were
for the most part eliminated from characterization and
review. This was justified on the basis that blanching,
washing, and flume waters from these plants do not carry
highly toxic or hazardous materials. Biochemical oxygen
demand and suspended solids are two of the major water
pollutants occurring in food processing wastes. Since
these problems can be handled by conventional means, these
pollutants are not considered hazardous nor difficult to
treat. Upon application of the waste stream decision model,
caustic peeler wastes may qualify as hazardous until
neutralized.
When available, geographic distribution data was derived
from plant capacity data developed by Booz-Allen.10 When
this source failed, value added or if necessary total
employment figures for a particular industry were obtained
from the 1967 Census of Manufacturing Statistics39 and
were used to determine fractional industrial output levels
for each region. This data was obtained for the most
specific SIC category possible. Typically that was at the
three or four digit level. Occasionally, geographic
distributions for waste streams resulting from the production
of specific chemicals were derived from information contained
in the Stanford Research Institute's 1972 Directory of
Chemical Producers.k0
Volume data came from similarly diverse sources. Where
possible, data derived by TRW and Booz-Allen10 were utilized.
When these sources failed, waste stream determinate factors
were sought. Estimates of waste production per unit of
product were solicited from typical producers or trade
associations. The procedure employed for deriving each
volume figure is specified on the waste stream data sheet
under "Ref." in Appendices C through F.
57
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMARY DATA FOR NONRADIOACTIVE WASTE STREAMS
Aqueous Inorganic Wastes
Page
Geographic Distribution -
Fraction
SIC No.
Haste Stream Title
Number
NE
MA
ENC WNC SA ESC WSC
W-P M Volume (lbs/yi)
22
Chromate wastes from textile dying
A-297
.101
.178
.034
.005
.568
.034
.014
.060
.006
2812
Chlorine production brine sludges
A—19
<02
.11
.10
—
.19
.22
.24
.12
—
2819
Potassium chromate production wastes
A-301
.19
.06
.015
.005
.60
.10
.01
.01
.01
2821
Cellulose ester production wastes
A-34
.10
.21
.21
.16
.14
.07
.10
.02
—
287
Intermediate agricultural product wastes
A-54
.005
.075
.145
.074
.299
.207
.090
.058
.046
- nitric acid
2873
Production works from ammonium sulfa.te
A-307
—
—
.040
.96
291
Copper and lead bearing petroleum
A—113
refinery wastes
.001
.102
.175
.056
.019
.031
.417
.160
.039
31
Chrome tanning liquor
A-120
.22
.29
.29
.03
.086
.05
.004
.03
—
3231
Mirror production wastes
A-121
.09
.25
.23
.01
.28
.10
.04
—
331
Cold finishing wastes
A-307
.03
.34
.43
.01
.07
.02
.05
.01
.04
331
Consolidated steel plant wastes
A-122
.02
.33
.42
.02
.09
.02
.03
.02
.05
3312
Stainless steel pickeling liquor
A—125
.050
.259
.404
.026
.068
.055
.044
.067
.028
333
Brass mill wastes
A-126
.04
.29
.01
.25
.01
.04
.04
.19
.13
33
Metal finishing wastes
A-131
.115
.179
.379
.046
.050
.015
.036
.169
.011
Aluminum anodizing bath with drag out
A-132
.115
.179
.379
.046
.050
.015
.036
.169
.011
Brass plating wastes
A-133
.115
.179
.379
.046
.050
.015
.036
.169
.011
Cadmium plating wastes
A-134
.131
.285
.321
.045
.049
.023
.036
.103
.007
Chrome plating wastes
A-135
.115
.179
.379
.046
.050
.015
.036
. 169
.011
Cyanide copper plating wastes
A-136
.115
.179
.379
.046
.050
.015
.036
.169
.011
Finishing effluents
A-137
.115
.179
.379
.046
.050
.015
.036
.169
.011
Metal cleaning wastes
A-138
.115
.179
.379
.046
.050
.015
.036
.169
.011
Plating preparation wastes
A-140
.115
.179
.379
.046
.0 50
.015
.036
.169
.011
Silver plating wastes
A-141
.115
.179
.379
.046
.0 50
.015
.036
.169
.011
Zinc plating wastes
A-142
.115
.179
.379
.046
.050
.015
.036
.169
.011
34
Metal finishing chromic acid
A—14 3
.244
.198
.149
.095
.081
.032
.031
.031
. 041
3555
Graphic arts - photography wastes
A-308
.06
.19
.20
.08
.15
.06
.09
.04
.13
36
Electronic circuitry manufacturing
A-148
wastes
.143
.342
.170
.037
.053
.019
.032
.165
.039
372
Aircraft plating wastes
A-154
.123
.158
.117
.093
.057
.013
. 095
.325
.019
Cooling tower blowdown
A-17 3
.005
.150
.170
.060
—
.58
—
—
.035
2X10_ maximum
lxl0fi
1X10,
5X10'
2X10
8
1X10-
8X10
2X10 1
9X10°
SX10R
5X10°
5X10'
5X10- cyanide
4X10' Solution
8X10 Metal Sludges
Not Available
1X10 6
Not Available
2X106
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
4.4X107
4X10 3
5xio!!
4xio;
2X10 (as Chromate)
Sub Total
7X10'
-------
C Ho.
2818
2818
2818
2822
2879
2879
2B79
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2892
2892
2892
2892
2892
2892
2892
2892
2892
2B92
2892
2892
2899
2911
2992
3312
9711
9711
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Organic Wastes
Waste Stream Title
Page
Number
NE
MA
Geographic Distribution - Fraction
ENC WNC SA ESC WSC W-P M
Volume (lbs/yij
Cofiynthesis methanol production wastes
Formaldehyde production wastes
N-Butane dehvdrogenation butadiene
production wastes
Rubber manufacturing wastes
Benzoic herbicide wastes (DOD)
Chlorinated aliphatic herbicide
wastes (DOD)
Phenyl-Urea herbicide wastes (DOD)
Balogenated aliphatic hydrocarbon
fumigant wastes (DOD)
Organophosphate pesticide wastes (DOD)
Phenoxy herbicide wastes
Carbonate pesticide manufacturing (DOD)
Polychlorinated hydrocarbon pesticide
wastes (DOD)
Miscellaneous organic pesticide
manufacturing waste (DOD)
Contaminated and waste industrial
propellants and explosives
Contaminates and waste from primary
explosives production
Nitrocellulose base propellant contam-
inated was te
High explosive contaminated wastes
Incindiary contaminated wastes
Production of nitroglycerin
Solid waste from old primers and
detonators
Wastes from production of nitrocellulose
propellants and smokeless powder
Haste high explosives
Haste incindiaries
Haste nitrocellulose and smokeless
powder
Haste nitroglycerin
Nonutility PCB wastes
Gasoline blending wastes
Reclaimers residues
Coke plant raw waste
Military arsenical wastes
Outdated or contaminated tear gas
27
290
296
A-119
.07
. 05
.02
.03
.14
.05
.05
.90
.93
.92 .05
.11
.11
.50
.07
A-57
.168
.130
.009
—
.447
—
—
.246
A-56
.196
.062
.027
—
.649
—
.010
—
.057
A-74
.539
.059
.343
.059
A-62
1-0
A- 66
.0007
.014
.010
.033
.929
.014
A-78
.0002
.0001
.0007
—
.0008
.849
.149
.0004
.0002
A-55
—
—
—
.006
.848
—
—
.145
—
A—75 t
.097
.142
.018
.003
.096
.004
.033
.591
.017
A-76
A-61
—
.026
.012
.002
.257
—
—
.702
—
A-lll
--
—
—
—
.655
.344
A-99
—
.096
.001
.898
—
.001
—
.001
.003
A-101
--
.041
—
.457
.492
.009
A-98
—
.005
.094
.394
.397
.027
.004
.012
.023
A-106
--
—
—
—
--
—
1.0
—
—
A-102
—
—
—
—
.42
.19
—
. 39
—
A-104
—
.005
.430
.454
.001
.006
—
.014
.084
A-103
—
.opn
.046
.387
.4 77
—
.006
—
.025
A-107
.002
.006
.346
.174
.218
.104
.127
.001
.010
A—110
—
. 014
.002
. 002
—
—
.718
.255
.009
A-108
—
—
.594
. 406
A-109
—
.01
—
.50
. 22
--
. 266
. 004
A-51
.037
.221
.372
.153
. 040
.041
.057
.072
. 009
A-117
.00 6
.086
.159
.055
.025
.025
.477
. 134
.03 3
A-118
.040
.120
. 205
.081
.135
.082
.139
.155
.044
A-124
.02
.33
.41
.01
.07
.02
.06
.02
.06
A-159
—
.002
.001
—
. 015
.031
.001
.926
.024
A-160
—
.138
.189
--
. 022
. 044
.252
. 20 9
.144
1X10° Sludge
BXlOc Sludge
3X10 Sludge
1X10®
3X10,
2x10;
2X10'
lxio:
3X10,
1X10"
3X10
3X10"
4X10
9X10
ixio:
6X10-
7Xlo5
3X10
6X10
ixio;
8X10"
2X10
sxio;
BX10
4X10
3X10-
8X10 '
3X10p
3X10
8
Sub Total
1X10
-------
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Aqueous Organic Wastes
Page
Geographic Distribution -
Fraction
(lbs/yr)
SIC No.
Waste Stream Title
Number
NE
MA
ENC
WNC
SA
ESC
WSC
W-P
M
Volume
2611
Dimethyl sulfate production wastes
A-18
X
X
2X10^
Still Bottoms
281
Acetaldehyde via ethylene oxidation
A-26
.015
.170
.156
.047
.156
.111
.265
.060
.020
8X10-J
2821
Residue from manufacture of ethylene
A-35
—
.021
.015
—
.163
.171
.533
.117
—
2X10
dichloride/vinyl chloride
Q
(probably too
2822
Nitrobenzene from rubber industry
A-38
—
.07
.14
—
.11
.11
.50
.07
—
5X10
dilute to be
wastes
q
of concern)
283
Drug manufacturing wastes
A-39
.056
.348
.183
.089
.100
,033
.060
.115
.011
5X108
n if
2879
Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticide pro-
A—59
.115
.148
.136
.073
.141
.057
.093
.183
.054
2X10
duction wastes
D
2879
Miscellaneous organic herbicide pro-
A—96
.076
.135
.124
.080
.156
.062
.108
.200
.0 59
4X10°
duction wastes
7
2879
Organo-phosphate pesticide production
A—70
.115
.148
.136
.073
.141
.057
.093
.183
.054
6X10
wastes
o
2879
Organic pesticide production wastes
A-69
.115
.148
.136
.073
.141
.057
.093
.183
.054
3X10?
2879
Phenoxy herbicide production wastes
A-97
.076
.135
.124
.080
.156
.062
.108
.200
.059
4X10
Sub Total
1X1010
Aqueous Organic Wastes with Insufficient Quantity or Distribution Data
2824
Synthetic fiber production wastes
A-3 7
.046
.121
.101
.018
.404 .182
.101
.027
—
(H)
2865
Dye manufacturing wastes
A-4 8
.015
.170
.156
.047
.156 .111
.265
.060
.020
(F)
2879
Nitrile pesticide wastes
A-6 4
.005
.075
.145
.074
.299 .207
.090
.058
.046
(E)
2879
Organic arsenicals from production of
cacodylates
A-68
.200
.800
—— ——
""
""
Not Available
2879
Torpedo process wastes
A-9 5
—
--
—
— 1.0
Neg
49
Utilities and electrical station waste
A-157
Not
Available
3X10'
9711
Wastes from production of chloropicrln
A-52
—
X
—
—
—
X
XX
Neg.
Sub Total 3X107
Organic Wastes with Insufficient Quantity or Distribution Data
2491 Spent wood preserving liquors A-16
9711 Off spec "agent orange" defoliant A-168
9711 Paint stripping wastes, Vance Air Force A-169
Base, OK
.007 .029 .117
.060 .267 .141
Not Available
.174 .162 .042
1.0
(D)
Not Available
(Vance Air
Force Base,
OK)
Sub Total
Not Available
-------
C No.
1021
2819
285
285
2869
2873
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2911
2911
331
333
3339
3555
3585
3691
49
9711
9711
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Solid, Slurry, or Sludge Wastes
Page Geographic Distribution - Fraction
Haste Stream Title Number ne ha ENC WNC SA ESC WSC w-p M Volume (lbs/yd
Recovered arsenic from refinery flues
A—11
(stored)
Sodium dichromate production wastes
A-30
—
.150
Solvent-based paint sludge
A-44
.044
.243
Hater-based paint sludge
A—45
.044
.243
Tetraethyl and tetramethyl lead
A-53
—
—
production wastes
Drea production wastes
A-305
—
.05
Benzoic herbicide contaminated
A—79
—
—
containers
Calcium arsenate contaminated
A-80
.03
.02
containers
Carbonate pesticide contaminated
>
1
00
H
.0008
.016
containers
Chlorinated aliphatic pesticide
A—82
.381
—
contaminated containers
Dinitro pesticide contaminated
A-83
.496
.168
containers
Lead arsenate contaminated
>
l
00
**
.03
.02
containers
Mercury fungicide contaminated
A-85
.02
.03
containers
Miscellaneous organic insecticide
A-87
.148
.084
contaminated containers
Organic arsenical contaminated
A-88
—
.007
containers
Organic fungicide contaminated
A-89
.048
.125
containers
Organophosphorous contaminated
A-90
.043
.050
containers
Phenoxy contaminated containers
A-91
.035
.033
Phenyl-urea contaminated containers
A—92
.106
.085
Polychlorinated hydrocarbon contaminated A-93
.017
.107
Triazine contaminated containers
A—94
.147
.121
Miscellaneous organic pesticide
A-86
.014
.162
contaminated containers
Petroleum refining still bottoms
A-115
.006
.086
Petroleum waste brine sludges
A—116
.002
.06
Iron manufacturing waste sludge
A—123
.05
.05
Arsenic trioxide from smelting
A-127
—
.03
industry
Selenitn production wastes
A—128
—
.75
Duplicating equipment manufacturing
A-145
—
1.00
wastes
Refrigeration equipment manufacturing
A-147
.013
.232
wastes
Battery manufacturing waste sludge
A-151
.117
.043
Arsenic trichloride recovered from
A-158
.05
.23
coal
Military paris green - stored
A-166
—
—
Stored military mercury compounds
A-170
.47
—
1.00
—
4X107
(Tacom^
o
HA)
.243
—
.437
—
.170
—
—
3X10°
.269
.072
.103
.041
.069
.147
.012
4X10 '
.269
.072
.103
.041
.069
.147
.012
3X10 '
—
—
—
—
.63
.37
—
3X10
.09
.18
.09
.15
.29
.14
—
2X105
(Dry Basis)
.655
.154
.006
.017
—
.160
.009
2X104
Dser
.08
.07
.16
.16
.35
.03
.09
6X103
SIC Numbers
.382
.070
.022
.108
.321
.060
.020
5X10*
AG-01,02,07
.076
.418
—
.105
.010
.010
—
1X10 4
Forestry
A
-08
.023
.017
.228
—
.003
.165
.006
2X10
Trans. -40,
41,42,44,45
.08
.07
.17
.17
.35
.08
.03
1X10*
.04
.03
.28
.32
.05
.22
.01
5X102
.054
.039
.197
.143
.148
.170
.017
4X104
~
—
.011
.764
.218
—
—
5X103
.047
.028
.441
.001
.036
.266
.007
8X104
.018
.125
.139
.192
.175
.208
.049
1X105
.196
.321
.031
.030
.067
.146
.141
2X10 f
.106
.033
.106
.424
.042
.095
.003
9xio;f
.019
.138
.306
.211
.133
.044
.024
2X10?
.320
.372
.013
.003
.011
.011
.002
6X10 J
.385
.068
.162
.123
.041
.034
.014
1X10
.159
.055
.025
.025
.477
.134
.033
2X106
.09
.011
.12
.10
.55
.045
.022
4xl0c
.56
.02
.12
.03
.09
.03
.05
6X10,
.015
.07
.005
.01
.10
.07
.70
2X10
.25
2X104
7X10 5
(Upstate,
Q
New York)
.408
.096
.040
.069
.086
.045
.011
2X10°
.118
.117
.118
5X10?
.07
.05
.33
.25
—
—
.07
6X10
.0
3X104
—
.51
.02
—
2X10
Sub Total
7X10®
-------
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Aqueous Inorganic Wastes with Insufficient Quantity or Distribution Data
SIC No.
Haste Stream Title
Page
Number
NE
MA
Geographic Distribution -
ENC WNC SA ESC WSC
Fraction
W-P M Volume (lbs/yrj
1031 zinc ore roasting acid wash a-12
1092 Mercury ore extraction wastes A-13
1099 Cadmium ore extraction A-14
22 Mercury bearing textile wastes A-15
26 Wastes from pulp and paper industry A-17
28 Cadmium-Selenium pigment wastes A-46
28 Waste or contaminated perchloric acid a-32
2813 Arsine production wastes A-25
2813 Borane production wastes A-20
2813 Nickel carbonyl production wastes a-21
2813 Waste bromine pentafluoride A-24
2813 Waste chlorine pentafluoride A-23
2813 Waste chlorine trifluoride A-22
2816 Chromate wastes from pigments and dyes a-49
2819 Arsenic wastes from purification of a-28
phosphoric acid
2819 Contaminated fluorine A-29
2819 Cyanide production wastes A-300
2819 Waste from manufacture of mercuric A-33
cyanide
2819 Waste from production of barium salts a-31
2821 Urethane manufacturing wastes A-36
2821 Wastes from polycarbonate polymer A-302
production
283 Pharmaceutical arsenic wastes A-43
283 Pharmaceutical mercurial wastes A-40
2865 Wood preservative wastes A-47
2869 Contaminated antimony pentafluoride A-50
2869 Contaminated antimony trifluoride A-60
2869 Hydrazine production wastes A-114
287 Agricultural chemical production wastes a-304
2879 Agricultural pesticide arsenic wastes a-56
2879 Mercuric fungicide production wastes A-63
2879 Pesticide arsenate wastes A-71
2879 Pesticide arsenic wastes A-72
2879 1080 production wastes and contaminated a-77
lots
2879 Wastes from pesticide-herbicide manu- A-7 3
facture (arsenites)
2899 Electrical fuse manufacturing wastes A-112
3339 Beryllium salt production wastes A-130
3339 Thallium production wastes A-129
3555 Rotogravure printing plate wastes A-144
Not
Available
Not Available
.72
.28
Not Available
Not
Available
2X10
Not
Available
Not Available
11
.11
.19
.04
.23
.08
.10
.11
.03
Neg.
Not
Available
Not Available
Not
Available
Neg.
x
X
X
—
—
X
X
X
—
1X104
—
1.0
Neg.
—
1.0
Neg.
1.0
—
—
Neg.
—
—
X
X
--
—
Neg.
—
—
X
—
—
--
X
—
—
Neg.
015
.170
.156
.047
.156
.111
.265
.060
.020
(F)
015
.170
.156
.047
.156
.111
.265
.060
.020
Neg.
007
.101
.166
.075
.147
. 207
.147
.096
.054
Neg.
007
.101
.166
.075
.147
.207
.147
.096
.054
(J)
—
1.0
—
—
--
—
--
—
—
Neg.
007
.101
.166
.075
.147
.207
.147
.096
.054
Neg.
.046
.046
.056
.056
.007
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.121
.121
. 348
.348
.029
x
x
x
.075
• C75
.075
.075
.075
.005 .075
.037 .221
— 1.0
.105 .446
.101 .018
.404 .182 .101
.101
.183
.183
. 117
.145
.145
.145
.145
.145
.145
.372
.320
.018
.089
.089
.060
.182 .101
.033 .060
.033 .060
.141 .174
x
X
x — x
.404
.100
.100
.267
.074
.074
. 074
.074
. 074
.074
.153
.051
.299 .207
.299 .207
.299 .207
.299 .207
.299 .207
* 1.0
.090
.090
.0 90
.090
.090
.299 .207 .090
.039 .040 .057
.019
— 1.0
.028
.027
.027
.115
.115
.162
.058
.058
.058
.058
.058
.058
.072
.031
.011
.011
. 042
. 046
.046
.046
.046
.046
.046
.009
(H)
(H)
Neg.
Neg.
(I)
Neg.
Neg.
Not Available
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
Neg.
Production of
Sodium Fluor-
acetate
(E)
(D)
Neg* Small amount
Ne9- in Colorado
(C)
-------
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Aqueous Inorganic Wastes with Insufficient Quantity or Distribution Data (Cont.)
page Geographic Distribution - Fraction
SIC No. Waste Stream Title Number NE MA ENC WNC SA ESC WSC W-P M Volume (lbs/yr)
3573
Computer manufacturing wastes
A-146
.143
.342
. 170
.037
.053 .
019
.032
.165
.039
(C)
367
Electronic tube production wastes
A-149
.143
. 342
.170
.037
.053 .
019
.032
.165
.039
Not
Available
3679
Magnetic tape production wastes
A-150
.171
.336
.165
.120
.077 .
016
.060
.060
—
(B)
3691
Battery manufacturing wastes
A-152
.030
. 23 6
.289
-111
.103 .
029
.056
.134
.012
(B)
3692
Mercury cell battery wastes
A-153
.060
.138
.556
.049
.074 .
019
.017
.087
comb.
(B)
40
Railroad engine cleaning
A-155
Not
Available
Not
Available
40
Arsenic wastes from transportation
industry
A-156
Not
Available
Not
Available
9711
Military cadmium wastes from plating
A-165
Not
Available
Not
Available
9711
Military sodium chromate
A-164
Not
Available
Not
Available
Sub Total 2X108
Solid, Slurry, or Sludge Wastes with Insufficient Quantity or Distribution Data
SIC No.
Waste Stream Title
Page
Number
NE
MA
Geographic Distribution - Fraction
ENC WNC SA ESC WSC W-P M
Volume (lbs/yi)
Oil Wastes from seed industry a-9
0175 Contaminated orchard soil A-10
2879 Old or contaminated thallium and A-65
thallium sulfate rodenticide
9711 Highly contaminated soil A-163
9711 Spent filter media from A-167
military operations
9711 Waste chemicals frcn military A-171
9711 Explosives from military ordinance A-162
Drugs and contraband seized by easterns a-161
Etiological materials from commercial a-172
production
.017 .088
.05
.005 .075
.371
.15
.145
.213
.074
.053 .060 .081 .094 .023 Not Available
.33 — .35 .09 .03 Unknown
.299 .207 .090 .058 .046 Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
1.00
Sub Total
Total
3X10 (Stored at
Rocky Mt. Arseni'
Not included
in total
Not Available
3X10«
4X10°
Not Available
3X10
4X3 0C
2X1
,10
-------
Table 5 presents a summary of total estimated quantities of
hazardous wastes generated in each of the Bureau of Census
regions. In addition to indicating the probable division of
treatment plants throughout the U.S., the table suggests that
construction of five large and fifteen medium sized hazardous
wastes processing plants would require individual plant
capacities of one million gallons per day (1.33 million tons
per year) and 122,000 gallons per day (.16 million tons per
year), respectively.
Once again, it is necessary to emphasize that these quantity
figures are not necessarily representative of wastes which might
actually be received by a hazardous wastes disposal facility.
It would be difficult to predict at this time how the added
costs of required treatment might prompt in-plant process
changes and on-site treatment attempts. Similarly, there may
be significant quantities of "nonhazardous" wastes as designated
by the pure compound approach which will in fact be routed to
centralized treatment facilities because of treatment complex-
ities or poor on-site treatment economics. More accurate
estimates of actual waste volumes to be treated by centralized
facilities will become available only after 1) industry has
had time to respond to pending hazardous wastes regulations,
2) a comprehensive waste inventory has been accomplished, and
3) the waste stream decision model has been applied to the
various wastes to designate those whi
-------
TABLE 5
. REGIONAL SUMMARY DATA FOR
TOTAL QUANTITY OF NONRADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTES
New England
Mid Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
West
Mountain
Total Identified
Quantity
(100,000,000 pounds)
6.3
45.4
46.8
7.6
19.2
10.4
39.9
16.2
4.9*
Percent Basis
3.2
23.1
23.8
3.9
9.8
5.3
20.3
8.2
2.4
Total
196.7
100.0
*In addition to these annual amounts, there are 2,600,000,000
lbs of contaminated soil stored at Rocky Mountain Arsenal.
65
-------
Of the nonlethal chemical agents, only CS is presently being
produced. However, large quantities of this and other agents
are stored throughout the United States in military and law
enforcement facilities. No inventory or monitoring is exercised
to maintain close control over these materials. Demilitar-
ization of nonlethal stockpiles is scheduled to take place
after completion of work on the lethal agents. Local govern-
mental operations do not generate wastes since their overage and
obsolete agents are employed for training purposes.
Explosive/ordnance related wastes from manufacturing operations
and obsolete munitions are being studied by an inter-service
committee expected to announce findings in March, 1973.
Publication is in process, but no release was made prior to
June, 1973.
Biological/ Chemical, and Explosive Wastes
Wastes and waste streams originating from the munitions ac-
tivities of the Department of Defense typically originate from
production and packaging operations. Additionally, large
volumes of product are selected for disposal because of obso-
lescence, degradation, or planned reduction in stockpiles.
These wastes can be divided into three major classifications:
1) those related to biological warfare agents; 2) those per-
taining to chemical warfare agents both lethal and nonlethal;
and 3) those associated with conventional munitions and
explosives.
Biological Agents
All biological warfare agents have been detoxified and product
residues have proven to be free of virulent materials. The
detoxification program entailed incineration of stockpiled
agents and subsequent distribution of the inert ash into soil.
Formal reports exist on this matter as reported through U. S.
Army channels. The destruction program has been certified and
documented according to the Army Munitions Command(AMXDC)
Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey.
AMXDC indicated that some capability will be maintained at
Dugway Proving Grounds, Salt Lake City, Utah, where agents
could be produced and tested for defensive purposes only, in
such a manner that the agents would be in a contained environ-
ment. On completion of any such tests the remaining agent will
be disposed of. In the past, Dugway wastes have been managed
through a private contractor, Explosives Engineering Corporation,
Ontario, California, which has capability for pyrolysis, inciner-
ation, detonation, and landfill.
66
-------
It would appear that biological warfare agents do not pres-
ently constitute a major source of hazardous wastes. In light
of international agreements disavowing further production or
use of these materials, this situation should not change in the
near future.
There are also nonmilitary sources of etiological agents which
must be considered. It is estimated that annual commercial
production of culture specimens reached 15-30 pounds in
1969 .1,2 These materials are under strict regulatory controls
and are not considered to pose a major hazard. Perhaps of
more concern is the large volume of biologically active
material handled by research laboratories and hospitals.
While these facilities typically employ incinerators for
destruction of such wastes, there is insufficient knowledge of
all the sources and infrequent monitoring of their practices.
More study is needed to assess both the actual use of accepted
disposal practices and the efficiency of such practices for
these low volume sources of hazardous wastes.
Chemical Agents
Chemical warfare agents may be of a lethal or nonlethal nature.
Lethal chemical agents include nerve gases, mustards, phosgene,
and other materials. Information presently available indicates
that all lethal agents will be demilitarized in accordance
with plans now being formulated. GB and VX are presently
being destroyed under a ten year program. No data are
available on the exact amounts of lethal agents to be
destroyed.
A basic premise established in the demilitarization of these
materials is that they will be rendered "militarily" safe
through the Army program. Hence, residues will not contain
any detectable levels of lethal agents. However, the product
residues in many instances may still possess properties which
qualify them as hazardous. AMXDC has indicated that at the
present time some processed residues are estimated to be
innocuous but must be classified as potentially hazardous
because of their origin.
The location of demilitarization centers and quantities of
anticipated by-product brine are presented in Table 6.
It is estimated that a total of 70,000 tons of salts will
ultimately be produced by demilitarization.
A number of studies are underway at Edgewood Arsenal and
elsewhere on methods of processing and disposing of lethal
agents and their residues. GB, VX, and mustards are now
being destroyed with high temperature combustion. A typical
67
-------
TABLE 6
LOCATIONS AND AMOUNTS OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PRESENTLY STORED AT MILITARY ARSENALS
Quantity
Waste Type Material Location (tons)
Demilitarization Calcium salts of chloride, bi- Edgewood Arsenal, MD 3,400
By-Product sulfate, sulfate, sulfite, car- Pine Bluff Arsenal, AK 7,800
Brines bonate, fluoride and methyiso- Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO 13,000
propyl phosphoric acid<2). Tooele Army Depot, UT 25,000
Umatilla Army Depot, OR 7,300
Ansiston Army Depot, LA 5,700
Pueblo Army Depot, CO 3,500
Newport Army Ammunition Plant, IN 3,000
Lexington Blue-Grass Army Depot, KY 900
TOTAL 70,000
OS
oo
Arsenic Contam-
inated Soil
Soil contaminated with lime,
arsenic, oxide, arsenic chloride,
mercury halide salts, some in-
organic fluoride and chloride.
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO
Basin A
1,300,000
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon
Contaminated
Soil
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO
Basin F
750,000
30% organics - chlorinated
hydrocarbons, halo-organic
phosphorus, mercaptans, para-
thion insecticides, phenolics,
phosphorus acids, sulfonated
detergents, urea; 70% inorganics
aluminum chloride ammonium
chloride, ammonium phosphate,
calcium sulfate, carbonate,
chloride, fluoride, nitrate,
phosphate, sodium nitrate,
sulfate, sulfite
(1) All arsenals will discharge these salts in the calcium form except the Rocky Mountain Arsenal.
(2) Methylisopropy1 phosphate salts will be present only at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal.
-------
operating procedure calls for incineration at three to six
pounds per minute for a 1000 minute day. Scrubber solutions
are concentrated to a 40 percent slurry (by weight) before
being spray dried. The composition of dry salt residues
resulting from the disposal of various agents are given in
Table 7.
No satisfactory solutions for the ultimate disposal of residue
salts have been developed. It appears that attempts are
being made to utilize and convert existing personnel and
facilities from military R&D to demilitarization R&D.
AMXDC reports that environmental impact statements have been
approved on all demilitarization programs.
Since GB, VX, and mustards are no longer manufactured, no
production waste streams requiring treatment are expected
in the near future.
Nonlethal chemical agents include materials designated CN,
CS, DM, FS, mixtures of these, smokes, and pyrotechnics.
CN is considered obsolete and is presently being phased out.
Precise estimates of the size of stockpiles of these agents
are difficult to calculate since small inventories of many
of these agents are dispersed throughout the Untied States
in warehouses of military and law enforcement facilities.
There is no close control over or monitoring of the locations
of these agents except for arsenicals which have been
restricted to three major storage sites, one of which is
Edgewood Arsenal.
Of the riot agents, only CS is presently being produced, and
by-product wastes from that operation are disposed of on-site.
Blending and packaging operations are completed at a number
of GOCO (government-owned, contractor-operated plants) sites
such as the Pine Bluff Arsenal and possibly by a limited
number of private contractors. Wastes generated in packaging
nonlethals include residues from spills, rejects, empty
containers, and washdown. It is estimated that 12,000
pounds per. year of CS agent in 72 x 10® gallons of water is
wasted. Present plans call for collection of these aqueous
discharges and chemical destruction of the active agent prior
to clarification and dewatering in lagoons."3
Due to the limited shelf life of many of these agents, period-
ic performance assurance tests must be made on each packaged
agent. The fumes from such tests will be passed through
afterburners and a scrubber mechanism. Munitions found to be
unsatisfactory will be disposed of in an incineration system
similar to one developed for demilitarization of lethal agents.
Experimental programs planning for the aforementioned facili-
ties are in progress at Edgewood Arsenal.
69
-------
TABLE 7
COMPOSITION OF SALT RESIDUES
FROM DEMILITARIZATION OPERATIONS
Mustard Incineration at Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Sodium sulfite 40% Sodium bisulfate 3%
Sodium chloride 40% Iron oxides 2%
Sodium bicarbonate 10% Sodium carbonate Trace
Sodium sulfate 5% Sodium sulfide Trace
Mustard Incineration at Tooele Army Depot
Transportable Disposal System
Calcium sulfite • 2^0 70%
Calcium chloride * 21^0 3C%
Incineration of GB* (Calculated by Contractor)
Calcium phosphate 80%
Calcium fluoride 20%
Incineration of VX* (Calculated by Contractor)
Calcium phosphate 28.5%
Calcium nitrate 40.2%
Calcium sulfite • 21^0 31.3%
*The furnace and scrubber systems used for GB and VX
incineration are proprietary processes developed by the
contractor.
70
-------
When and if the 29,000 pounds of DM (an arsenical) located at
Edgewood and other bulk or stored amounts of this material
are destroyed, scrubber solution disposal will be complicated
because of the presence of arsenite and arsenate salts. This
problem has not been addressed to date.
In addition to process wastes and degraded agents, there are
stocks of nonlethal bulk and packaged materials which must be
disposed of. The volumes of these materials presently
scheduled for disposal by the Department of Defense are
included in Table 8.
Disposal of nonlethal obsolete bulk agents and ordance at
Pine Bluff Arsenal will be accomplished in a demilitarization
program under the U. S. Army Munitions Command, Joliet,
Illinois. Actual treatment and disposal processes for that
program have been outlined in a comprehensive report produced
by Envirotech Systems, Inc.l,lt
Information reported by TRW Systems, Inc.19 and obtained from
the California Department of Justice and a major riot control
device manufacturer indicates that there are no local govern-
ment waste disposal requirements for overage and obsolete
control devices/agents. It is believed that most local
governmental law enforcement agencies use all of these materials
for training exercises.
Explosive/Ordnance
Wastes generated by explosive and ordnance related activities
si-em from production; load, assembly, and pack operations;
and overage or obsolete stockpiles of materials from any of
the following six categories:
• initiating agents and primers;
• boosters;
• propellants, nitrocellulose base;
• propellants, composites;
• high explosives; and
• contaminated solid wastes.
The task of developing an explosive/ordnance destruction
program has been assigned to an inter-service committee, the
Joint Committee on Disposal Ashore, which was to make its
recommendations known in March, 1973, through the Navy.
71
-------
TABLE 8
OBSOLETE CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL CONTENTS AND GROSS WEIGHT
DISTRIBUTION BY STATE—SCHEDULED FOR DISPOSAL BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
WEIGHT Of EXPLOSIVE, INCENDIARY, PYROTECHNIC AND RfOT
CONTROL AGENT FILL, POUNDS WEIGHT Of OBSOLETE MUNITIONS CONTAINING EACH f ILL CATEGORY. POUNDS
TOTAL *
(1)
<21
(3)
(4)
(51
(6)
TOTAL
(1)
(21
(31
(4)
15)
_i6L
TOTAL
ALABAMA
226
900
539,664
1118.677
6,802
15,666
1,681,709
3.446,600
3.727,600
3,095,600
564,600
32,400
6. 812,800
CALIFORNIA
4.32
23.608
1327.982
159
621,303
128,819
2,595
2,101,466
9,423,300
10.984, 700
1,200
9,882,600
358,300
12,100
13.002,000
COLORADO
3.01
2,210
962,052
317.692
81
1,282,035
8,403,000
8,403,000
9,073,800
200
9.073,800
FLORIDA
0.0064
1
812
397
38
1,248
1,400
6,700
2,600
111
19,300
GEORGIA
0.0000086
11
11
26
26
HAWAII
1.64
4.151
265,317
49
1,879,438
63,179
104
2,212,238
157,000
1,535,800
4,700
3,172,000
195,200
1,500
4.954.200
ILLINOIS
6.73
47,856
1,059,183
752,641
1859,410
19.157,800
19.114,200
19,192,600
20,288,600
INDIANA
12.19
16.790
6,0B6,532
15
6,678,784
416,618
186
13,198,925
7,916,100
22,694,000
30,000
20,581,392
7,340,700
320
36,722,200
KENTUCKY
2.17
1,921
855,000
302,314
37,971
1.197,206
6.243,200
6,243,200
6,385,000
82,800
6,554,000
MARYLAND
0.021
17
15,617
20.304
35,938
35
25,200
37,600
81
63,300
PtVADA
1630
93.670
3,964,246
117
12,824,056
774,514
7,610
17,664,213
4,060,300
15.330,300
7,600
25,049,800
2,443,600
63,000
48,369.400
WW JERSEY
0J9
6,454
207,706
49
524.258
440
738,907
699,400
957,800
900
1,612,200
660,500
1,200
2,686,700
NEW YORK
2.44
6,786
1,238,3©
735,751
1,980,929
2,490,000
6.588,600
3,247,200
7,363,800
NORTH CAROLINA
0.0063
5,000
2,808
21
7,829
12,500
5.200
31
19,100
OKLAHOMA
24.00
35,654
13,997,459
394
6,479.680
911,987
952
21,426,126
35,121,200
54,440,200 786,000
46,565,400
34,482,800
1,300
69,542,500
OREGON
6.35
4,396
1,937.082
L 353,290
946,944
4,241.712
16,642,400
16,642.400
17,107,000
2,486,000
19,128,400
PENNSYLVANIA
10.50
11.398
3,459.496
2,485,059
5,955.953
28,515,800
24,423,000
29.202,000
30,267,000
RHODE ISLAM)
0.00027
34
3"!
79
81
SOUTH CAROLINA
0.58
1,143
177,665
314,027
94,331
113
587,279
79,700
713,100
232
864.400
217,700
226
1,752, IX
TEXAS
L22
7,936
407,675
113,149
433
529,193
3,632,200
3,674,200
3.4&.200
130,135
3,674,300
UTAH
L34
1.099
478.181
129,238
608,518
4,037,400
4,037.400
4,037,400
4,037,400
VIRGINIA
1.59
32,002
399,348
176
658,333
178,545
4,795
1,273,199
395,600
1,701,800
2,600
1,967,500
349,200
9,200
4,782,500
WASHINGTON
2.09
2.022
447.479
7
1.463, $90
7.915
176
1.921,489
52,300
2.797,000
*00
2,874,100
40,200
360
6,310,700
CONTINENTAL
UNITED STATES
99.85
305,014
37,821,828
966 38.775,092
2,942,303
1,017,633
80,862,836
150,487,300
204,004,200 834,000
207,405,500
46,783,200
2,690,600
301,237,344
CODE: tl> INITIATING AGENTS AND PRIMERS; (2) PROPELLANTS, NITROCELLULOSE BASED; (3) PROPELLANTS COMPOSITE/OTHER; (4) HIGH EXPLOSIVES;
(51 PYROTECHNICS AND INCENDIARIES; (61 RIOT CONTROL AGENTS
* WILL NOT AGREE WITH SUM OF WEIGHTS Of OBSOLETE MONITIONS COMBINING THE INDIVIDUAL FILL CATEGORIES BECAUSE OF REDUNDANCIES
DUE TO MULTIPLE FILLS IN MANY ORDNANCE ITEMS. U.S. ARMY - AS OF28 JULY 1972; U. S. NAVY - AS OF 30NOVEMBER 1972
-------
Preliminary findings have been forwarded to EPA14 5 but are not
a matter of public record.
The locations and total quantity of obsolete conventional
munitions scheduled for disposal are presented in Table 8.
Statistics on explosive manufacturing wastes appear in Table
9.
Several unique problems have also been identified during this
review program. Various sources have indicated that individual
or groups of hazardous materials were buried either accidentally
or under wartime pressure in numerous locations. Many of these
repositories are not documented and may be lost for all prac-
tical purposes.
Similarly, there are large volumes of hazardous waste-
contaminated soil in two basins at Rocky Mountain Arsenal
as identified in Table 6. In addition, some buildings at
this site have been contaminated with nerve gas from long
periods of exposure which resulted in absorption of the
agent into the walls. Those construction materials involved
represent a special disposal problem.
PRIORITY OF CONCERN
In addition to selection and quantification of criteria
designating certain hazardous wastes, it is obvious that,
given the potentially wide range of candidate wastes, it
would be highly desirable to develop a system for ranking
these wastes in terms of their existing or potential threats
to public health and/or the environment. Such a ranking
system would call attention to problems of imminent concern
requiring regulatory or enforcement emphasis and development
of new management techniques or additional study and develop-
ment .
It is essential that a clear distinction be made between
development and application of criteria for designating
hazardous wastes and development and application of a priority
ranking system, despite the fact that in each case similar
or related data must be manipulated. . In Battelie's view, the
designation criteria relate solely to the intrinsic hazard of
the waste itself on uncontrolled release to the environment,
regardless of quantity, pathways to man or other critical
organisms, or other factors. Thus only such factors as ver-
tebrate and invertebrate toxicity, phytotoxicity, genetic
activity, and bioaccumulation are involved in development
of the designated criteria.
73
-------
TABLE 9
EXPLOSIVE MANUFACTURING WASTES - POUNDS PER YEAR SOLID WASTES
INITIATING AGENTS PROPEUANTS. PROPEUANTS. PYROTECHNICS
AND PRIMERS NITROCELLULOSE BASE COMPOSITE/OTHER HIGH EXPLOSIVES AND INCENDIARIES
SCRAP
CONTAMINATED
SCRAP
CONTAMINATED
SCRAP
CONTAMINATED
SCRAP
CONTAMINATED
SCRAP
CONTAMINATED
EXPLOSIVE
INERTS
EXPLOSIVE
IfCRTS
EXPLOSIVE
INERTS
EXPLOSIVE
INERTS
EXPLOSIVE
INERTS
STATE
%
*
*
*
*
*
%
%
TOTAL
MASSACHUSETTS
ait
22.000
22,000
CONNECTICUT
L40 11,000
11.080
NEW YORK
0.006
200
0.010
400
0.15
20.500
ai9 1,500
23,000
KW JERSEY
a»
1.100
5.90
237,000
6.01
365.000
4 14 365,000
O.OS3
7.300
975.000
PENNSYLVANIA
OK
500
3.78
152,000
0.371
51.300
4.93
577.000
781.000
VIRGINIA
0.0033
10
47.49
2,871000
49.23 4,344.000
2L81
3.012,000
39.45
4,636.000
14.863.000
WEST VIRGINIA
0.18
11.000
11.000
ALABAMA
o.w
1.800
0.017
700
0.16
22,000
0.62
73.000
98.000
TENNESSEE
0.0033
10
10.28
1.419.000
2.0B
243.000
1662.000
LOUISIANA
0.61
37.000
11.90
1.643.000
1,680. OOO
ARKANSAS
69.98 548.000
100 639.000
1, 187.000
TEXAS
0.80
HQ. 000
0.38
44.000
L86 14,600
169.000
ILLINOIS
218
132.000
28.23
3.898.000
9.37
1,095.000
5.125.000
WISCONSIN
2.33
141.000
5.29
730.000
871.000
OHIO
0.20
600
0.0050 200
0.085
11.800
0.0026
300
13.000
INOIANA
43.40
is. ooo
0.061
3,700
0.96
133.000
269,000
MISSOURI
3.62
219.000
1.61
222.000
0.62
72,300
ai5 1,200
5U. 000
NEBRASKA
3.62
219.000
0.68 60,200
L59
219,000
0.51
60.200
538.000
KANSAS
45.38
138,000
89.95
3,614.000
31.05
1.877.000
45.09 3,979.000
0.99
138,000
#91
3,614,000
13.369.000
IOWA
13.17
1,819.000
7.37
862.000
2.681.000
MINNESOTA
0.36
21,900
21900
ARIZONA
0.027
3.700
3,700
UTAH
2.45
148.000
0.86 76.000
40.60
713.000
34.53 115,000
0.027
3,700
0.78
91,300
25.54 200.000
1,347.000
COLORADO
0.0033
10
0.045
1.800
0.027
3,700
5.500
NEW MEXICO
8.48
25,800
0.26
10.300
0.91
126.000
0.43
50.000
212.000
CALIFORNIA
1.35
4.100
0.035
1.400
59.40
1.013.000
65.47 218.000
O.OZ1
2,900
0L87 6,800
1.276,000
WASHINGTON
1.39
192.000
2.34
274.000
466.000
99.99%
uom
99.99*
ion
100%
100.00*
100.00*
99.99*
99.99*
100".
TOTAL
301.000
4.018,000
fcQtt.000
8,824.000
1,756,000
333,000
13.810.0M
11,692.000
783,000
639,000
48.205.000
-------
In contrast, in the development of a priority ranking system
it is obvious that the net potential threat to public health
and environmental quality of a given waste is strongly
dependent upon the quantity of the waste involved, the extent
to which present treatment technology and regulatory activities
mitigate the threat, and the pathways to man or other critical
organisms (that is, the rates and routes of the intrinsic
hazard to the point where damage can be manifested).
Comparison of magnitudes of threats posed by hazardous wastes
is difficult. It requires input on the inherent hazards of
the wastes, the quantities of wastes produced, and the ease
with which those hazards can be eliminated or circumvented.
The following approach is designed to combine these inputs
into a final numerical factor, the relative magnitude of
which will determine the priority-of-concern.
The final numerical factor is designed to represent the "volume
of the environment which could be potentially degraded to a
critical level by a given waste. The assumption is made that
all sectors of the environment are equally valuable so that a
unit volume of soil is as important as a unit volume of water
or air. This simplification does not reflect the fact that
atmospheric and aquatic contaminants are in general more mobile
than terrestrial ones but does recognize the problem of environ-
mental transfer from one phase to another.
The numerical factor is derived by dividing the volume of a
waste by its lowest critical product. This may be expressed
mathematically as
where
R = ranking factor;
Q = annual production quantity for the waste being ranked*
CP = critical product for the waste being ranked. '
A critical product it; the lowest concentration at which any
of the hazards of concern become manifest in a given environ-
ment multiplied by an index representative of the waste's
mobility into that environment. Hence, for a waste which will
be discharged to water or to a landfill where leaching will
occur, the product might be the 96 hour TLm to fish for that
waste (e.g., 1 mg/1) multiplied by its solubility index. The
solubility index is defined as a dimensionless number between
1 and «> obtained by dividing 106 mg/1 by the solubility of
the waste in mg/1. A waste soluble in water to 500,000 mg/1
has a solubility index of
75
-------
SI = 106/5x105 = 2
This presumes that all wastes miscible in water or soluble to
more than 1,000,000 mg/1 will have similar mobility patterns and
thus should receive a maximum index of 1. The critical product
for the example waste would then be:
CP = 96 hr TLm X SI
CP = 1 mg/1 X 2 - 2 mg/1
Similarly, for atmospheric pollutants the critical product might
be the LC50 multiplied by the volatility index. This index would
be derived by dividing atmospheric pressure under ambient condi-
tions by the vapor pressure of the waste. Potential for suspen-
sion of dusts in air would be given a mobility index of 1. Poten-
tial for suspension of particulate matter in water would also be
given a mobility index of 1 if dissolution subsequently occurs,
or if the hazard is related directly to suspended particles.
The aqueous and atmospheric environments are of greatest concern
since discharge to the land represents major hazards in the form
of volatilization of wastes or leaching. Where data are avail-
able on phytotoxicity or other hazards related to direct contact
with wastes in soil, the critical product for ranking would be
derived from use of the critical concentration at which the
hazard becomes apparent and a mobility index of 1.
As with the waste stream decision model, actual waste stream
data is most desirable for use in the priority ranking formu-
lation. However, since such data are generally lacking, the
additive estimations recommended for interim use can be employed
for priority ranking until waste stream data become available.
Ranking numbers thus derived have a physical significance as
well as an ordinal one. Because the mobility index is dimen-
sionless, R has the units of volume per year. It represents
the actual volume of the sector of the environment of interest
critically degraded each year by a given waste. A thorough
discussion of the critical concentration concept and its use
in ranking formulations can be found in reference 12.
Should it appear advisable to produce a ranking reflective of
regulatory status or future treatment requirements, a modifi-
cation of the basic formulation can be made by adding a new
factor, E, where
E = regulatory efficiency or projected treatment status
76
-------
so that
The new factor modifies the ranking to reflect exterior changes.
That is, if current regulatory status is of interest, E becomes
a fractional parameter such that for well regulated wastes,
E -> 0 and for unregulated wastes E -* 1. This then puts the
ranking in the perspective of existing control regimes. Simi-
larly, the impact of "best available" and "best practicable"
treatment limitations can be introduced into the formulation
through proper selection of an E factor that relates to the
efficiency of these processes.
If wastes A and B were ranked, the procedures would be as
follows:
Waste A
Waste B
Annual Waste Volume
106 lbs
96 hr TLm
25 lbs/mil
gal
0.1 lbs/mil
gal
Solubility
350 ppm
200 ppm
Regulatory Efficiency 0.4
0.2
For Waste A
TLmA SIA
106x0.4
25xl06/350
0.4x350
25
5.6
77
-------
For Waste B:
p _ QbeB
^ " CFr"
_ Qbeb
TLirig SIg
105x0.2
0.1xl0b/200
= 0.2x200
= 40
B, therefore, is considered to be the more pressing problem.
Even though B is already regulated twice as well as A (.2 vs.
.4) its greater toxicity (0.1 vs. 25) threatens a larger
portion of the environment each year (4 0 million gallons vs.
5.6 million gallons).
Flammable and explosive wastes do not fit well into such a
formulation. It would appear advisable, however, to treat
them differently in any case. If the hazard posed by one of
these wastes is one of safety to operators at the plant, then
control of those hazards falls within the scope of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). Flammable and
explosive wastes are a concern under the Resource Recovery
Act only if they are stored or buried and thus are a latent
hazard to the general public. This hazard can be avoided by
requiring destructive disposal of all hazardous wastes so desig-
nated solely because of the explosive sensitivity or flammability.
This is reasonable since these materials can normally be inciner-
ated or detonated safely. Such action would prevent casual
public exposure and inplant control would remain with already
empowered authorities.
The ranking system recommended here parallels closely one
employed by EPA's Division of Oil and Hazardous Materials (DOHM)
for spotlighting hazardous materials posing the greatest threat
to the environment from accidental spills. Application of such
a system for waste streams, however, will be more difficult
since the data required are not as readily available. While the
DOHM system employs an additional probability parameter to
measure potential for spills along waterways, the recommended
system includes a functional variable E designed to modify
rankings according to the immediate situation.
78
-------
The formulation accounts for treatability by addressing
itself to actual plant discharges rather than raw wastes. Hence,
if a chromate-containing waste stream is typically reduced to a
chromate sulfate sludge and "clean" effluent, the two resultant
discharges can each be evaluated using their individual volumes
and revised hazard levels. The clean effluents may no longer
qualify as hazardous and hence require no priority rating. The
chromic sulfate sludge, while still potentially hazardous, will
receive a much lower ranking because of its insolubility. This
approach considers the waste treatment facilities of an industry
as part of the overall plant and examines only emissions in the
states and quantities which actually leave the plant.
The present effort did not include attempts to gather all
the data necessary to rank certain hazardous wastes in
accordance with the formulation derived here. In many cases
the concentration and volume data are insufficient at the
present time to allow such an endeavor. Hopefully, this
situation will be remedied with the collection of compre-
hensive waste inventory data in the near future.
79
-------
80
-------
CHAPTER CONTENTS
CHAPTER IV
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT METHODS AND COSTS
Page No.
BRIEF 83
DESCRIPTION OF SITE TYPES 84
Hazardous Waste Processing Facility 84
Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility 85
PROCESS SELECTION 8 5
Potential Processes 85
Selected Processes 85
Treatment and Disposal 88
Chemical Treatment 88
Ammonia Stripping 90
Organic Removal 90
Evaporation 90
Incineration 91
Disposal Processes 91
PROCESS DESIGN 91
Treatment Facility 91
Receiving, Segregation, and Storage Module 93
Ammonia Stripping Module 95
Chemical Treatment Module 101
LIQUIDS-SOLIDS SEPARATION MODULE 107
Carbon Sorption Module 115
Incinerator Module 115
Evaporation Module 118
81
-------
CHAPTER CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No.
LANDFILLS 118
BRINE DISPOSAL 123
PROCESS PERFORMANCE LEVELS 124
RESOURCE RECOVERY 124
Candidate Recovery Materials 127
Recovery of Heavy Metals 128
Recovery of Waste Solvents 130
Recovery and Utilization of Waste Oils 133
Reprocessing 134
Fuel for Evaporation/Concentration of Aqueous
Wastes 134
Fuel for Boiler Plant 135
EFFLUENT MONITORING 135
TRANSPORTATION OF WASTES FOR PROCESSING 137
Cost Estimates 138
Processing Facilities 138
Disposal Costs 142
82
-------
CHAPTER IV
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT METHODS AND COSTS
BRIEF
Treatment capabilities required of hazardous waste processing
facilities will depend on the types and volumes of hazardous
wastes generated in the vicinity of the facility. Broad
treatment capabilities may be required for a facility located
in a heavily industrialized area whereas only limited treat-
ment capability may be required for a facility located in a
lightly industrialized area. For this phase of the study a
model facility capable of processing a wide variety of hazard-
ous wastes (excluding radioactive and DOD wastes as covered
in Chapter V) was considered. Conceptual design and cost
estimates were prepared for a complete waste management system
to process and dispose of the wastes. In addition to treatment
and disposal, peripheral functions such as transportation,
storage, and environmental monitoring were considered.
The basic objective of waste treatment at a hazardous waste
processing facility is the conversion of hazardous substances
to forms which are acceptable for disposal or reuse. Since
the majority of anticipated wastes will be complex mixtures
containing several chemical species, treatment for removal
and/or conversion of constituent nonhazardous substances will
also be required in order to comply with pollution control
regulations. In many instances, the volume of nonhazardous
substances in a waste will dictate the type of treatment process
used and will entail the most significant operational costs.
Broad treatment capability wi'll permit the processing of many
nonhazardous wastes, achieving for the individual producer the
advantage of economy of scale. In order for a privately
operated facility to maintain a competitive position in the
waste processing field, it is anticipated that all wastes
which can be processed will be accepted? in fact, profitably.
Inclusion of nonhazardous waste processing also increases
opportunities for recovery of metals, oils, and solvents.
Jt must be emphasized that the model facility developed in this
study was designed primarily for processing hazardous wastes
and, therefore, processing facilities capable of handling both
hazardous and nonhazardous wastes may be different in many
respects. A number of factors will dictate individual design
variations for a given facility. Foremost will be the volumes
83
-------
and types of wastes, both hazardous and nonhazardous, that will
be received for processing. One facility may require many
different processes whereas another may require only one.
Furthermore, processes selected for the model facility are not
intended to be all-inclusive. A wide variety of additional
processes are available to meet the needs of all locations and
processive facilities.
Potential treatment processes and disposal methods investigated
in the TRW study19 will be discussed and the rationale given for
selection of the particular processes for the model facility
developed here.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE TYPES
Hazardous Waste Processing Facility
The model hazardous waste processing facility incorporates the
various waste treatment functions from which effluents can be
discharged in the vicinity of the processing facility. The
facility is basically a chemical processing plant designed to
operate safely in a normal industrial area. Effluents from the
facility will be required to meet applicable local water and
air standards. Local solid waste disposal will be limited to
nonhazardous wastes which are acceptable for burial in a con-
ventional landfill, which may be located near the processing
facility. In general, nonhazardous waste brines will be disposed
of by ocean disposal or deep well injection to avoid potential
quality impairment of fresh water sources. Land disposal of
these brines is a less desirable alternative method which can
be used only in arid regions, and infrequently there. Trans-
porting the brines to an arid land disposal site would in most
cases be more costly than transporting these materials to deep
well or ocean disposal sites. Since disposal of brine to land
is detrimental to soil quality, deep well or ocean disposal
are more desirable alternatives.
The facility will also contain equipment and structures neces-
sary for transporting, receiving, and storing wastes and raw
material. Another important feature will be a laboratory to
provide analytical services for process control and monitoring
of effluent and environmental samples and pilot scale testing
Services to assure satisfactory operation of the processing
plant. The latter normally is not required in a conventional
chemical processing plant but, due to the highly variable nature
of the waste feed in this case, pilot scale testing is consid-
ered essential.
84
-------
Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility
The hazardous waste disposal facility will consist of a
secured landfill and the appropriate equipment and structures
for burial and surveillance of the hazardous solid wastes.
Secured landfills will be located away from population centers
in areas of minimal land use. Although the hazardous waste
sludges will be incorporated in asphalt or other materials
to reduce leachability, secured landfills will be located
where the potential for groundwater contamination is low.
These landfills are to be isolated from public use and kept
under perpetual surveillance to assure that long-term control
is maintained.
PROCESS SELECTION
Potential Processes
A list of 4 5 currently employed waste treatment techniques
(Table 10) was prepared by TRW Systems Inc.19 from the Booz-
Allen report10 and other literature references. TRW then
selected the 16 processes (Table 11) most applicable to the
treatment of hazardous wastes, developed process profiles for
each, and subjected them to detailed study.
Process review and selection work in the current study
combined TRW Systems' process files and recommendations for
incorporating 16 unit processes in the disposal site system
with additional analysis of selected hazardous constituents
and waste streams to derive a conceptual diagram of a model
hazardous waste processing facility. Design objectives for
the model facility included broad treatment capability to
permit processing of all significant volumes of hazardous
wastes generated across the country. Process effectiveness
and flexibility were important selection criteria.
Selected Processes
The objectives of waste processing at the model facility are
the removal of hazardous and polluting substances and/or
conversion of these substances to forms acceptable for
disposal or reuse. Based upon the hazardous wastes identi-
fication portion of this study described in Chapter III,
it was determined that in order to accomplish these objectives
the model facility must include treatment processes for:
• neutralization of acids and bases;
• oxidation of cyanides and other reductants;
• reduction of chromium-6 and other oxidants;
85
-------
TABLE 10
CLASSIFICATION OF WASTE DISPOSAL/RECOVERY PROCESSES
AS DEVELOPED BY TRW19
I. Physical Treatment Processes
A. Gas Cleaning
Mechanical Collection
Electrostatic Precipitation
Fabric Filter
Wet Scrubbing
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Adsorption
B. Liquid - Solids Separation
Centrifugation
Clarification
Coagulation
Filtration
Flocculation
Flotation
Foaming
Sedimentation
Thickening
C. Removal of Specific Components
Adsorption
Crystallization
Dialysis
Distillation
Electrodialysis
Evaporation
Leaching
Reverse Osmosis
Solvent Extraction
Stripping
II. Chemical Treatment Processes
Absorption
Chemical Oxidation
Chemical Precipitation
Chemical Reduction
Combination and Addition
Ion Exchange
Neutralization
Pyrolysis
86
-------
TABLE 10 (continued)
III. Biological Treatment Processes
Activated Sludge
Aerobic Lagoons
Anaerobic Lagoons
Spray Irrigation
Trickling Filters
Waste Stabilization Ponds
IV. Ultimate Disposal Processes
Deep Well Disposal
Dilute and Disperse
Incineration
Ocean Dumping
Sanitary Landfill
Land Burial
TABLE 11
WASTE DISPOSAL/RECOVERY PROCESSES
SELECTED FOR APPLICATION TO HAZARDOUS WASTES
TREATMENT OR SPECIFIED BY TRW19
Reverse Osmosis
Electrodialysis
Dialysis
Land Burial
Deep Well Disposal
Ocean Dumping
Sanitary Landfill
Combustion Processes
Pyrolysis
Ion Exchange
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filters
Aerated Lagoons
Anaerobic Lagoons
Spray Irrigation
Waste Stabilization Ponds
87
-------
• removal of heavy metals;
• separation of solids from liquids;
• removal of organics;
• incineration of combustible wastes;
• removal of ammonia; and
• concentration of waste brines.
Treatment and Disposal
Processes selected for inclusion in the model facility are pre-
sented in Table 12 and discussed below.
Chemical Treatment
A common characteristic of many hazardous wastes is the pres-
ence of acidic or basic constituents which require neutralization
prior to further processing or disposal. Neutralization is
carried out in part by reacting acid wastes with basic wastes.
However, it is expected that acid wastes will predominate,118
necessitating substantial additions of reagent base for
neutralization. Neutralization will be accompanied by the
precipitation of heavy metals including those in the hazardous
category such as arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and antimony. Most
heavy metals precipitate as hydroxides or hydrous oxides upon
neutralization and exhibit low solubilities in water. Neutrali-
zation-precipitation followed by clarification is effective for
reducing heavy metal concentrations in metal finishing wastes
to the 1-10 mg/1 range."9'50'51 Arsenic does not precipitate
as a hydroxide or hydrous oxide but will coprecipitate with
heavy metals (e.g., Fe+^) as the arsenate.5* Since further
reduction in the heavy metal concentration below the 1-10 mg/1
range is required to meet(water quality standards, an additional
precipitation step utilizing sulfide is included.53 Sulfide
precipitates of heavy metals are highly insoluble. Separation
of the precipitated solids from the liquid phase will be ac-
complished by flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration
techniques widely used throughout industry50'51'53-56 and in
municipal wastewater treatment plants57-5® for solid-liquid
separation.
In addition to neutralization-precipitation, chemical treatment
must also involve processes for treating cyanide and chromium-6
bearing wastes. Although these wastes may be treated by a wide
variety of processes,k9~51'6°~73 large plants generally use
chlorine oxidation of cyanide and sulfur dioxide reduction of
88
-------
TABLE 12
PROCESSES SELECTED FOR INCLUSION IN MODEL
HAZARDOUS WASTES PROCESSING/DISPOSAL FACILITY
Treatment Processes Disposal Processes
Neutralization Ocean Disposal
Precipitation Deep Well Injection
Oxidation-Reduction Landfill
Flocculation-Sedimentation
Filtration
Ammonia Stripping
Carbon Sorption
Incineration
Evaporation
89
-------
chromium-6. Consequently, these processes were selected for
use in the model facility.
Ammonia Stripping
This process is included largely for the removal of ammonia
which is expected to appear in substantial qantities in some
wastes. Although ammonia is not a hazardous substance its
removal is required to meet pollution control regulations.
Ammonia stripping is a standard treatment process for removing
relatively large quantities of ammonia from aqueous solu-
tions. 7kr^5 low concentrations of ammonia may be adequately
treated by oxidation with chlorine.
Organic Removal
The carbon sorption process76-81 was selected in preference to
biological treatment processes for the removal of soluble
organics from incoming waste streams for the following reasons:
1. Biological systems can operate effectively only
within narrow ranges of flow, composition, and
concentration variations. These conditions are
impossible to fulfill at a site where incoming
organic containing waste streams are highly vari-
able in composition and concentration.8 2 The
situation is aggravated further by projected
campaign scheduling of process operations.
2. Biological systems generally do not work on solutions
containing more than 1-5 percent soluble salts.83 The
solutions anticipated at a disposal site will contain
from 10-20 percent soluble salts.
3. Systems which provide the full range of biodegradation
facilities usually necessary would require large land
areas.a"
4. The presence of numerous toxic agents poses a constant
threat of culture destruction.82 Resulting acclimation
and start-up times would be prohibitive.
In general, a biological system is an economically viable answer
to organic destruction only when the waste stream is large,
continuous, and fairly constant in its composition.
Evaporation was selected as the most economically favorable
process for concentrating brine wastes. Concentration of
90
-------
nonhazardous brine wastes will not be necessary in areas where
the cost of transporting these wastes for ocean disposal or to deep
well injection sites is low. Other processes such as ion exchange,
reverse osmosis, dialysis, and electrodialysis are not suitable
for concentrating strong brine solutions.
Incineration
Incineration is routinely used throughout industry for destroying
combustible wastes and is the obvious choice for treatment and
disposal of hazardous combustible wastes. High temperature
oxidation is one of the most effective means of destroying this
type of waste. Further, incinerators can be designed to process
both liquids and solids, the latter assuming many different
shapes and sizes.
Disposal Processes
Disposal methods selected for the model system include landfill
for solid wastes and ocean disposal and deep well injection for
liquid wastes. Two types of landfills have been considered:
secured landfills located away from population centers in areas
where land use is minimal and potential for groundwater contam-
ination is low and conventional landfills located at or near the
treatment facility. The secured landfill is to be used for
disposing of solid wastes containing hazardous substances such
as arsenic, mercury, selenium, cadmium and antimony. Conven-
tional landfills may be used for disposal of solid wastes con-
taining no significant concentrations of hazardous substances.
Ocean disposal and deep well injection are recommended for dis-
posal of nonhazardous waste brines from the treatment facility.
The combined wastewater processed at a typical facility is
expected to have high concentrations of dissolved salts consist-
ing largely of sulfate and chloride salts of sodium, potassium,
calcium, and magnesium. Ocean disposal is the most attractive
method because these salts become undetectable against the
natural background when completely mixed into the ocean.85
Deep well injection is a practical alternative to ocean disposal
in areas where suitable geological formations exist and the cost
of transporting the wastes to an ocean disposal site is high.
Caution must be exercised when using the deep well injection
method to avoid contaminating fresh water supplies.
PROCESS DESIGN
Treatment Facility
A conceptual flow diagram which integrates the various treatment
steps in modular form as illustrated in Figure 2 was developed
91
-------
FIGURE 2
CONCEPTUAL MODULAR FLOW DIAGRAM
DISTILLATE WITH AMMONIA
RECLAIM
AQUEOUS
LIQUID
WASTE
FURNACE OFF-OAS
y v
RESIDUE
COMBUSTIBLE
WASTE
SALT CAKE
DISTILLATE
GASEOUS
WASTE TO
ATMOSPHERE
DEEP WELL
INJECTION
OCEAN
DISPOSAL
CARBON
SORPTION
INCINERATOR
SYSTEM
SURFACE
RECEIVING
WATER
RECLAMATION
LAND FILL
EVAPORATION
AMMONIA
STRIPPING
CHEMICAL
TREATMENT
LIQUID
SOLIDS
SEPARATION
RECEIVING
SEGREGATION
STORAGE
-------
for the model hazardous waste processing facility. The flow
pattern represents that normally expected. However, additional
piping was included to provide flexibility. In the normal
flow pattern, wastes with high concentrations of ammonia or
ammonium salts are diverted from storage to the ammonia
stripper for ammonia removal. The ammonia is steam distilled
and appears as a concentrated stream from the condenser while
the stripper bottoms, which are essentially free of ammonia,
are routed to the chemical treatment module. The chemical treat-
ment module serves several functions including receiving, storage
and distribution of chemical reagents, oxidation of cyanides and
other reductants, reduction of chromium-6 and other oxidants,
neutralization of acids and bases, and precipitation of heavy
metals. The liquid-solids separation module involves sedimen-
tation as the first step followed by vacuum filtration for de-
watering of sludges and multimedia filtration to remove residual
particulate matter from the supernatant liquid. Filter effluent
is then routed to the carbon sorption module for organic removal
and finally to the evaporation module if concentration of the
brine is desired. The brine may be concentrated either to a
pumpable slurry or to a salt cake depending on the mode of
transportation which will be used to ship this material to a
disposal site.
Combustible wastes are processed in an incinerator which includes
off-gas cleaning equipment to remove acids and particulates.
Ash from the incinerator is transferred as a slurry to the
liquid-solids separation module together with scrubber and quench
wastewater. Sludges from the liquids-solids separation module,
if relatively free of hazardous metals, are buried in a local
landfill. Sludges which contain substantial quantities of
hazardous heavy metals (except Cr+6) are shipped to a secured
landfill. Waste brines and salt cakes will be disposed as
previously discussed.
Preliminary estimates called for a design capacity of 623 tons
per day of waste for the typical medium sized facility. The
wastes include 122,000 gpd of aqueous wastes including inorgan-
ic sludges and 74 tons per day of wastes to be incinerated.
A discussion of processing and disposal methods follows.
Receiving, Segregation, and Storage Module
Upon receipt at the facility, prior to unloading and transfer to
storage, waste compositions reported by the producers are veri-
fied and the wastes are segregated into 17 categories as follows:
A-l Concentrated sulfuric acid solutions with heavy
metals
A-2 Concentrated mixed acids with heavy metals
93
-------
A-3 Dilute acid solutions containing hexavalent
chromium and/or other oxidants
A-4 Dilute acid solutions containing heavy metals
but no hexavalent chromium or ammonia
A-5 Dilute acid solutions containing heavy metals
and ammonium salts
A-6 Acidic nitrate solutions containing heavy metals
A-7 Acidic wastes with hazardous metals except Cr+^
B-l Alkaline solutions containing cyanides
B-2 Alkaline solutions containing sulfides
B-3 Concentrated alkaline solutions containing no
sulfide nor cyanide
B-4 Miscellaneous alkaline solutions containing
contaminants other than hazardous metals
B-5 Alkaline solutions containing hazardous metals
C-l Combustible organic sludges, solids, and liquids
C-2 Sludges, slurries, and solids containing cyanides
C-3 Sludges, slurries, and solids containing hexa-
valent chromium
C-4 Inorganic sludges, slurries, solids containing
no hexavalent chromium nor cyanide
C-5 Wastewater contaminated with high concentrations
or organic substances
C-6 Organic contaminated solids
Estimated volume and composition data are given in Appendix G.
Segregation of the wastes serves several necessary and useful
functions. Characterization and segregation according to
chemical compatability is necessary for safe operation of the
plant. For example, acid wastes when combined with cyanide-
containing wastes release extremely toxic hydrogen cyanide gas.
Segregation and storage permits acquisition of a sufficient
inventory of a particular type of waste to facilitate process-
ing/ making it possible to use reactants present in some of
94
-------
the wastes for neutralizing certain constituents of other wastes.
Typical examples include neutralization of alkaline wastes by
acid wastes (thereby minimizing the purchase of neutralizing
chemicals), counteracting of waste oxidants with waste reduc-
tants, and precipitation of toxic heavy metals with waste
sulfides.
Wastes received under categories A-7 and B-5 contain approx-
imately 90 percent of the hazardous toxic metals (except Cr+6).
These wastes are stored and processed on a campaign basis to
isolate the sludge produced. The latter is then transported
to a secured landfill for burial.
The waste receiving, segregation, and storage operations are
illustrated in Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Some equipment is
duplicated in order to show the various operations; for example,
separate drum unloading stations would not be required for each
waste category. Prior to storage, cyanide-free inorganic
sludges (Figure 3) receive acid pretreatment to dissolve soluble
constituents.
The receiving, segregation, and storage module contains facili-
ties for unloading drums, tank cars, and tank trailers. Pumpable
fluids are transferred to storage tanks and solids or sludges,
most of which can be incinerated, are stored until both the
waste and the container can be fed to the incinerator. Storage
capacity is sufficient to hold at least a five day inventory
of feed material.
The unloading facility is equipped with catchment basins in
case any material is accidentally spilled during the unloading
and transfer operation. Work procedures are clearly defined,
including those for emergency operations in case of accidents
occur. The work areas are equipped with emergency and safety
equipment and apparel for employees, including (but not limited
to) safety showers, assault masks, independent breathing air
masks, chemical and fire resistant clothing, various fire
fighting devices, and alarm systems to warn of hazardous con-
ditions in the work areas. In-plant safety devices include
systems which can detect erroneous transfers of material and
automatically shut down transfer pumps, if necessary.
Ammonia Stripping Module
Although ammonia is not a hazardous material, significant quan-
tities are expected to be present in some hazardous wastes, and
disposal of effluents containing substantial concentrations of
ammonia is not permitted in many areas.
95
-------
FIGURE 3
WASTE RECEIVING, SEGREGATION, AND STORAGE MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR RECEIVING AND STORAGE OF LIQUID AQUEOUS WASTES
TO WASH WATER \
BATCH TANK /
FROM WASH WATER
BATCH TANK
FROM BATCH INGESTION X
TANK /
O BATCH OIGESTtON
TANK
y SERVICE
\ WATER
TO CHEMICAL
TWEATMCNT
ftG 6 4 9
UNLOAD STATION
PUMPABLE FLUiOS (BULK)
AGITATED
HOLDING TANKS
ACIDIC
7 PROCESS FEED
STORAGE TANKS
ALKALINE
& PROCESS FEED
STORAGE TANKS
A-1 10.000 GAL
A-2 1S.000GAL.
A-3 1*0,000 GAL.
A-4 100.000 GAL
AS &O.OOQ GAL
A-8 10.000 GAL
A-7 50.000 GAL
9-t 129,000 GAL
B 2 ftO OOOGAL
B-3 10.000 GAL
0-4 60,000 GAL
BS SOOOO GAL
DRUM OPEN
STATION
TRANSFER TO
I DRUM WASH
STATION
UNLOAD DOCK SOLUTIONS fc SlUOGtS fDRUMS)
ORWI HOLDING
DUMP TANK
STATION
-------
FIGURE 4
WASTE RECEIVING, SEGREGATION, AND STORAGE MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR RECEIVING AND STORAGE
OF ORGANIC SOLIDS, SLUDGES, SLURRIES, AND SOLUTIONS
STATION
-------
FIGURE 5
WASTE RECEIVING, SEGREGATION, AND STORAGE MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC-FOR RECEIVING AND STORAGE
OF CYANIDE FREE, INORGANIC SOLIDS, SLUDGES, AND SLURRIES
service \
WATCH V*—
UNLOAD STAnOW
o •*
r—
JL/a
nKUMfl
«gTMUOS.IUMMEinMUMi
asm
'11 i
nn
<201
<1&\
I i
i >r i
1 c« '
SCREEMS
I
4I, . * . ^
J 0 -r^dii G i *• .rQ
SAL
R
\
?
x
-pa
CMTTV MUM
OMJMS m«u
(TOM RCaaOVEDi STATtOM
COMC HYOftOCHLOfttC |
ACID FROM ACIO 1
STORAGE TAMK
TO CHEMICAL
-4 TRCATMCNT
FIQfV-«*«
ixr
MYMAUUC
TWAMS*OAT TO
_ STOWAGE A
1SH»mo oock
c±»
mANSPORT TO FCEO
ITOMM AMA FOA
T*A«>I-CmtAATOA
JL
unload ooec
-------
FIGURE 6
WASTE RECEIVING, SEGREGATION, AND STORAGE MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR RECEIVING AND STORAGE
OF CYANIDE RICH, INORGANIC SOLIDS, SLUDGES, AND SLURRIES
10
ID
FO FEED NOZZLE
m tar suRner
COWC ALKALI I
SOl ft FROM ALKALI
STORAGE TANK 8 3
UNLOAD PUMP
1 AGfTAXtO
XflWC TM
(OCCASIONAL USE)
UNLOAD STd' CN
•VMPASLE FLUIOS (BULK)
CYANIDE COWTAJNMKJ
STORAOE T AIM •
WASH WATER
BATCH TANK
TRANSPORT TO
storage A
mm
EMPTY DRUMS
[TOPS REMOVED
DRUM OA
TO TRASH
SCREW CONVEVOR
IN ASM SUMP
TRANSPORT TO
COMTROU.EO LANDFILL
|s>2!52*gjx)ci^
NOTE DRUM OPENING. DUMPING.
A NO SCRAP HANDLING EQUIPMENT
COULD K SHARED WITH OPERATIONS
SHOWN ON FIGURE
TRANSPORT TO FEED
STORAGE AREA FOR
TRASH INCWERATOR
UNLOAD DOCK
DRY OR SUM ORVSOUOSlFWCRPASSOR SOXES)
-------
FIGURE 7
WASTE RECEIVING, SEGREGATION, AND STORAGE MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR C-5 AQUEOUS
ORGANIC CONTAINING-WASTE STREAMS
UNLOAD STATION UNLOAD PUMP
PUMPABLE FLUIDS (BULK)
I I
Iff *12' I
17000 OAL |
AGITATED
HOLDING TANKS
4 STORAGE
TANKS. 20.000 GAL
DRUM OPEN
TO INCINERATOR NOZZLE
FIG IV-IB
>
WET SOLIDS, SUWRCS. SOLUTIONS (DRUMS)
HOLDING TRANSFER
TANK PUMP
EMPTY DRUMS
TRANSFER TO DRUM WASH STATION
FIG IV-2
-------
The stripper illustrated in Figure 8 removes ammonia by taking
advantage of its volatility at high temperatures and pH.
Ammonia is transferred from the wastewater to the stripper
distillate (or "overheads") and the remaining processed waste-
water ("bottoms") is routed to the chemical treatment module.
It is anticipated that from 5-20 percent of the feed wastewater
will be evaporated in this step.
The distillate from the steam stripper is a concentrated aqueous
ammonia stream which can be reclaimed for fertilizer or indus-
trial use. It is not anticipated that a significant profit
can be derived from the recovered ammonia since this material
is readily available in most areas of the country at low cost.
One possible alternative would be barging and ocean disposal in
low productivity areas with precautions to prevent over enrich-
ment .
Chemical Treatment Module
The chemical treatment module combines several functions
including oxidation, reduction, neutralization, and precipi-
tation. Wastes containing oxidants, principally Cr+6, are
treated with sulfur dioxide to reduce the oxidants to less
noxious materials (e.g., Cr±6 to Cr+3). Reduction with sulfur
dioxide is the method most commonly used by large plating plants
and was selected for use in the model treatment facility, but
other reductants such as sulfite salts and ferrous sulfate may
be used if available and economically feasible.
Reduction, as illustrated in Figure 9, is carried out in acid
solution in the pH range 2.0-3.0. Under these conditions the
reactions which occur are:
S02 + H20 ¦+ H2SO3
Sulfur Water Sulfurous
Dioxide Acid
2 C2O3 + 3 H2S03 -~ Cr2 (SO4) 3 + 3H20
Chromic , Sulfurous Chromic _ Water
Acid (Cr ) Acid Sulfate (Cr )
The approximate chemical usage is one pound of S02 per pound of
chromic acid.
Water containing cyanide may be treated by a variety of methods
to convert the cyanide to less toxic substances. Oxidation may
be achieved with chlorine, hypoclorites, ozone, peroxide, and
101
-------
FIGURE 8
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC OF AMMONIA STRIPPER MODULE
TO VENT
THROUGH
INCINERATOR
COOUNG
WATER IN
COMO. OUT
TRANSFER OFF GRADE.
CONTAMINATED BATCHES TO
INCINERATOR FIG IV-18
TRANSFER TO
SHIPPING DOCK
>
AMMONIA HRWWG STH1
AQUEOUS AMMONIA BATCH TANKS
MOO GAL CAP EACH
APPROX «200*/DAV
OF NH, AS AN
AQUEOUS AMMONIA
SOLUTION. 2S-30K NH,
(ABOUT 1*00 GAL/DAY
OF SOLUTKMt)
-------
FIGURE 9
CHEMICAL TREATMENT MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR REDUCTION AND PRIMARY PRECIPITATION
o
u>
(INCLUDES STREAM A-5
AFTER NH, STRIPPING)
{ABOUT 42.000 GAL/DAY} I
NOTE: MAY
OCCASIONALLY
BLEED IN
SMALL AMOUNT
OF STREAM A-1
IF pH OF
STREAM A-3
RUNS TOO WGlVpHRCl
(ABOUT
3000 GAL/DAY)
STREAM A-2
(UP TO
2.000 GAL/DAY}
STREAM A-1
(ABOUT
20.000 GAL/DAY)
STREAM A-4
Ca(OH), SLURRY
TO SPEED CONTROL
OF SLURRY PUMP
STREAM A-3
BALANCE OF
STREAM B-3
(UP TO
2000 GAL/DAY)
PORTION OF
STREAM B-3
OXIDANT REDUCTION
GAS ABSORBER,
1600 GAL
RESIDENCE TIME
ABOUT 1 HR
s
TO VENT
SCRUBBER
OF INCINERATOR
(ABOUT 26,000 GAL/DAY)
STREAM 8-1
AFTER CHLORINATION
TO PRIMARY
CLARIFIER,
FIG IV 14
pH ADJUSTMENT
TANK, 160 GALWRC)—
RESIDENCE TIME
APPROX. 6 MIN
SOa GAS
FROM RAW
MATERIAL STORAGE
TRANSFER
PRIMARY PRECIPITATOR,
2500 GAL.
RESIDENCE TIME ABOUT 30 MIN.
-------
other agents. The method most commonly employed on a large
scale, and the one selected for the model processing facility,
is oxidation by chlorine. Wastes containing cyanides are
treated under alkaline conditions with chlorine to convert the
cyanides to cyanates according to the following reaction:
NaCN h
Sodium
Cyanide
CI2 + 2NaOH -»¦ NaCNO
Chlorine Sodium Sodium
Hydroxide Cyanate
2NaCl + H20
Sodium Water
Chloride
The conversion of cyanide to cyanate is a rapid reaction,
requiring only a few minutes to complete. The approximate
chemical usage is 2.5 pounds of chlorine per pound of cyanide.
Since cyanate is about a thousand times less toxic than
cyanide, it may be acceptable to dispose of cyanates by
ocean disposal off the continental shelf or by deep well injec-
tion.
If further treatment of cyanates is necessary, chlorine can be
employed to convert the cyanate to carbon dioxide (or carbon-
ates in alkaline solution), nitrogen, and water as follows:
2 Na CNO + 4 NaOH + 3C1-
6 NaCl
Sodium
Cyanate
Sodium
Hydroxide
Chlorine Sodium
Chloride
2C02
Carbon
Dioxide
+ N2 + h2o
Nitrogen Water
The overall reaction of cyanide with chlorine is as follows:
2 NaCN
Sodium
Cyanide
5C12 +
Chlorine
12 NaOH
Sodium
Hydroxide
10 NaCl
Sodium
Chloride
2Na2CC>3
Sodium
Carbonate
N2 + 6H20
Nitrogen Water
Adequate mixing is required to obtain reasonable reaction rates
and the overall reaction is fairly slow, requiring hours for
complete destruction of the cyanide, particularly if heavy
metal cyanide complexes are present. Chemical usage for the
overall reaction is approximately four pounds of chlorine and
nine pounds of sodium hydroxide per pound of cyanide. The
flow schematic for cyanide oxidation is illustrated in
Figure 10.
104
-------
FIGURE 10
CONCEPTUAL
CHEMICAL
FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR
TREATMENT MODULE
OXIDATION AND SECONDARY PRECIPITATION
pHRC
TO VENT SCRUNCH
OF INCMERATOR
PORTION OF
STREAM A-1
TO VENT
THROUGH
INCINERATOR
STREAM A-1
ABOUT 26
6AL/DAV
STREAM
ABOUT 12.000 GAL/DAY
STREAM S-2
NOTE: MAY REQUIRE
OCCASIONAL ADDITIONS
Of PORTION Of
STREAM S-3
INITIAL pH IS
TOO LOW
II * a
pH ADJUSTMENT I j! *
TANK. 1000 GAL I C
RESIDENCE TIME
ABOUT 1SMIN
(AFTER CHLORMATION)
STREAM B-1 TO
PRIMARY PRECIPITATOR
TO SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
FIG. IV
FROM PRIMARY
CLAIUF1ER. FIG. IV-8
ABOUT tt.OOO GAL DAY
(SULRDf PRECIPITATION)
CU GAS
INTERMEDIATE
HOLDING TANK
STORAGE.
SO. GAS
SECONDARY PRECIPITATOR.
2000 GAL RESIOENCE
TIME. ABOUT 10 MIN.
BATCH CHLORMATION TANK
EO00GAL. CYCLE TIME
ABOUT 4 HOURS
-------
Although nitrate is not a hazardous substance, pollution
control regulations restrict its disposal and treatment and
disposal of wastewater containing substantial amounts of
nitrate may be difficult or expensive in some areas. Moderate
amounts of nitrates can be reduced in the chemical treatment
module but large quantities of ferrous salts are required.86
A separate storage tank has been designated for wastes con-
taining large amounts of nitrate to permit their processing
on a campaign basis. It is assumed that ocean disposal of
brines containing nitrate salts will be permitted in low
productivity areas of the ocean since the alternative of
land burial is less desirable due to potential grounwater
contamination. The cost of transporting these brines will be
greater than for low-nitrate brines which can be disposed near
the shore, since ocean areas of low productivity are located
much farther from the coastline.
Effluents from the oxidation/reduction steps are blended with
other waste streams as indicated in Figure 9. The neutrali-
zation operation results in the precipitation of heavy metal
hydroxides or hydrous oxides and calcium sulfate. Approxi-
mately 95 percent of the sludge produced will not contain
significant amounts of hazardous heavy metals because such
wastes are segregated. Some of the sludge will contain organic
matter, thus requiring incineration prior to disposal in a
conventional landfill; however, the small percentage of sludges
containing substantial quantities of sulfides and/or relatively
volatile heavy metals (e.g., arsenic, mercury) should not be
incinerated because of potential air pollution problems. Since
the heavy hydroxide precipitation occurs prior to sulfide
precipitation most of the suspended organics will be associated
with the metal hydroxide sludges rather than the metal sulfide
sludges. The relatively volatile heavy metals happen to be
in the hazardous category and therefore sludges containing
these metals in addition to hazardous organic substances will
be buried in a secured landfill without incineration.
Lime addition to the primary precipitator will be controlled
to maintain a pH of about 5. At this pH level the precipitate
formed consists largely of ferric hydroxide, aluminum hydroxide,
and calcium sulfate, with smaller quantities of other heavy
metal hydroxides. After separation of the precipitate in the
primary clarifier the supernatant liquid is returned to the
secondary precipitator (Figure 10) where sulfide wastes, plus
additional sodium sulfide if required, are added to precipitate
metal sulfides (at a pH of about 7). A bleed stream of clari-
fied incinerator scrubber water (clears) is also fed into the
secondary precipitator for treatment. The slurry from the
secondary precipitator is then routed to the secondary clarif-
ier .
106
-------
The chemical treatment module also includes facilities for
receiving, storage, and distribution of reagent chemicals. More
lime is used than any other chemical; it is purchased in the
unslaked form and slaked on-site. Receiving, storage and distri-
bution schematics for lime and polyelectrolyte flocculant are
presented in Figure 11. Figures 12 and 13 illustrate the flow
schematics for receiving, storage and distribution of nitrogen
gas, sulfur dioxide, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydrox-
ide, and sodium sulfide.
Nitrogen gas is employed as an inert gas blanket for the vessel
and vent systems; chlorine and sulfur dioxide are used for oxi-
dation and reduction reactions; hydrochloric acid is used for
leaching sludges and for pH adjustment; sodium hydroxide is
used for pH adjustment; and sodium sulfide is used for metal
sulfide precipitation.
LIQUID-SOLIDS SEPARATION MODULE
The liquid-solids separation module includes the following equip-
ment:
• A primary clarifier and two vacuum filters for removing
and dewatering metal hydroxides, hydrous oxides, and
calcium sulfate;
• a secondary clarifier and vacuum filter for removing
and dewatering metal sulfide sludges;
• a thickener and vacuum filter for removing and de-
watering incinerator ash; and
• three tri-media filters for removing residual
particulate matter from the secondary clarifier
overflow.
Schematic flow diagrams for these operations are illustrated in
Figures 14-17.
Sludges from the clarifiers and thickeners will be filtered,
washed to remove soluble salts, and dewatered to about 60 per-
cent moisture prior to disposal. Non-hazardous sludges contain-
ing low concentrations of hazardous substances will be collected
in a suitable container for shipment to a secured landfill.
The secondary clarifier overflow is directed to the tri-media
filters for removal of residual suspended solids. The tri-media
filters are illustrated in Figure 11 along with a filtrate
holding tank where chlorine is added to oxidize excess sulfide
ion in the filtrate. Tri-media filters were selected for the
107
-------
FIGURE 11
CHEMICAL TREATMENT MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR RECEIVING
AND STORAGE OF LIME AND POLYELECTROLYTE
X
-------
FIGURE 12
CHEMICAL TREATMENT MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR RECEIVING AND STORAGE
OF NITROGEN, SULFUR DIOXIDE, AND CHLORINE
iiiiSMi
Wi I
mm
UNLOAD DOCK FOR N, CYLINDERS
CYLINDER STORAGE
w
UNLOAD STATION
T
d
.0
UNLOAD LIQUID SO, STORAGE ELECT.
PUMP TANK. 300 PSI VAPORIZER
R. R. CAR UNLOAD STATION
yi
UNLOAD LIQUID CL, STORAGE ELECT.
PUMP TANK. 300 P.S.I. VAPORIZER <
Nj GAS
CYLINDER RACK
cc
o
K
<
zoc
ui K Ui
?
o
WATER -
SEAL
TANK
CHEMICAL
TREATMENT
FIG IV. 3
CHEMICAL TREATMENT
TANK. FIG IV-8
>
TO GAS ABSORBER
>
-------
FIGURE 13
CHEMICAL TREATMENT MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR RECEIVING AND STORAGE
OF HYDROCHLORIC ACID AND SODIUM SULFIDE
TO BRINE
HOLD TANK
FK» IV 16
-------
FIGURE 14
LIQUID-SOLIDS SEPARATION MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR
PRIMARY CLARIFICATION AND SLUDGE FILTRATION
-------
FIGURE 15
LIQUID-SOLIDS SEPARATION MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW DIAGRAM FOR
SECONDARY CLARIFICATION AND SLUDGE FILTRATION
-------
FIGURE 16
LIQUID-SOLIDS SEPARATION MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR CLARIFICATION
OF INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER AND FILTRATION OF ASH SLUDGE
-------
FIGURE 17
LIQUID-SOLIDS SEPARATION MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR BRINE FILTRATION
N»OH SOLUTION
FB.TER BACKWASH
TO SECONDARY
C1ARIFIER. FtGIV-14
Ck OAS
FROM SECONDARY
CUUUFIER
no iv-i4
\ TO CARBON \
SORPTION no. 17 /
BRMC MOiXMNG TANK
-------
liquid filtration operation because this type of filter is much
more efficient than other types,58 Tri-media filters are
similar to rapid sand filters but contain three different layers
of granular filter media; the top layer is coarse grade anthra-
cite coal, the center layer is medium grade sand, and the bottom
layer is fine grade garnet sand. Filtration is accomplished in
the direction of coarse-to-fine, permitting higher particulate
loadings in the filter media. In addition, filtrate clarity
achieved with a tri-media filter is generally superior to that
of a single or dual-media filter. Attaining a high degree of
filtrate clarity is important because residual hazardous metals
in the liquid are largely in the particulate form.
Carbon Sorption Module
The carbon sorption module (Figure 18) removes soluble organic
substances from the waste brine. The carbon sorption columns
are designed to operate upflow in series or in parallel to
achieve the desired degree of removal. Upflow operation permits
semi-continuous removal of exhausted carbon from the beds, thus
minimizing the inventory of carbon required. Exhausted carbon
is removed from the beds for thermal regeneration in a furnace.
The freshly regenerated carbon from the furnace is subsequently
quenched in water and transferred to a storage tank prior to
use in the packed columns. Gaseous products from the regen-
eration furnace are routed to the incinerator to assure complete
destruction of residual organic vapors.
Incinerator Module
A rotary kiln incinerator was selected in preference to other
types of incinerators because of its versatility.19 The rotary
kiln incinerator is highly efficient when applied to solids,
liquids, sludges, and tars because of its ability to thoroughly
mix unburned waste and oxygen as it revolves. A conceptual
flow schematic of the incineration system illustrating the
various features of the incinerator and auxiliary equipment is
given in Figure 19. Pollution control features include a spray
quench chamber, a Venturi scrubber, and a demister, all of which
are designed to cool off-gases and remove particulate matter
and certain chemical constituents (e.g., HC1 and SO2) from the
off-gases. Wastewater and ash are routed as a slurry to a
thickener (Figure 16) where the ash is removed and clarified
water (clears) is returned to the incineration system. As
indicated earlier a bleed stream is removed from the clears
for treatment and disposal.
Combustible wastes are classified according to anticipated heat
generation and burning rates before incineration. The rotary
kiln can accept metal drums containing solid wastes that cannot
115
-------
FIGURE 18
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR CARBON SORPTION MODULE
BACKWASH OOCHMGE
UOUIO-SOtfQS
SEPARATOR
MAKEUP"MBOfT]
CARBON
COLUMN
CARBON
SCREW CONVEYORS
DEWATERMG
TANKS
FURNACE
EXHAUSTED
SLURRY
QUENCH
TANK
3 WAY VALVE
MAKEUP
CARBON FEED
TANK
TREATED WAW
TOOMCHAROC
OR EVAPORATION
TANK
PUMPS
-------
FIGURE 19
INCINERATION MODULE
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SCHEMATIC OF INCINERATION SYSTEM
PUMP. FK3JV-U
». WO «v-»
TWUCICTO
-------
be readily removed. Aqueous waste streams contaminated with
relatively high concentrations of soluble organics will also be
processed in the incinerator. Supplementary fuel will be
supplied to complete incineration of these aqueous-organic waste
streams. The incinerator has a design capacity of 40 million
BTU/hr with an estimated HC1 production of 200 lbs/hr. Incin-
erator residue is expected to be produced an average rate of
3,00 0 lbs/day.
Evaporation Module
A submerged combustion evaporator was selected for use in
reducing the brine effluents to a salt cake (see Figure 20).
This type of evaporator is well adapted for use in evaporating
Strong brine solutions. When brines are evaporated from 10
percent salt up to about 50 percent salt, a salt cake will
form on cooling. The salt cake may be disposed to an arid
region landfill, or reclaimed for use in road salting, or
disposed to the ocean. Evaporation would normally be used in
processing facilities located far from the ocean or deep well
injection sites, in which case the total cost of evaporation
of the brine and transportation and disposal of the salt cake
is less than the cost of transportation and disposal of the
brine.
In operation of the submerged combustion evaporator^ feed
solution is introduced to the circulation system and pumped to
the feed chamber to be atomized in the combustion chamber.
The combustion products and the solution are mixed in the
venturi where evaporation takes place. Droplets of concentrated
Solution are separated from gases in the separator and a part
Qf the concentrated solution is recycled. Effluent gases
from the separator are cleaned in the modified"venturi scrubber
which is fed with weak liquor. Scrubbed gases are separated
from the liquor in the separator section and discharged. The
condensate from the evaporator will be df suitable quality
for disposal to surface receiving waters.
SANDFILLS
Two types of landfills for disposal of s6}.*id wastes -are in-
cluded in the modular flow diagram in F.$gyfp 2 5A, conyenr
tional landfill will be located near the.
to minimize transportation costs. Solid waste;
will not contain significant levels of hciZ0|d$i|S fetilfctances.
Secured landfills, which will be located in $re&s some dis-
tance from the processing facilities in moat instances, will
receive solid wastes containing hazardous substances.
118
-------
FIGURE 20
CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATIC OF SUBMERGED COMBUSTION EVAPORATOR
EXHAUST
vo
EXHAUST
GAS SUPPLY
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
FEED
CHAMBER
IL Z
tu P
OB <
K?
VENTURI
BURNER
PRODUCT
FEED
SCRUBBER FEED
AIR BLOWER
CIRCULATING
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
SEPARATOR
CIRCULATING
PUMP
-------
The size and shape of the conventional landfill is optional,
with major stipulations concerning the cover placed over the
buried sludges. Since the sludges may contain some sulfides
they should not be exposed to air under moist conditions.
Exposure to air (oxygen) and water may result in conditions
similar to those causing acid mine drainage—oxidation of iron
sulfides or pyrites to form sulfuric acid. Therefore the
sludges in a conventional landfill must be covered with at
least four feet of soil and suitable vegetation cover. The
vegetation produces organic matter in the soil which consumes
oxygen in the decay process, thereby depleting the oxygen in
the infiltrating air.87
In regions of high precipitation secured landfills will serve
as burial sites for hazardous waste sludges that have been
incorporated in asphalt or other suitable matrices to limit the
leachability of these potentially toxic materials. Secured
landfills may be located in areas of low population density, of
low value for alternative land use, and where the potential for
groundwater contamination is low. Desirable siting character-
istics for landfills of this type are discussed in Chapter VI.
In addition to facilities and equipment normally required for
trenching and backfilling operations, the secured landfill site
will have an asphalt mixing plant for incorporating the hazard-
ous sludges in a leach-resistant matrix.
It is anticipated that the number of secured landfill opera-
tions will be limited to take advantage of economies of scale
in operating the asphalt mix plant and to avoid proliferation
of these operations. The asphalting process involves mixing
the wet sludge cake with molten-base asphalt in a wiped-film
evaporator. The evaporator removes water from the sludge and
intimately disperses the dry sludge particles in the asphalt.
The product, which contains about 60 percent dry weight solids
and 40 percent asphalt, flows from the evaporator afe 120°C to
160°C. Incorporation of radioactive wastes in asphalt has
proved effective in reducing the leach rates of the radio-
isotopes and should be equally effective for nonradioactive
wastes.88 It may be possible to use other materials such as
waste polyethylene and proprietary agents for waste fixation;
however, the leaching characteristics of these mixtures are
not as well known as that of asphalt.
Disposal of the asphalt-waste mixtures will be accomplished
by pumping or draining these mixtures directly into the
burial trench. A solid impenetrable mass will thus be formed
in the trench which is subsequently covered with a layer
120
-------
of clay and capped with at least 5 feet of soil. The clay layer
will reduce water infiltration to the asphalt-waste mass. The
trenches will be spaced to allow some water infiltration past
the asphalt-waste mass to avoid saturating the soil. Rainfall
infiltration will be further minimized by sloping the burial
site to aid runoff.
Secured landfills located in arid regions of the western United
States may be used under suitable conditions for disposal of
hazardous waste sludges without asphalt incorporation. Low
rainfall and high evaporation rates (i.e., evaporation exceeds
rainfall by a factor of 2) are needed to minimize water infil-
tration into burial trenches. Although the hazardous substances
in the buried sludges are relatively insoluble, continued
leaching would nevertheless be a potential problem. To further
minimize water infiltration the buried waste is covered with a
layer of sand topped by a layer of silty loam or clay. This
procedure can effectively block water infiltration in areas of
low rainfall and high evaporation rates. Water cannot penetrate
the sand layer until the fine soil layer is nearly saturated.89
Complete saturation of the fine soil would be unlikely to occur
under the rainfall and evaporation conditions described above.
A cross section, of a secured landfill is illustrated in Fiqure
21. Plastic liners or barriers are not included in the secured
landfill design because of the finite life of these materials.
The silt and sand layers provide greater long-term assurance
against water infiltration.
Secured landfills will be located away from flood plains,
natural depressions, and slopes exceeding 5°. The burial site
will be fenced and guarded to prevent public access. Burial
trenches will be marked with permanent, concrete monuments
warning of the nature of the hazardous contents of the trench
in the event that surveillance is discontinued at some time
in the future.
Although an effort will be made to minimize the amount of hazard-
ous heavy metals in the sludges buried in local conventional
landfills, studies are needed to verify the adequacy of this
approach. It is reported that the solubility of arsenic decreases
as the ratio of iron to arsenic increases in the neutralization-
precipitation of these two substances.52 Therefore a sludge low
in arsenic and high in iron should have low arsenic leachability.
The effect of organic degradation on the leachability of the
sludges may also be an important consideration since significant
pH changes or chemical reactions may occur as a result of bio-
logical activity.
121
-------
FIGURE 21
CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATIC OF SECURED LANDFILL
2% SLOPE ON TOP COVER
SILT LOAM 4'
GROUND SURFACE
SAND 1'
HAZARDOUS WASTES
WITH SAND FILLING
VOIDS
-------
BRINE DISPOSAL
Brine disposal will be accomplished by either ocean disposal or
deep well injection. The waste brines will be given sufficient
treatment to reduce the concentrations of hazardous and pollut-
ing subtances to acceptable levels prior to discharge.
Ocean disposal of chemical wastes is regulated under Public Law
92-532 which requires a permit from the Environmental Protection
Agency. Authorization to dispose of wastes by this method is
dependent upon, but not limited to the following:
• the need for proposed disposal;
• the effect of such disposal on human health and
welfare (including economic, esthetic, and recre-
ational values);
• the effect on fish resources, plankton, shellfish,
wildlife, shorelines and beaches;
• the effect on marine ecosystems, particularly with
respect to
1. the transfer, concentration, and dispersion
of such materials and byproducts through
biological, physical, and chemical processes,
2. potential changes in marine ecosystem diversity,
productivity, and stability, and
3. species and community population dynamics;
• the persistence and permanence of the effects of the
dumping;
• the effect of disposal of particular volumes and
concentrations of such materials;
• appropriate locations and methods of disposal or
recycling/ including land-based alternatives and
the probable impact of such alternate locations or
methods upon considerations affecting the public
interest; and
• the effect on alternate uses of the oceans, such as
scientific study, fishing, and other living and
nonliving resource exploitation.
123
-------
In designating recommended sites for ocean disposal, the
Administrator is constrained to utilize wherever possible
locations beyond the edge of the continental shelf.
Deep well injection involves pumping the waste into deep
wells where it is dispersed and contained in the pores of
permeable subsurface rock. The injection zone is separated
from other groundwater supplies by an impermeable layer of
rock or clay. A conceptual schematic of an injection well is
illustrated in Figure 22.
Regulations governing deep well injection of wastes are not
uniform; the appropriate state agency must be consulted
to obtain approval for disposal of wastes in this manner.
EPA intends to regulate deep well injection under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Federal Register,
December 5, 1972, pp. 25898-25906) .
PROCESS PERFORMANCE LEVELS
The model processing facility includes the best available
technology for treatment of hazardous wastes. A high level
of performance will be maintained to minimize residual con-
centrations of contaminants in the facility effluents.
With regard to the brine wastes, Table 13 lists the best
performance levels (i.e., effluent concentrations) reported
in the literature for the types of processes employed in the
model processing facility. Evaporation of the brine wastes
when required is expected to reduce nonvolatile consituents
(e.g., heavy metals) in the condensate waste stream by several
orders of magnitude.
Performance levels for incinerator systems for gaseous wastes
have not been well defined. Except for particulate matter,
sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and total hydrocarbons,
little quantitative data on the character of gaseous discharges
from these systems has been reported. Performance data report-
ed on particulate emission and combustion of organics in a
rotary kiln incinerator are ^0.1 grains per standard cubic foot
of off-gas and >99.9 percent, respectively.90 Measurements on
individual organic groupings, such as pesticides, have
indicated 99.99 percent destruction, measured by determining
total organic carbon of effluents, fly ash, and gas.
RESOURCE RECOVERY
Resource recovery is viewed as a desirable goal in hazardous
waste management since it accomplishes the removal of one or
more potentially hazardous components of waste streams and the
simultaneous conservation of material resources. The Resource
124
-------
FIGURE 22
CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATIC OF INJECTION WELL
FRESH WATER ZONE
CASING
CEMENT
INJECTION TUBING
IMPERVIOUS ZONE
{<$4 INJECTION ZONE
;rr->V
125
-------
TABLE 13
BEST CURRENTLY EXISTING
PERFORMANCE LEVELS FOR BRINE WASTES
5 0 » 7 3 » 91
Concentration
Constituent (mg/1)
Cyanide 0.01
Chromi um-6 0.01
Cadmium 0.01
Copper 0.2
Zinc 0.5
Iron 0.5
Lead 0.05
Arsenic 0.05
Fluoride 2.0
Aluminum 0.2
Manganese 1.0
Nickel 0.1
Silver 0.05
Zinc 0.5
126
-------
Recovery Act of 1970 places great emphasis on the recovery and
reuse of resources. In addition, the removal of recoverable
materials would reduce the quantity of a waste stream and, con-
sequently, the cost of handling and disposal. The recovery of
energy from wastes would conserve energy resources. Finally
revenue from the reutilization of recovered material and energy
would reduce the net cost of waste handling and disposal.
Various organic solvents in waste streams are being recovered
on a commercial scale by Chem-Trol Pollution Services, Inc.,
Buffalo, New York. This organization approaches resource
recovery problems from the chemical processing viewpoint,
including chemical analyses, laboratory feasibility studies,
and pilot plant operations. Solvent extraction has been used
by the Bureau of Mines to recover phosphates and metals from
phosphate sludges.92'93 Although the recovery process is not
practiced on a commercial scale, the results of the Bureau of
Mines' study indicate the feasibility of the process.
Although it may be important to recover energy resources by
processes such as pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion, these were
not considered in this study.
Candidate Recovery Materials
As a result of review of candidate wastes for disposal at a
hazardous waste processing facility, the following two waste
categories were selected for resource recovery analysis:
• metal finishing wastes containing valuable heavy
metals such as cadmium, chromium, nickel, and
copper, and
• waste oils and solvents.
Wastes from metal finishing operations are prime candidates for
resource recovery. Such waste streams are in the form of sludges
generated at either manufacturing plants or the waste processing
facility. Among heavy metals, copper and nickel are prime
candidates for recovery since their concentrations in the wastes
are relatively high and they are more valuable than most other
common heavy metals.
Although the bulk of the oils and solvents are not hazardous
wastes, recovery of these materials may provide sufficient
economic incentive for inclusion of the appropriate processes
in a hazardous waste processing facility. Market surveys of the
area in question can be conducted to determine the profitability
of oil and/or solvent recovery.
127
-------
Recovery of Heavy Metals
Well developed hydrometallurgical extraction processes may be
employed on waste sludges to recover heavy metals. Since the
processing scheme should be designed to facilitate the even-
tual recovery of heavy metals, various treatment steps such
as filtration, neutralization, and electrolysis were included
in the overall system.
Figure 2 3 shows the recommended metal recovery scheme for a
site processing 50 tons per day of sludge from metal finishing
wastes. The first step of the scheme is leaching of solubili-
zed heavy metals from the sludge by sulfuric acid. The slurry
is filtered to remove impurities such as calcium sulfate,
after which the filtrate is neutralized with lime to pH 3 to
precipitate and remove iron selectively as ferric hydroxide.
Ferric hydroxide precipitate is then removed by filtration
and the filtrate is electrolyzed under controlled potential
for copper and nickel recovery. The remaining acidic
solution is treated with lime to achieve pH 9. At this point
the remaining heavy metals, such as chromium, cadmium, and
zinc, are precipitated and removed as a sludge.
The basic reactions which take place in the recovery scheme
are shown below.
Leaching:
Cr203 + 3H2S04 - Cr2CS04)2 + 3H20
cu {oh)2 + «2S04 - CuS04 + 2h2o
Zn (OH) 2 + K2S04 » ZilS04 + 2H20
Cd COH)2 + H2S04 " cdS04 + 2H2°
Fe2°3 + 3H2S04 " Fe2(S°4)3 + 3H2°
Ni(OH)2 + H2S04 = NiS04 + 2H20
Neutralization I:
H2S04 + Ca° S CaS04 + H2°
Fe^SO^^ + 6^2° + ^Ca0 2Fe(°H)3 + 3CaS04 + 3H2°
128
-------
FIGURE 23
FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE RECOMMENDED METAL RECOVERY
SCHEME FROM METAL-FINISHING WASTES
h2so« •
8.721
WASH WATER-
25.029
CaO ¦
1,841
WASH WATER ¦
7,509
CaO -
3,715
BASIS: SLUDGE (20% SOLIDS)
100.000 LB /DAY
LEACHING
108,721
FILTRATION
1A
96,690
NEUTRALIZATION I
1_1
98.531
FILTRATION II -
<
'
ELECTROLYSIS
f
I
PRECIPITATION
«
'
FILTRATION III -
94,430
92,270
95,985
79,462
UNIT, LB/DAY/SITE WASTEWATER
pH = 3
pH = 9
-» SLUDGE (40% SOLID)
37.060 ___
CaSo, 14.824
WATER 22,236
» SLUDGE (40% SOLID)
11,610
Fe,03 172
CaSO« 4,472
Cu 900 WATER 6.966
Ni 1.260
-» SLUDGE (40% SOLID)
16.623
Cr203
Cd(OH)2
Zn(OH)2
CaS04
WATER &
Ca(OH)2
848
104
304
5.353
9.914
129
-------
Electrolysis:
2CuS04 + 2H20 » 2Cu + 02 + 2H2S04
2NiS04 + 2H20 = 2Ni + C>2 + 2H2S04
Precipitation:
CdS04 + H20 + CaO = Cd(OH)2 + CaSC>4
ZnS04 + H20 + CaO = Zn(OH)2 + CaS04
Cr2 (S°^) 3 + Ca0 + 6h2° = 2Cr(OH)3 + 3CaS04 + 3H20
The recovery scheme described has two merits; the scheme is
simple and the metallic copper and nickel can be sold for a
substantial credit. Based on the results of the plant design
study (Appendix H), the total processing cost was estimated
to be $1642 per day and the credit for the copper and nickel
recovered from the process was $2,214 per day. The net income
derived from the process would be estimated as $5 72 per day.
The processing cost could be reduced if sulfuric acid pro-
duced in the electrolysis step can be recycled to the leach-
ing step. Additionally, income might be derived if chromium
can be recovered in a salable form.
Recovery of Waste Solvents
A two-step process patterned after the solvent recovery method
used by Chera-Trol Pollution Services, Inc. is recommended to
recover useful solvents from waste solvents received by a
hazardous waste processing facility. This process consists
of (1) a preliminary recovery step using a agitated wiped
film evaporator and (2) further fractionation by distillation.
The types and quantities of waste solvents anticipated for
processing are summarized in Table 14. Physical properties
of the solvents are also listed.
The solvent recovery system is shown schematically in Figure
24. Waste solvents will be received and stored in a holding
tank or tanks. The size and number of these tanks will be
dependent upon the characteristics and quantities of the wastes.
For estimating first costs one tank was used. The waste
solvents are pumped to an agitated wiped film evaporator# where
solvents are recovered from residues contained in the waste
130
-------
TABLE 14
TYPES, PROPERTIES, AND QUANTITIES OF SOLVENTS
ESTIMATED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR RECOVERY *
Solvent.
Carbon Tetra-
chloride
Chloroform
O-dichloro-
benzerie
Chemical
Formula
CC1.
4
CHC1 -
Quantity,
lbs/yr
4.5 x 10
8
0.5 x 10
0.5 x 10
Molecular
Weight
153.8
119.4
147.0
Boiling
Point
"C °F
76.8 170
61.2 142
179 353
Specific
Gravity
1.59
1.48
1.298
Density
lb/gal
13.22
12.35
10.80
Specific
Heat
BTU/lb/T
.201
.234
. 270
Heat of
Vapori-
zation
BTU/lb
81.6
106.0
91. 8
t-4
Ul
H
Ethylene
dichloride
Methyl
chloroform
ch2ci-ch2ci
ch3cci3
3.C 10
0.5 x 10
8
98.9
133.4
83 182
75 167
1.255
1.325
10.43
11.1
. 319
. 238
153.2
129.5
Methylene
chloride
Perchlor-
ethylene
Trichloro-
ethylene
CH2C12
CC12 = CC12
1.5 x 10
2.0 x 10
8
C1HC = CC1, 2.0 x 10
8
84.9
131.4
41 104
165.8 121 250
1.322
1.625
88 190 1.477
11.1
13.5
12.3
. 288
.211
. 223
141.2
90.
*50 percent of production values given in reference 94 except for ethylene dichlor-
ide, which is 15 percent.
-------
FIGURE 24
SCHEMATIC OF SOLVENT RECOVERY PROCESS
1 f
REBOILER
WIPED FILM
EVAPORATOR
REFLUX *~V~ DISTILLATION
CONDENSER _L_^ COLUMN
STORAGE
TANK
R3
STORAGE
TANK
C2
STORAGE
TANK
C3
STORAGE
TANK
CI
STORAGE
TANK
D2
STORAGE
TANK
D3
STORAGE
TANK
R2
STORAGE
TANK
R1
STORAGE
TANK
D1
WASTE
SOLVENT
STORAGE
TANK
CONDENSER
C2
MEDIUM
BOILING
SOLVENTS
CONDENSER
CI
HIGH
BOILING
SOLVENTS
CONDENSER
C3
LOW
BOILING
SOLVENTS
Legend: V = Vapor Stream, L = Liquid Stream, W1 = Waste Solvent Storage Feed,
CI = Condenser/Storage Tank for High-Boi1ing Solvents, C2 = Condenser/
Storage Tank for Medium-Boiling Solvents, C3 = Condenser/Storage Tank
for Low-Boiling Sol vents, D1 = Storage Tank for Distillate from the
First Cut, R1 = Storage Tank for Bottoms from the First Cut, D2 = Storage
Tank for Distillate from the Second Cut, R2 = Storage Tank for Bottoms
from the Second Cut, D3 = Storage Tank for Distillate from the Third Cut,
R3 * Storage Tank for Bottoms from the Third Cut.
-------
solvent by evaporation at atmospheric pressure. The solvent
vapors are condensed in three successive condensers and sepa-
rated into three cuts as follows:
first cut: methylene chloride and chloroform;
• second cut: methyl chloroform, carbon tetra-
chloride, ethylene dichloride, and trichloro-
ethylene;
• third cut: perchloroethylene and o-dichlorobenzene.
The three cuts are allowed to cool, then are stored in holding
tanks awaiting further separation in a distillation column.
Each cut is further fractionated individually.
The final makeup of the recovered solvents would be as follows,
listed in the order of increasing boiling points.
1. Methylene chloride
2. Chloroform
3. Mixture of methyl
chloroform and car-
bon tetrachloride
4. Mixture of ethylene-
dichloride and tri-
chloroethylene
5. Perchlorethylene
(tetrachloroethylene)
Distillate from the first cut
Bottoms from the first cut
Distillate from the second
cut
Bottoms from the second cut
Distillate from the third
cut
O-dichlorobenzene
Bottoms from the third cut
A preliminary cost estimate (see Appendix I) based on process-
ing of 14,000 gallons of typical solvent waste at a processing
site indicates that about $7,000 per day of net income can be
derived from the sale of recovered solvents. The solvent
recovery process looks promising as a means of deriving a sub-
stantial income and it is therefore anticipated that private
industry would include solvent recovery in many hazardous
waste processing facilities.
Recovery and Utilization of Waste Oils
The total annual production of lubricants in the U. S. is
estimated as follows:95
133
-------
• Automobile crankcase oil 2 x 10^ lb/year
9
• Industrial lubricating greases 1 x 10 lb/year
• Industrial lubricating oils 2 x 10^ lb/year
Among the three listed above, disposal of waste automobile
crankcase oil is the major item of concern at present. Indus-
trial oils are in many instances effectively and economically
recovered and reused. Greases constitute a minor volume
item and consequently pose a relatively insignificant disposal
problem. Waste crankcase oil, therefore, will be a prime
candidate for routing to waste processing facilities.
Assuming that 50 percent of the virgin crankcase oil produced
in the U. S. is shipped as waste to processing facilities for
reprocessing or disposal, the quantity of the waste oil
received by each site (based on 30 sites in the United States)
is estimated as 2.2 x 10 pounds per day. The alternatives
available for reprocessing or disposal of the waste crankcase
oil include:
1. reprocessing into useful products;
2. burning as a fuel for evaporative concentration
of aqueous wastes; and
3. burning as a fuel in a boiler plant.
Reprocessing
A recent process development study 96 conducted by National
Oil Recovery Corporation indicates the feasibility of re-
processing spent crankcase oil into useful petroleum products
other than lubricating oil. The average selling price of the
products is estimated as 7 cents per gallon. The total
processing cost, based on 42,000 gallons per day (about 0.3 x
10° pounds per day), is estimated as 7 cents per gallon. The
latter cost includes 3 cents per gallon allowed for the
collection of waste oil. For larger plants, the processing
cost might be reduced to 5 or 6 cents per gallon, making this
process economically viable.
Fuel for Evaporation/Concentration of Aqueous Wastes
Waste oil could also be utilized in the evaporative concentra-
tion of aqueous wastes. The current approach is based on the
use of a natural gas fueled submerged combustion evaporator.
The waste oil could be substituted for natural gas to achieve
134
-------
a significant saving in the fuel cost. Based on a heating
value of 15,000 BTU per pound for the waste oil and an evapora-
tor designed to handle 200,000 gallons per day of aqueous
wastes, the daily consumption and utilization of waste oil in
this manner is estimated as 0.13 x 10^ pounds per day.
Fuel for Boiler Plant
The waste oil could be burned as a supplemental fuel in a boiler
to make steam for use at the waste processing facility. A recent
API task force study97 indicates that waste crankcase oil can be
safely added to residual fuel oil in proportions up to 25 per-
cent and burned to produce useful heat.
EFFLUENT MONITORING
Essentially two aqueous waste streams are discharged by the
model processing facility. The principal one is either a brine
(which receives ocean disposal or deep well injection) or a
condensate (which is discharged to local fresh or ocean receiv-
ing waters). The second aqueous waste stream consists of plant
cooling and service water which is normally free of hazardous
and/or polluting materials. Plant cooling and service effluent
water will be monitored regularly to detect leakage in the
systems involved. Proportional samplers will be used to collect
daily composite samples for analysis. Physical and chemical
parameters of these waste streams to be determined on a routine
basis include the following.
• Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
• Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
• Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
• 'remperature
• pH
• Dissolved Solids
• Suspended Solids
• Specific Organics of Interest
• Chromium-6
• Cyanide
• Cyanate
135
-------
• Heavy Metals
• Ammonia
• Nitrate
• Phosphate
• Fluoride
• Sulfide
Certain process streams will be monitored continuously to
detect unexpected or off-standard performance upon occurrence.
Effluent from the tri-media filters will be continuously mon-
itored for sulfide ion and turbidity. The lack of sulfide
ion or the presence of turbidity are indications of possible
heavy metal leakage through the liquid-solids separation module.
Feed to the carbon sorption module will be monitored for
residual chlorine. The presence of trace residual chlorine
indicates that oxidation of excess sulfide ion has occurred.
This residual chlorine is removed in the carbon columns.
Effluent from the carbon sorption module is monitored
continuously for total organic carbon, which is used as a
rough guide to evaluate performance of the carbon beds.
Gaseous effluents from the incinerator system will be monitored
the
following components.
•
Smoke
•
Particulates
•
Moisture
•
Carbon Dioxide
•
Carbon Monoxide
•
Excess Air (03)
•
Sulfur Oxide
•
Nitrogen Oxides
•
Hydrogen Chloride
•
Total Organic Carbon
•
Specific Organics of Interest
•
Heavy Metals
136
-------
A photoelectric smoke detector will be used to continuously
monitor gaseous emissions from the incinerator system.
The analytical laboratory will be provided with the necessary
facilities to analyze samples for feed composition verification,
process control, pilot plant operations, effluent monitoring,
and environmental monitoring. In addition to the normal equipment
and reagents needed for wet chemical analysis, the analytical
laboratory also should be equipped with the following special-
ized equipment.
• vapor Phase Chromatograph (2)
• Atomic Adsorption Apparatus (2)
• Colorimeters (2)
• Infrared Spectrophotometer
• Ultraviolet—Visible Spectrophotometer
• Total Organic Carbon Apparatus
• Turbidometer
• Viscometer
• Kjeldahl Apparatus
• Jar Test Machine
TRANSPORTATION OF WASTES FOR PROCESSING
Technical and cost information has been developed for existing
transportation practices and systems, including containers,
transporters, and loading and unloading requirements, to trans-
port wastes to the processing facilities. Waste categories
excluded from consideration in this effort were radioactive
wastes and DOD related materials (CBW agents, ordnance, and
explosives). Cost details related to waste transportation and
storage are given in Appendix L.
It is anticipated that the bulk of the wastes will be transport-
ed to the treatment facilities by truck. Estimated cost of
this transportation mode is $12 per ton based on an average
hauling distance of 150 miles and the truck rate given for more
than 40,000 pounds in Table A-86 of Appendix L. A specific
gravity of 1.08 was assumed for liquid wastes.
137
-------
Cost Estimates
Processing Facilities
Preliminary cost estimates were prepared for three different
sizes of model processing facilities. Capital and operating
costs were initially estimated for a medium sized model facility
which would have processing capability for 122,000 gallons
per day of aqueous-inorganic wastes and 74 tons per day of
combustible wastes. Capital and operating costs were then
estimated for a small facility and a larqe facility using
the 0.6 scale-up factor for all equipment but the multiple
submerged combustion units, for which a scale-up factor of 0.9
was used. The small processing facility is sized to process
25,000 gallons per day of aqueous-inorganic wastes and 15
tons per day of combustible wastes, while the large plant is
sized to process one million gallons per day of aqueous-inor-
ganic wastes and 607 tons per day of combustible wastes.
Capital and operating cost summaries of medium, small, and
large facilities are presented in Tables 15, 16, and 17,
respectively. The summaries include a breakdown of capital
and operating costs for each module. Included in the data
for each module are the costs for land, buildings, laboratory,
offices, and auxiliary equipment. These cost data are based
on preliminary estimates which include many approximations
and simplifying assumptions. More accurate estimates would
involve detailed material and energy balances around the
system and its various internal components so that the indi-
vidual items of equipment, reaction vessels, and tanks could
be sized and estimated with greater accuracy. Further cost
details of the three facilities are given in Appendix J.
The most significant costs are incurred in the receiving
storage modules, the chemical treatment module, and the
liquid-solids separation module. In the medium size receiving-
storage module (Table 15), labor (including supervision and
laboratory personnel) accounts for about 50 percent of the
operating cost and facilities (capital amortization) for 28
percent of the cost of this module. The major cost items in
the chemical treatment module are treating chemicals and
processing facilities. The lime handling system alone accounts
for almost 70 percent of the total capital cost of this
module. Chemical consumption represents about 45 percent and
facilities about 23 percent of the operating cost. The major
cost factor in the liquid-solids separation module is the
facility cost, wherein capital amortization accounts for
about half the total operating cost.
138
-------
TABLE 15
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
FOR MEDIUM SIZE PROCESSING FACILITY
CAPACITY: 122,000 gpd Aqueous Waste Treatment
7 4 tons/day Incineration
260 day/year Operation
TOTAL FIXED CAPITAL COST: $24,070,000
MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS: AQUEOUS WASTE TREATMENT
Fixed Daily Ave. Cost
Module Capital Cost,$ Operating Cost,$ Per 1000 Gal,$
Receiving & Storage 3,270,000 6,424 46.40
Ammonia Stripping 773,800 952 7.80
Chemical Treatment 4,734,000 11,307* 84.70
Liquid-Solids
Separation 8,963,700 9,516* 39.60**
Carbon Sorption 941,000 1,578* 7.40
Evaporation 514,000 2,173* 10.20
Rounded Totals 19,200,000 32,000 196.00
MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS: INCINERATION
Fixed Daily Ave. Cost
Module Capital Cost,$ Operating Cost,$ Per ton,$
Incinerator 4,873,000 7,000 94.60
Scrubber Waste-
water Treatment (90,000 gpd) 80.60
Total 175.00
Includes processing cost for incinerator scrubber wastewater
Excludes processing cost for clarifying incinerator scrubber
i.ra cfoua for
*
**
wastewater
139
-------
TABLE 16
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR
SMALL SIZE PROCESSING FACILITY
CAPACITY: 25,000 gpd Aqueous Waste Treatment
15 tons/day Incineration
260 day/year Operation
TOTAL FIXED CAPITAL COST: $9,300,000
MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST: AQUEOUS WASTE TREATMENT
Module
Receiving & Storage
Ammonia Stripping
Chemical Treatment
Liquid-Solids
Separation
Carbon Sorption
Evaporation
Rounded Totals
Fixed Daily Ave. Cost
Capital Cost/$ Operating Cost,$ Per 1000 Gal,$
1,262,000
298,700
1,827,300
3,460,000
363,000
198,000
7,410,000
1,881
461
3,298*
3,888*
758*
635*
66.20
18.40
150.50
80.10**
17.50
14.60
10,900
347.00
MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST: INCINERATION
Module
Incinerator
Fixed
Capital Cost,$
Daily
Operating Cost,$
3,200
1,880,000
Scrubber Waste-
water Treatment (18,4 50 gpd)
Total
Ave. Cost
Per ton,$
213.00
185.00
398.00
* includes processing cost for incinerator scrubber wastewater.
** Excludes processing cost for clarifying incinerator scrubber
wastewater.
140
-------
TABLE 17
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR
LARGE SIZE PROCESSING FACILITY
CAPACITY: 1,00,000 gpd Aqueous Waste Treatment
607 tons/day Incineration
260 day/year Operation
TOTAL FIXED CAPITAL COST: $86,000,000
MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS; AQUEOUS WASTE TREATMENT
Fixed Daily Ave. Cost
Module Capital Cost,$ Operating Cost,$ Per 1000 Gal,$
Receiving & Storage 11,543,000 38,150 33.60
Ammonia Stripping 2,731,500 3*180 3.18
Chemical Treatment 16,710,600 60,630* 53.83
Liquid-Solids
Separation 30,915,700 34,682* 17.18
Carbon Sorption 3,322,000 6,290* 3.62
Evaporation 3,413,000 15,947* 9.16
Rounded Totals 68,600,000 159,000 121.00
MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS; INCINERATION
Fixed Daily Ave. Cost
Module Capital Co3t,$ Operating Cost«$ Per ton,$
Incinerator 17,201,700 r'37.4 45*10
Scrubber Waste-
water Treatment HMrQQ.0 gp<3> 55.70
mm ;Qt,oo
* Includes processing cost for incinerator ecyufcber wastewater,
** Excludes processing cost fosclafilyin# incinerator scrubber
wastewater.
141
-------
The high cost of the small module facility makes its value
questionable. In particular, the high cost of incineration
at the small facility would almost certainly cause potential
customers to ship their combustible wastes to larger facili-
ties. The cost differential between the large and small
facilities for incineration of combustible hazardous wastes
is about $200 per ton, which is considerably more than shipping
costs for even large distances. The greater than $200 per
1000 gallon differential on aqueous-waste treatment between
the small and large module facility would also tend to encour-
age shipment of the wastes to larger facilities.
The overall cost for a national system of processing facilities
cannot be accurately estimated at this time due to uncertain-
ties in the locations of the sources of hazardous wastes and
the volumes generated at each source. The number and sizes
of the treatment facilities will be governed by distribution
of the sources and the total volume of wastes in a given area.
The total volume generated nationally is estimated to be 10
million tons per year. Of this amount 15 percent, or 1.5
million tons, consists of dilute wastes which can be reduced
on-site to one-third the original volume by simple treatment
methods (e.g., lime treatment to precipitate dilute heavy
metals). The concentrate, slurry, or sludge, estimated to
be 0.5 million tons annually, is then shipped to a treatment
facility for further processing. The estimated total volume
of hazardous wastes to be received at a national system of
treatment facilities then becomes 9 million tons per year.
If it is assumed that only large or medium size treatment
facilities will be constructed the total capital cost would
range from $602 million (for 7 large facilities) to $1.35
billion (for 56 medium facilities). A reasonable combination
of facilities can be postulated on the basis of 5 large
treatment facilities for heavily industrialized areas and 15
medium facilities serving lightly industrialized areas. The
total capital cost for a system of 5 large and 15 medium
facilities would be $791 million. The estimated annual
operating cost of this system for treatment only would be
$381 million.
Disposal Costs
Disposal methods for brine wastes include ocean disposal and
deep well injection into salaquifers. The cost incurred for
ocean disposal is essentially that for transporting the brine
to a suitable site at sea. Barge shipment costs as a function
of distance are illustrated in Figure 25 together with rail ship-
ment cost. These cost data are based on averages and are subject
to fluctuation depending on the area involved.614 Lower cost rail
rates than those given in Figure 25 may be negotiated for bulk
shipments.
142
-------
RA
40
36
3?
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
FIGURE 25
_ AND BARGE SHIPMENT COSTS AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE
/
/
/
/
/
/ RAIL
/ (CHEMICALS SHIPPED IN
' 40,000 LB LOTS i
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
BARGE
(NON-CORROSIVE LIQUIDS
IN NON-PRESSURE TANKS,
40,000 - 60,000 BBL SHIPMENT'
I
500 1000 1500 2000
MILES
143
-------
In general, deep well injection costs range from $0.50 to
$5.00 per thousand gallons injected.611 The cost depends on
jjiany variables including the depth of the well, type of well,
injection pressure and treatment required. Anticipated costs
for injecting clarified brine waste into a 6000 foot well at
§ jr^te of 225,000 gpd is about $1.00 per thousand gallons.98
Thill injection system does not include-elaborate clarifica-
tion facilities since the brine effluent from the model
processing facility has been previously clarified and filter-
ed. On-site deep well injection of waste brine, if feasible,
would cost $212 per day for the medium sized processing
facility.
Cpsts incurred for conventional landfill of salt cake and
s^jadge cake without significant concentrations of hazardous
SUbgtances are expected to be near $2.00 per ton.64 Signif-
icant costs may be incurred for salt cake disposal due to
charges for shipping this material to an arid region land-
fill (not a secured landfill).
?he quantity of sludge generated daily by a medium sized
treatment facility is estimated to be 2 75 tons/day or 44
percent of the total waste received. On this same basis,
a large facility would generate 2250 tons of sludge per day.
Five percent of this sludge will be generated on a campaign
basis to concentrate the hazardous heavy metals in a relative-
ly small volume for disposal to a secured landfill. The
remaining sludge can be disposed to a conventional sanitary
landfill. The average cost for disposal to a sanitary land-
fj.1} is estimated to be $2.00 per ton. 6** Transportation
costs would add an estimated $1.00 per ton, based on an aver-
age hauling distance of ten miles.
[pfte cost for burial of sludge containing significant quantities
pf hazardous heavy metals is estimated to be $32 per ton.
ifoia cost is based on a secured landfill operation handling
15V tons per day of sludge and includes the cost of incorp-
orating the sludge in asphalt. The asphalting cost represents
two-thirds of the total cost of the secured landfill
operation. Five secured landfill operations of this size,
OQIIting about $2 million each, would be sufficient to dispose
of the sludge with hazardous metals generated by a
rational system of treatment facilities. Secured landfills
WflW^(3 be located as near as possible to the large treatment
facilities to minimize transportation costs. For example,
tbf)"estimated cost of transporting hazardous waste sludge
3fl miles from a large treatment facility to a secured landfill
about $3 per ton. Therefore, the total cost in this case
fpj: transport and disposal would be $35 per ton. Transporta-
tion costs for hauling sludge an average of 500 miles by rail
144
-------
from a medium sized treatment facility to a secured landiill would
add an estimated $20 per ton to the disposal cost, for a total
of $52. The costs of operating a medium and large facility,
including transportation and disposal costs, are given in
Table 18. These costs do not include on-site treatment at the
waste source. The total annual operating costs for a national
system of 5 large and 15 medium treatment facilities would be
$577 million.
145
-------
TABLE 18
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR A MEDIUM
AND A LARGE TREATMENT FACILITY
Annual Operating Costs,
Millions of Dollars
Cost Item
Waste Transport*
Treatment
(Excludes Evaporation)
Sludge Disposal to
Secured Landfill
Sludge Disposal to
Conventional Landfill
Waste Brine Disposal**
Totals
Medium
Facility
1.9
11.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
13.8
Large
Facility
IS .9
53 .1
1.0
1.7
2.3
74 .0
*Waste transportation costs are based on an average distance
of 150 miles at a cost of $12 per ton.
**Brine waste disposal costs are $5 per 1000 gallons which is
the equivalent of barge transport 500 miles to an ocean
disposal site.
146
-------
CHAPTER CONTENTS
CHAPTER V
RADIOACTIVE WASTES
Page No.
BRIEF 151
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTES 151
BACKGROUND OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
POLICIES AND RADIATION PROTECTION REGULATIONS
IN THE U.S. 157
Overall Legislative History 157
General Dose and Effluent Considerations 159
Disposal or Long-Term Storage of Wastes 161
Administrative Arrangements 161
Federal Regulation and Control 162
State Regulation and Control 164
RADIOACTIVE WASTES AND A NATIONAL SYSTEM FOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT 165
CATEGORIES OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES IN A NATIONAL
DISPOSAL SYSTEM 167
Potential Radiological Toxicities Associated
With Radioactive Wastes 168
SOURCES OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES 168
RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM THE COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR
POWER INDUSTRY 17 0
QUANTITIES, CONSTITUENTS, DISTRIBUTION 171
PROSPECTIVE WASTES FROM THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 171
RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE
SOURCES 181
147
-------
CHAPTER CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No.
RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM GOVERNMENT SOURCES 18 3
Atomic Energy Commission Sources 183
Distribution and Types of Wastes 184
Production Rate of Solid and Liquid Wastes 184
Cumulative Generation of Solid Wastes 184
Radionuclide Content of the AEC Wastes 184
Waste Compositions 196
Detailed Inventory of a Selected AEC Site--
Hanford 196
Department of Defense Sources 196
TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES 199
Regulations for Transportation of Radioactive
Wastes 199
Transportation Safety Requirements 200
Bases for Transportation System Requirements 200
Design of Transportation Systems for Radioactive
Wastes--Containers and Protection 201
Methods of Transportation 203
Distances from Sources to Disposal Sites 203
Methods and Equipment for Handling Small
Radioactive Waste Accidents and for
Decontamination Transport Systems 205
Accountability of Radioactive Waste Materials
Associated with Transportation 205
RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DESIGN 205
Bases for Radioactive Waste Disposal 205
Types and Quantities of Radioactive Wastes 207
Government Wastes 207
Solid Wastes 207
Liquid Wastes 2 08
Gaseous Waste 210
148
-------
CHAPTER CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No.
High-Level Radioative Waste--Strategy of
Disposal 210
Potential of Partitioning High-Level
Radioactive Wastes 224
Criteria and General Description for Retrievable
High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository 214
Description of Retrievable Surface Storage
Facility for High-Level Radioactive
Waste 219
Unit Operations for Storage of High-Level
Radioactive Wastes 222
Potential Retrievable Surface Storage of
High-Level Radioactive Waste by the
Sealed Storage Cask Concept 222
Costs for High-Level Radioactive Waste
Repository 223
Transportation Costs for High-Level Radioactive
Wastes 225
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES 228
Strategy for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive
Wastes 229
Criteria and General Description for Retrievable
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage System 232
Description of Retrievable Surface Storage
Facility for Low-Level Radioactive Wastes 234
Unit Operations for Storage of Low-Level
Radioactive Wastes 239
Environmental Safeguards at the Repository
Site for Low-Level Radioactive Waste 239
Safety Provisions 239
Accountability and Monitoring 240
Costs for Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal Site 242
Capital Costs 242
Operating Costs 244
Design and Construction Schedule 244
149
-------
CHAPTER CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No
Transportation Costs for Low-Level Radioactive
Wastes 244
Costs of Retrieval of Buried Low-Level
Radioactive Wastes 247
150
-------
CHAPTER V
RADIOACTIVE WASTES
BRIEF
Most radioactive wastes consist of more or less conventional
nonradioactive materials contaminated with radionuclides. The
concentration of the latter can range from less than one part
per billion to as much as 50 percent of the bulk constituents.
More than one and frequently many radionuclides are involved in
most wastes, which are customarily categorized as low to high-
level wastes, depending upon the concentrations of radionu-
clides. The long-term hazard associated with each waste is not
necessarily proportional to the nominal "level" of radioactivity,
however; it is related more to the specific toxicity, mode of
action and decay rate of each radionuclide and its chain of
daughters. The most significant radionuclides, from the stand-
point of waste management, decay with half lives ranging from a
few months to hundreds of thousands of years. For the purposes
of this study, the term "high-level wastes" refers to those
requiring special provisions for dissipation of radioactive
decay heat. "Low-level wastes" refers essentially to all other
radioactive wastes.
The biological hazard from radioactive wastes is primarily due
to the effects of penetrating and ionizing radiation rather
than to chemical toxicity. On a weight basis, the toxicities
of some radionuclides are greater than those of the most poi-
sonous chemicals by about six orders of magnitude and cannot be
"neutralized" by chemical reaction or by any currently practic-
able scheme. Thus, the only currently practical way to "elim-
inate" a radionuclide is to allow it to decay during confine-
ment under carefully controlled conditions. The decay period
can be thousands or hundreds of thousands of years for the long-
lived actinide elements and certain fission products.
Radionuclides may be present in gaseous, liquid, or solid form.
Solid wastes per se are not normally significant contaminants
in man's environment until they become airborne (usually as
particulates) or waterborne (by leaching). Consequently,
environmental effects and regulatory limits are based primarily
on concentrations in air and water.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTES
A survey was made of the radioactive wastes to be expected for
disposal in the year 1980, selected as the base year because the
151
-------
expected rapid growth of the nuclear industry will be well estab-
lished at that time. Several years, probably until about 1980,
will be required for detailed analysis of the hazards and dis-
posal problems associated with radioactive wastes and develop-
ment and implementation of disposal systems.
In this study, sources of radioactive waste are divided into
three areas:
# production of nuclear electric power (i.e., those
from the nuclear fuel cycle);
» miscellaneous private sources; and
» government sources, primarily the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC) and the Department of
Defense (DOD).
The bulk of the radioactive wastes for disposal in 1980 will
result from the commercial nuclear fuel cycle, as shown in
Table 19. Government wastes, as discussed in the text, will be
contributory, as will those from private sources. The AEC is
currently conducting extensive studies for long-term management
of both government- and industry-produced radioactive wastes.
The concept of national disposal sites or Federal repositories
for radioactive wastes appears to be desirable because of
the wastes' significantly high toxicity and the present im-
practicability of detoxification except by natural decay. At
present a fully evaluated and technically acceptable concept for
the ultimate disposal of radioactive wastes, regardless of class-
ification, has not been developed. Present plans by the AEC
seek construction of an interim storage facility as a repository
for high-level wastes arising from the nuclear electric power
industry. This facility is conceived as a 100-year solution to
meet expected needs through the year 2000. By that time it is
expected that an ultimate disposal technique will be evolved
and accepted, possibly internationally.
A similar policy of interim storage for low-level radioactive
wastes has been adopted for AEC sites but not at commercial
burial sites. This policy, based on 20 year retrievable burial,
will allow time for development of disposal technology. This is
appropriate since the long-term toxicity of low-level wastes con-
taminated with actinides may equal or exceed that of high-level
wastes. The technical problems associated with achieving interim
storage solutions for both high- and low-level wastes are simi-
lar, except for heat generation considerations, and final solu-
tions for both high- and low-level wastes may have much in
common. Because methods for ultimate disposition of high- and
152
-------
TABLE 19
SUMMARY OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES FOR DISPOSAL IN 19 80
ui
u>
Item
Waste
Stream Source
Form
Waste
Category
Total
Annual
Curies
Total
Annual
Vol. or Wt.
1
U milling tailings
sludge
low
3.3
x 104
3.6 x 1010lbs
2
U conversion
solid
low
5.3
x HV1
4.0 x 104 lbs
3
Fuel fabrication
solid/liquid
low
1.3
x 106
1.6 x 104 ft3
4a
b
Reactor control rods
Other reactor
solid
solid/liquid
L-H
low
2.2
1.0
x 10g
x 10
1.4 x 10? ft3
1.0 x 10° ft
5a
b
c
Fuel reprocessing
Cladding hulls
High level
solid/liquid
solid
solid
low
L-H
high
1.8
4.2
1.3
x 10®
x 10°
x 10
2.0 x lof ft3
2.0 x 10* ft:?
1.5 x 10J ft
e
Miscellaneous
private sources
solid/liquid
low
6 x
105
7 x 106 ft3
7
Government wastes*
solid/liquid
L-H
-
2.7 x 106 ft3
Major
Radioactive
Elements
Ra, Th, Pb, Po
U, Th, Ra
Pu, U
Ag, Fe, H, Mn, Ni
H, Fe, Co, Ru, Cs
Ce, Sr, Cs, Ru, Pu
Co, Ni, Fe, Mn, Sb
Sr, Cs, Pm, Eu, Pu,
Am, Cm
Co, Sr, Pm, Cs, Pu,
Am, Cm
Fission product
spectrum, Pu,
Am, Cm, Co
Note: Haste sources in items 1 through 5 are from the
commercial nuclear electric power industry.
•To be stored onsite
-------
low-level radioactive wastes are still in the early exploratory
phase, this chapter deals with the interim systems that are
currently being designed for high-level wastes. In addition, a
concept for a low-level radioactive waste processing and interim
repository system is developed.
These interim repositories for radioactive wastes are essen-
tially high-integrity modular, retrievable surface storage
facilities of two major types based on the need for significant
removal of radioactive decay heat: facilities for low-level
wastes and facilities for high-level wastes.
The conceptual design for a candidate repository for high-level
wastes has been derived from studies (through 1972*) of several
concepts presently being evaluated for the AEC by the Atlantic
Richfield Hanford Company. This facility (designed for the high-
level wastes listed in Table 19 from private nuclear fuel re-
processing plants) consists basically of water storage basins
in module configuration for storage of previously solidified and
canned packages of high-level radioactive wastes under water to
provide for cooling and shielding. An alternative scheme pres-
ently undergoing additional study is natural convection air-
cooled storage of individual containers of solidified wastes.
These wastes would be enclosed in sealed steel shielding casks
in the open air in an arid climate area. The sealed steel can-
isters are 6 to 24 inches in diameter and up to 10 feet long.
Treatment and processing (other than a small amount of decontam-
ination and similar activities) will not be done at the high-
level waste repository.
The sources for low-level wastes are uranium conversion, fuel
fabrication, reactor control rods, other nuclear reactor wastes,
fuel reprocessing cladding hulls, other fuel reprocessing wastes
and miscellaneous private sources, as listed in Table 19. This
will involve a total feed rate in 1980 of more than 107 cubic
feet of solid waste and 1.2 x 108 gallons of liquid waste. The
*This is a continuing study and refinements and improvements
should be expected. Significant revisions in the conceptual
designs of the facilities have recently been published in the
following reports:
ARH-2799, "Retrievable Surface Storage Facility-Water
Basin Concept." Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company
and Kaiser Engineers, June 197 3.
ARH-2801, "Retrievable Surface Storage Facility-Sealed
Storage Cask Concept." J. R. La Riviere, Atlantic
Richfield Hanford Company, June 1973.
154
-------
repositories will be capable of receiving and storing pretreated
and packaged solid wastes for sorting, incinerating combustible
wastes to ashes, and concentrating and drying liquid wastes to
solids. The final annual volume of 700,000 cubic feet of solid
waste will be packaged in sealed steel bins and stored in care-
fully designed compartmented warehouses. Producers of low-level
radioactive wastes could decide whether to perform the pretreat-
ment steps on the waste before shipment to the site. One type
of storage building will have moderately thick shielding walls
and another will have essentially no shielding for wastes.
A preliminary capital cost estimate of $37 million for the high-
level radioactive waste repository facilities was derived from
studies by the Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company for design of
a facility for the AEC, in which costs ranged from $20 to $40
million. Operating costs for 1980 were estimated at $3 million
per year plus about $0.3 million per year for amortization.
This cost information is detailed in Appendix S and all costs
are in 1973 dollars.
Capital costs for treatment and storage facilities for low-
level radioactive wastes were estimated at $44 million; oper-
ating costs (including amortization) were estimated at $6.9
million per year (all in 1973 dollars). The bases for these
estimates are given in Appendix U.
Again in 1973 dollars, transportation costs for high-level wastes
of $2.6 million for capital and $2.6 million per year for oper-
ating costs were projected, while $19 million for capital and
$31 million per year for operating costs were estimated for low-
level wastes. Details are given on pages 199-205. The
high costs in these preliminary analyses suggest the need for
further analysis of the waste management system, particularly
for low-level radioactive wastes.
By the year 2000 the nuclear electric power industry is expected
to grow by a factor of approximately eight from the anticipated
level in 1980. With this factor in mind, and taking into
account that the time lag for implementing concepts such as
those developed here typically is six to eight years, major
studies and decisions on radioactive waste management appear
most appropriate.
At the present time Federal regulations permit burial of large
quantities of low-level radioactive wastes directly in the soil
at six commercially operated burial sites. In addition, the
regulations permit burial of small quantities of radioactive
wastes at the sites of the myriad of radioactive material users.
155
-------
These practices and their proliferation should be thoroughly
studied from the standpoint of long-term safety.*
Uranium mining and mill tailings (shown as Item 1 in Table 19 )
are a special case. These are very large quantities of impounded
sludges which have low radioactivity levels. In essence, the
volumes of these wastes are so large that it is impractical to
handle them in the same manner as other radioactive wastes.
Present AEC weapons materials sites such as Hanford, Washington
and Savannah River, South Carolina are other special cases
because of their long histories, large inventories of high- and
low-level wastes, Federal jurisdictional positions, and high
cost of decommissioning to levels permitting uncontrolled public
access.
Other significant findings from this study are:
1. More technical information is generally known
about the toxicity of radioactive wastes, their
pathways for release to man's environment, and
their management than any other category of
wastes, but knowledge gaps still exist.
2. Regulations for handling and managing radio-
active wastes are generally more stringent than
for other wastes; a need for further improve-
ment exists, however, particularly for long-
lived low-level wastes.
3. Studies to determine the potential for sorting
low-level wastes containing long-lived and
toxic radionuclides at the low-level disposal
sites should be undertaken to determine whether
more suitable waste management schemes could
result from these studies.
4. Gaseous radioactive wastes such as tritium and
radiokrypton are not currently treated as waste
products on a routine basis, and therefore they
were not included in this study. However, they
will be generated in the commercial nuclear
*A task force of the Conference on Radiation-Control has recently
made similar recommendations. "Report of the Task Force on
Radioactive Waste Management at Fifth Annual National Conference
on Radiation Control," T. J. Cashman, task force chairman,
Portland, Oregon, May 6-10, 1973.
156
-------
electric power industry in increasing amounts
in the future. Plans are being formulated for
packaging of krypton. The need for their
isolation from the environment is most likely.
Studies of satisfactory treatment and disposal
of these potential gaseous radioactive wastes
should be continued to develop a viable system
for their management.
BACKGROUND OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND
RADIATION PROTECTION REGULATIONS IN THE U.S.
The primary purpose of radiation protection is to restrict the
radiation "dose" to people. "Dose," as defined in 10 CFR 20,99
is the quantity of radiation absorbed per unit of mass by the
body or by any portion of the body. The unit of dose is the
rem, defined as the equivalent of a rad of x-ray, gamma, or
beta radiation or 0.1 rad due to neutrons or high-energy pro-
tons. This is produced by exposure to a field of approximately
one roentgen of x-ray or gamma radiation. One rad is the dose
corresponding to the absorption of 100 ergs per gram of tissue.
The primary basis of dose is difficult to use directly in
application. Consequently, secondary and lower degree controls
are used in practice. The secondary basis is the radioactive
burden in a critical body organ; other more easily used but
still lower degree controls are body intake rate and Concen-
trations of radionuclides in air, water, and food. Practical
controls over the past years have been primarily those of max-
imum concentrations in air and water, with calculation of all
other values from these. Recent trends, however, have been
aiming toward controlling dose more directly.100
Overall Legislative History
The first organized attempt to control radiation dose was
through the establishment in 1928 of the International X-Ray
and Radium Protection Commission, which recommended maximum
dose levels on an international basis.101 In 1950, the Commis-
sion assumed its present form and name (The International Com-
mission on Radiation Protection, ICRP).102The counterpart U.S.
committee was established in 1929 as the Advisory Committee on
X-Ray and Radium Protection.103 The Advisory Committee was reor-
ganized and named the National Committee on Radiation Protec-
tion (NCRP) in 1946, and in 1956 the words "and Measurements"
were added to the title.
in the U.S., the Federal Radiation Council (FRC) was established
by Congress in 1958 to advise the President on radiation pro-
tection matters and to provide guidance for all Federal agencies
157
-------
in the formulation of regulations for radiation protection.
This function of the FRC was absorbed into the Environmental
Protection Agency on the latter*s creation in 19 70.
The USAEC is responsible for regulation, implementation, and
enforcement of radiation protection in nuclear facilities, and
specified radionuclide disposal requirements and limits on
radioactivity released in effluents. The Atomic Energy Act of
1946 assigned the responsibility for the radiation safety of
workers and the public to the AEC. The Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, emphasized the regulation of radioactive
materials and established the framework for licensing the
possession, production, and utilization of source, by-product,
and special nuclear materials.
Pi;ior to 1954, there was little need for regulation because all
atomic energy activities were essentially under direct govern-
ment control. The only exception, of course, was the private
use Of radioisotopes in medicine, industry, and agriculture.
In enacting this historic legislation, the Congress ended the
government monopoly and thereby made it possible for individuals
and organizations to own and operate nuclear reactors and other
nuclear facilities, to possess and use fissionable materials,
and in other ways to engage in atomic energy activities on a
private, commercial basis. Parenthetically, it may be noted'
that under the Act private enterprise can engage in practically
all atomic energy activities except the ^manufacture of atomic
weapons.
In addition, the Atomic Energy Act of 195 4 provided that, either
directly or by transfer of authority to an agreement State, the
AEC would be responsible for licensing and regulation of the
handling and disposal of radioactive materials. When the
States find it necessary to regulate, the criteria and stand-
ards they prescribe follow those developed by the AEC.
Currently three commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal
companies are operating under a license issued by a State which
has an agreement with the AEC as authorized by Section 274 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
In July of 1971 the AEC announced the establishment of the
Division of Waste Management and Transportation. This division
is responsible for long-term waste management, including the
formalizing of objectives and policies related to the low-level
and transuranic contaminated solid waste land burial at AEC
sites and high-level waste storage in Federal repositories.
158
-------
The. National Environmental Policy Act of 196 9 (Public Law 91-
910) became effective in 1970, The law requires Federal agen-
cies to evaluate the environmental impact of the facilities
they license. As the agency responsible for licensing nuclear
facilities, the AEC must prepare environmental impact state-
ments for them.
General Dose and Effluent Considerations
Before World War II the chief concern with radioactive mater-
ials involved protection of workers against x-ray exposure.
With the Manhattan Project an entirely new era in radiation
protection was born and research began immediately to establish
valid bases for acceptable doses of each of the many new iso-
topes produced by the newly discovered fission process.
The first semi-official regulation of 0.2 rem per day basic
dose limit was applied to the occupational exposure of x-ray
technicians and was provided by the ICRP in 1934. In 1936, the
NCRP gave its first recommended maximum permissible dose (MPD)
as a 0.1 rem per day (occupational).
In 1954, the ICRP and NCRP lowered the basic recommended MPD
from 0.1 rem per day to 0.3 rem per week and recommended one-
tenth this for nonoccupational groups. In 1957, the ICRP and
NCRP recommended lowering the whole body MPD to 5 rem per year
(occupational). This was the second and last change recommended
by the NCRP, except for minor refinements, and marked the last
time wherein basic differences existed in the recommendations
of the two agencies.
Maximum permissible concentrations (MPC), more recently termed
radionuclide concentration guides (RCG), for occupational
exposure were published for the first time in 1953 by NCRP as
National Bureau of Standards Handbook 521 * and revised in 1959
as NBS Handbook 69.1 0 3 The AEC first published MPC's (or RCG's)
in air and water as part of its Code of Federal Regulations in
1957.1os Th^s wag t^e first U.S. regulation which specifically
gave concentration values for the public at large. The RCG's
are based on continuous intake of air or water at the given
concentrations. Occupational doses are based on 40 hours per
week, or full-time exposure. The dose limits recommended by
the ICRP and NCRP are for total exposure from all sources other
than natural and medical sources.
The currently recommended dose limit from artificial radioactive
sources (other than medical) to nonoccupational individuals is
one-tenth of that to occupational workers." The allowable
dose to the various organs of the body of nonoccupational
individuals is as follows:
159
-------
Whole body, red bone marrow, gonads 0.5 rem per year
Bone, skin 3.0 rem per year
Thyroid, GI tract, kidney, most other
body organs 1.5 rem per year
These values are for the maximum exposure to an individual; the
average exposure for the population as a whole will meet the
additional restriction of 5 rem per 30 years if the annual
exposure does not exceed one-third of these values, or 0.17 rem
per year for the whole body. Where there is a mixture of
radionuclides in effluent air or water, the sum of the respec-
tive ratios of concentrations to concentration limits must not
exceed 1. The regulations for nonoccupational exposures are
based on concentrations at the site boundary, irrespective of
the presence of more than one facility within the site.
A recently proposed Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 for light water
reactors proposed that the radioactivity released to unrestricted
areas be kept as low as practicable. The proposed numerical
guides specify that effluents should not result in annual radi-
ation exposure to the whole body or to any organ of an individual
in excess of about five percent of that due to natural sources,
or about five millirems.106 The proposed regulation further
states that the annual exposure to large population groups
should generally be less than one percent of that received
from natural radiation sources, or about one millirem per year.
For gaseous effluents it proposes that an additional safety
factor of 1,000 be applied for airborne particulate radionu-
clides with half-lives greater than eight days, to allow for
buildup in the ecological chains. (For these radionuclides,
the RCG's in 10 CFR 20 would then be divided by 100,000 for
values at the site boundary.) The annual exposure rate from
noble gases is to be kept below 10 mrem at the site boundary.
Limits proposed for liquid effluents would restrict the maximum
emission from a reactor to no more than 5 curies per year or
2 x 10"® uCi per cc in the undiluted plant effluent for all
radionuclides except tritium, and 5 x 10~° }JCi per cc for tri-
tium. The proposed regulation allows credit for dilution of
airborne radionuclides with the air that flows through a light
water reactor site, but does not allow credit for flows of
natural bodies of water through the site.
The proposed Appendix I is for light water reactors only and
specifically states that it does not apply to other nuclear
facilities. However, it is believed that a similar regulation
will eventually be imposed on other nuclear facilities. If the
proposed Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 became a regulation for light
water reactors as it now exists, the allowable dose to the
160
-------
general public would be reduced by factors of 100 to 100,000
compared to existing 10 CFR 20. While the final values for
Appendix I are not yet established, indications are that they
will be near those proposed,107 and they are believed to be the
best available current basis. Therefore, based on the above
reasoning, the allowable effluent quantities and concentrations
in proposed Appendix I are tentatively recommended in this study
to apply to disposal sites.
Disposal or Long-Term Storage of Wastes
In essence, the regulations99 state that all wastes which can-
not be released to the air or water environment within the max-
imum permissible concentrations must be stored in a safe manner.
Sections 20.301 through 20.305 of 10 CFR 20 apply specifically
to waste disposal.
Other portions of Federal regulations that include waste manage-
ment considerations are 10 CFR 30 (licensing of by-product
material), 10 CFR 50 (Licensing of production and utilization
facilities), 10 CFR 71 (packaging of radioactive material for
transport), 10 CFR 100 (reactor site criteria), and 10 CFR 150
(exemptions and continued regulatory authority in agreement
States under Section 274). A recent appendix to 10 CFR 50,
Appendix F,*limits the high-level liquid waste inventory of
licensed fuel reprocessing plants to that processed in the
prior five years. The liquid wastes must then be converted to
an approved solid form within an additional five years and
transported to a Federal repository for final disposition.
Storage of a limited quantity of radioactive wastes is permitted
at the source site for extended indefinite periods in an acces-
sible and retrievable fashion. "Disposal" of low and intermed-
iate level radioactive wastes is permitted by near surface
ground burial at AEC-State licensed disposal sites. In addi-
tion, small (curie) quantities of radioactive wastes are per-
mitted to be buried at each source site under less rigid
licensing requirements.
Administrative Arrangements
Over the years administrative arrangements have been developed
which allow non-AEC producers of solid radioactive wastes to
obtain burial services for their disposal. For a number of
years certain AEC installations which had established facilities
for burial of their own "on-site" wastes made their burial
grounds available for disposal of shipments of solid wastes
from industrial users of radioisotopes. During the 1950's an
increasing volume of waste shipments came from private indus-
tries' AEC-licensed activities. In 1960 there were no commer-
161
-------
cially operated burial grounds for radioactive wastes in the
United States and most of the licensees were using commercial
sea disposal services provided by seven private firms.
In January 1960, the AEC announced that regional disposal sites
for disposal of solid low-level packaged radioactive waste
materials would be established, as needed, on State or Federal
Government-owned land. The restriction of waste burial loca-
tions to government-owned lands was adopted to assure future
custody and responsible protection of public health and safety
during the long periods of time in which a hazard from radio-
activity of the buried waste might exist.
In May 196 3, the AEC withdrew from its program of providing
low-level waste burial service to industry. This withdrawal
was based upon the availability of commercial service from one
company at two sites and evidence that at least two and perhaps
more private companies expected to provide commercial facilities
for low-level solid waste burial at other sites.
The background of administrative and operational developments
for land disposal of solid wastes was reviewed by W. L. Lenne-
10 8
man.
Federal Regulation and Control
It has been pointed out that directly or by transfer of authori-
zation to one of the agreement States the AEC is responsible for
licensing and regulating the handling and disposal of radioactive
materials under jurisdiction prescribed by the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended.
In judging the acceptability for licensing of a proposed facility
for waste burial, the primary consideration is radiological
health and safety. The quantity of radionuclides involved and
the extent of possible dispersion to the environment must be
evaluated and the acceptability of the potential radiation expo-
sures that may result must be determined. As a basis for these
judgments, evaluation studies of the proposed waste burial sites
are necessary.109
The maintenance of safety in connection with radioactive waste
burial depends primarily upon containment of the radionuclides
within the burial site, and this depends upon the natural environ-
ment and operational procedures. As stated by Richardson,110 the
suitability of a site for land burial operations is completely
dependent upon the ability of its environs to prevent the
movement of radioactivity from point of burial to places.where
its presence might have adverse effects on man or his environ-
ment. However, such site evaluations are based on control of
162
-------
the movement of radioactivity for time periods of tens to per-
haps hundreds of years, as contrasted by the possible needed
control period of up to hundreds of thousands of years.
In the evaluation of a proposed or an existing operation for
land burial of radioactive wastes all the conditions that might
affect potential radiation exposures are considered. The appli-
cation for a license must include information from which the
adequacy of radiation protection can be judged and the site and
associated operations can be appraised. The AEC Division 'of
Materials Licensing has prepared an outline of licensing require-
ments for land burial of radioactive wastes.111 Essentially the
same information is required by the agreement of the States
since, in accepting the transfer of the material licensing
functions from the AEC, they have agreed to keep their regula-
tions and requirements compatible with those of the AEC. 112
The licensing requirements specify that the application must
include information regarding: 1) the amount of by-product
material, source material and special nuclear material to be
possessed at any one time; 2) qualifications of the applicant
and members of his staff to engage in the proposed activities,
including specialized training and experience in handling radio-
active materials and dealing with radiation problems, and a
description of the radiation detection instruments that will be
available; 3) the radiation protection procedures, including
emergency procedures for each phase of the program; and 4) a
description of the site and facilities that will be used for
storage, processing and disposal of the radioactive wastes.
Maps and drawings of the proposed facilities and a description
of the buildings and equipment to be used are required. The
AEC's Rules and Regulations, which establish radiation exposure
standards and precautionary measures, specify that the licensee
must comply with the regulations, and require that standard
operating procedures be based on the regulatory requirements.
Licensing requirements also call for detailed information con-
cerning geology, hydrology of the site, groundwater conditions
in relation to burial methods and possible movement of radio-
active materials on or away from the site, the use of ground-
water and surface water at the site and in adjacent areas, geo-
chemical characteristics of the soil in which the burial
trenches are excavated, and specific plans for monitoring soils
and water. Monitoring methods are to take into account the
data and knowledge of the hydrogeologic system determined by
geology and by hydrologic evaluation of the site and its en-
virons. Waste disposal licensees must conduct their transpor-
tation of radioactive materials in accordance with applicable
regulations of the Department of Transportation113 and other
Federal agencies having jurisdiction; and licensees are subject
163
-------
to State and local requirements regarding highway safety hand-
ling of radiation emergencies and other problems which may be
involved.
At the conference on the disposal of radioactive wastes held in
Monaco on November 16-21, 1959, Rogers of the AEC gave a paper
which explained AEC licensing procedures, including approval of
the conditions of radioactive waste burial.11^
Federal regulations call for radiation safety plans, manuals of
operational and health physics procedures, and adequate, up-to-
date systems of routine forms, daily records and formal reports.
With revision as needed and with follow-up through agency
inspections and joint work on special problems, the licensing
agency and the licensee are to maintain effective safety measures.
A radiation safety plan is approved as a part of the licensing
action between the licensing agency and the licensee; radiation
safety committees of qualified company officials are to be
formally established and a continuing program of personnel
training in radiation control is to be conducted by the licen-
see.
Radiation monitoring programs are to be conducted as required
by the licensees and the radiation control regulations which
they embrace. The extent and frequency of the monitoring activ-
ities can reflect local conditions and agency and company poli-
cies. The licensing agency is to be informed of these activities
by operations reports and by visits and inspections of records
at the site.
State Regulation and Control
An increasing number of States have entered into agreements with
the AEC by which most of the direct responsibility for regulation
and control of AEC licensed materials is transferred to the
agreement States, including the disposal of solid radioactive
wastes.115 Disposal of high-level solid wastes, however, remains
under AEC jurisdiction.
The licensee's burial facilities and related waste packaging,
transportation and handling operations are of direct concern to
all the States that may be affected because of health and safety
considerations. Consequently, the commercial waste burial
facilities, available to all producers of solid radioactive
wastes in the United States, are subject to site approval and
periodic inspections by the AEC or by the agreement State in
which a facility is located. It is stipulated in the agreements
that the licensing procedures and criteria of the agreement
States be compatible with those of the AEC. Based on compati-
bility of rules, regulations and procedures, the AEC and the
164
-------
States have developed reciprocity in recognition of some licen-
ses issued by the AEC and by the agreement of the States. This
reciprocity between States does not, however, apply to the oper-
ation of a permanent installation such as a waste disposal
facility.
These present Federal and State regulations permit the burial of
low-level radioactive wastes in their containers directly in the
soil at the State licensed repositories. Such practices should
be analyzed in detail with respect to" the very long-term hazard
of the waste.
It should be noted that all States have authority to enact laws
and to adopt State regulations as considered necessary to pro-
tect the health and safety of the population. Under this
authority, a nonagreement State can develop its State system of
evaluation and control of any potential health hazards, including
radioactive wastes and other sources of ionizing radiation.116-131
An examination of various State regulations indicates that sig-
nificant State individualism may be exercised in low-level radio-
active waste burial only in organizational and nonradiological
aspects of the operations.
Shown in Table 2 0 is a general summary of State regulations
other than special provisions for each site. Uniform treatment
of the requirements of all States beyond the points included in
the table and in the discussion above would require much more
detailed analysis.
RADIOACTIVE WASTES AND A NATIONAL SYSTEM FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT
From the outset of the Manhattan Project, the potential hazards
of radioactive wastes were generally well recognized and methods
were adopted to limit their release to man's environment. The
quantities of radioactive wastes resulting from the generation
of electrical power by nuclear fission will increase by approx-
imately two orders of magnitude by the year 2000. As the quan-
tities and. number of sources increase at the very high rates
projected, there will be an increased need for controlled dis-
posal techniques in a national system designed to assure the
health and safety of the public and the protection of the envi-
ronment through the isolation of radioactive wastes. This
assurance of isolation is required for the continued develop-
ment of the nuclear power industry in its effort to meet the
nation's energy needs.
165
-------
TABLE 20
STATE REGULATIONS FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL
Above Ground
Possession Limits
Acceptable
Physical Forms
Burial
Technique
Radiation
Monitoring
Requirements
Non-radioactive
Monitoring
Requirements
Site
Requirements
Special nuclear material
Source materials
Byproduct materials
Solid or liquid**
less than critical mass (100s grams)*
(1000s pounds)
(1000s curies)
Buried as shipped under DOT regulations in surface burial trenches
£ 20 ft deep
Equipment - contamination control and biological exposure control
Environmental - environmental impact and biological exposure evaluation
Personnel - personnel exposure evaluation and reporting
State implementation of NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality and Clean
Air Act provision minimums
Bottoms of trenches should be at least 5 ft above the water table
whenever possible
~~5 Units for regulated quantities.
** Liquids are fixed prior to burial.
Note: Special nuclear material refers to U-233, U-235, Pu-239; source material refers
to natural or depleted uranium and natural thorium; byproduct materials
refers to fission products.
-------
CATEGORIES OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES IN A NATIONAL DISPOSAL SYSTEM
The many types of radioactive wastes can be categorized by their
heat generation rates, levels of radioactivity, required terms
of storage for decay to radiologically insignificant levels, and
physical and chemical forms. Because most types of radioactive
wastes require very careful control during storage for long
periods (at least hundreds of years), the storage systems for
most types of wastes can be similar.*
The one characteristic which impacts design concepts signifi-
cantly is the inherent heat generation rate within the waste.
Based upon this characteristic two categories of waste were
established for this report:
1. high-level wastes (those which have heat genera-
tion rates at or above the tentatively selected
value of 0.1 watts per cubic foot); and
2. low-level wastes (everything else).
High-level wastes require either active or passive heat removal
systems and very heavy radiation shielding. Low-level wastes
do not require a heat removal system but do require a range of
shielding from almost none to moderately heavy. A plutonium
content of about five grams per cubic foot in low-level waste
would not exceed a heat evolution limit of 0.1 watts per cubic
foot.132 This heat evoluti6n rate is a conservative value to
keep the temperatures of wastes well below the ignition point
of paper.
The definition of high-level and low-level radioactive wastes
used for the purpose of this study is only one of many possible
definitions. For example, low-level radioactive wastes are
commonly defined at AEC sites as those that may be safely dis-
charged into man's environment; all other wastes are considered
high-level or intermediate-level wastes. In the nuclear fuel
reprocessing industry, only the concentrated wastes from the
first cycle of solvent extraction are known as high-level
wastes; all others are considered to be low-level, regardless
of tneir potential toxicity.
~Extended studies beyond the scope of this one may be considered
wherein the incentives would be evaluated for sorting and using
a larger variety of waste storage disposal techniques. In par-
ticular, a different philosophy of waste storage/disposal might
be considered for wastes whose toxicity becomes unimportant
after a few years or a few tens of years.
167
-------
Potential Radiological Toxicities Associated
With Radioactive Wastes
Because the potential toxicity of .radioactive waste's is due to
radioactive decay, the toxicity varies significantly with
storage time through hundreds of thousands of years. Charac-
terization of radioactive wastes in terms of curies at the time
of discharge then becomes meaningless in relation to radio-
logical safety. Information presented in Appendix 0 shows that
toxicity is a function of aging time after reactor discharge133-136
and this factor can be predicted by the use of toxicity indexes.
In general, the crucial aging times for most (but not all)
fission products are less than 1,000 years, after which actinides
continue to be important.
SOURCES OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES
The first large source of radioactive wastes was the massive
defense effort initiated at the beginning of World War II with
the Manhattan Project for developing and manufacturing nuclear
weapons. At the end of the war nuclear energy and associated
radioactive constituents were placed under civilian control of
the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission by the Atomic Energy Act of
1946. Changes in this Act in the 1950s emphasised peaceful
as well as military uses of atomic energy and permitted private
industry to enter the nuclear field in a variety of areas,
including the development of nuclear reactors for the genera-
tion of electrical power.
Although generation of radioactive wastes as a result of defense
efforts continues, it is expected that future quantities will
increase primarily from commercial nuclear electrical power.
It is estimated that over 20 percent of the total electrical
generating capacity in the United States will be nuclear in 1980,
and in fact nuclear power is one of the fastest growing indus-
tries in the country.
In summary, the primary source of radioactive wastes in the
future will be a rapidly growing commercial nuclear power
industry. The second major source will be the Federal govern-
ment/ specifically the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), where
large inventories of wastes have been generated from past
weapons production and current production rates are still sig-
nificant. In addition, a small amount of radioactive wastes
will come from a host of miscellaneous medical, research and
development, and industrial applications.
For this study, the amount of radioactive wastes which will be
accumulated through 1980 was calculated and used as the base
need for disposal capability. The year 1980 was selected as
168
-------
the base year because the expected rapid growth of the nuclear
industry will be well established by that time. The interim
period will be required for detailed analysis of the hazards
and disposal problems associated with radioactive wastes and
development and implementation of systems.
Descriptions of the radioactive wastes expected to be present
in the year 1980 have been developed from internal Battelle-
Northwest searches and from previous studies by Booz-Allen
Applied Research and TRW Systems, Inc. The most complete infor-
mation obtained was that for the nuclear power economy. Govern-
ment wastes were also researched, except when weapons production
classification considerations precluded use of exact data. This
information base is felt to be adequate for the purposes of this
study. Projections concerning wastes from these sources are
discussed in the following sections.
Either of two approaches can be used for estimating radioactive
waste inventories. One method involves finding wastes and inven-
torying their bulk, their radionuclide concentrations and total
content, and their chemical content. The second approach entails
consideration of the primary sources (of which there are only
two kinds, mining and irradiation in nuclear reactors) and the
use of recovery factors that apply to the secondary processing
of the materials produced.
The first approach is desirable for determining the state of dilu
tion of the radionuclides and the chemical composition of the
wastes to be treated. It is very poor, however, for estimating
the total quantity of radionuclides in the wastes. Because of
the wide variety of waste forms, physical localities, local
inventory methods or lack of them, difficulty in measurement
of quantities in heterogeneous distributions at low concentra-
tions, decay of radionuclides after inventory, and secrecy of
classification, a true picture of the total quantity and kinds
of nuclides is very difficult to achieve. Therefore, an
incomplete picture of the total potential toxicity to the
environment is always the result.
In the second method the amount of radioactive material gener-
ated in reactors is estimated by computer codes which model
the dynamics of the nuclear industry. This technique is so
highly developed that predictions of inventories of all the
radionuclides from nuclear power through the year 2000 have
been made. Furthermore, the recovery factors from each process
by which the radionuclides are treated have been estimated
within error limits of about 30 percent. Once the total radio-
nuclides in the wastes from all the generators of radioactivity
are estimated, the potential toxicity of each phase of the oper-
169
-------
ation can be determined. This approach gives little data on
the chemical environment of the waste radionuclides and is also
hampered by secrecy in military weapons production.
An accurate picture of the radionuclide inventories and their
dispersion can be assured only when the answers obtained by
using the two approaches converge.
radioactive wastes from the commercial nuclear power industry
As indicated earlier, it is expected that in the future the
largest quantities of radioactive wastes will result from the
operation of nuclear reactors for electrical power and the
associated nuclear fuel cycle. In addition to nuclear fission
in reactors, major fuel cycle activities include uranium mining
and milling; uranium purification and conversion to uranium
hexafluoride; uranium enrichment; uranium and plutonium con-
version to oxide and fabrication into fuel elements; and after
reactor exposure, reprocessing of spent fuel elements. Except
for enrichment, fuel cycle activities are private (nongovern-
ment) industrial activities.
Since uranium is radioactive, all activities of the fuel cycle
produce radioactive wastes to some degree. However, as in the
case of plutonium production, it is the generation of fission
products within the fuel assemblies and the subsequent chemical
processing of these fuel elements that results in fission
product or high-level waste streams. In the case of the power
industry, the chemical reprocessing recovers unused uranium and
the plutonium that is produced. In addition, fuel fabrication
activities which use the recovered plutonium will be significant
sources of transuranic contaminated wastes, i.e., wastes contam-
inated with long half-lived and highly toxic actinide radionu-
clides.
The Nuclear Fuel Services Facility (NFS), West Valley, New York,
has been the only operating commercial reprocessing plant. To
date, high-level waste solutions accumulated at NFS have been
stored in underground storage tanks. The Midwest Fuel Recovery
Plant (MFRP) of the General Electric Company near Morris, Illi-
nois, should be operating during the latter half of 1973. Also,
the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant (BNFP) of the Allied Gulf Nuclear
Fuel Services Company is expected to be operable in 1975.
The quantities of wastes which will arise from the U.S. commer-
cial nuclear power industry in 1980 were projected for the fol-
lowing categories: (a) radioactive constituents; (b) production
quantities; (c) geographic distribution; and (d) treatment pro-
cesses for the gaseous, liquid, and solid waste streams associ-
ated with mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabri-
cation, irradiation, and reprocessing. The information was
then used to characterize prospective waste streams based upon
170
-------
current and proposed Federal regulations for allowable releases
of radionuclides to the environment. All quantities in excess
of these allowable releases would require disposal in a fashion
compatible with a national system for hazardous waste manage-
ment. With these bases, almost all of the wastes from the com-
mercial nuclear power industry will require disposal within the
concept of the national system.
QUANTITIES, CONSTITUENTS, DISTRIBUTION
Table 21 summarizes information concerning the total radioactiv-
ity (curies per year) and production quantities estimated for
the various waste streams while Table 22 summarizes information
related to the geographic distribution of the waste sources.
Detailed information from which Table 21 was taken is given in
Appendix C. Due to a lack of available quantitative information,
waste streams which could result from the decommissioning of
plants were neglected when developing information about produc-
tion quantities. The U-235 depleted tails associated with
nuclear fuel enrichment were assumed to be a stored product
which will eventually be reused in the nuclear fuel cycle. In
several instances the quantity of nonradioactive materials asso-
ciated with a particular waste stream remains undefined. In
these instances, therefore, as shown in Table 21, production
quantity was determined from isotopic specific activities and
annual production is for a "pure" or radioactive waste stream
without nonradioactive constituents. It was also assumed that
for Table 21 the radioactivity of fuel reprocessing high-level
wastes and fuel cladding hulls would be allowed to decay for
five years prior to the disposal of these two waste streams as
solids. This basis was selected to be consistent with 10 CFR
50, Appendix F.
Additional assumptions and details are presented in Appendices
C and D along with lists of radioactive constituents and treat-
ment processes for individual waste streams. Except for fuel
reprocessing wastes, information was developed primarily from
reference 137, a study of quantities of radionuclide wastes
from the power reactor industry that was based on combinations
of available data and material balances. Information related
to the reprocessing industry, especially projections for high-
level wastes and actinide constituents, was obtained primarily
from references 134, 138, and 139.
PROSPECTIVE WASTES FROM THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
Descriptions of prospective wastes from the nuclear fuel cycle
for consideration in a national hazardous waste management
program are summarized in Table 23. The basis used for the
selection of solid wastes from the inventories presented on
171
-------
TABLE 21
SUMMARY OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER
INDUSTRY TO BE PRODUCED IN 1980
Appendix
Work
Sheet
Waste Stream
Total
Annual Annual
Curies Production
Remarks
2a
2b
2c
3b
3c
4a
4b
Mining, gaseous
Mining, liquid
Mining, solid
Milling, gaseous
9X10"
1.1
Milling, liquid
Milling, solid
Conversion, gaseous
Conversion, liquid 0.7
1.3X10 4 lbs(a!
4.0X109 lbs
3.4X104 3.6X1010 lbs
1.0X1010 lbs
Conversion, solid 5.3X10^" 4.0X104 lbs ^
Enrichment, gaseous 5.310 1 1.5X103 lbs^
Enrichment, liquid 4.1
1.2X104 lbs(a)
Radon release from mines
undefined to date
Assumed zero
Assumed zero
Assumed all Rn-222, par-
ticulate concentration
Unknown
Aqueous effluents from
tailing ponds
Mill tailings, abandoned
piles stabilized against
"release"
Assumed zero, radon re-
leased during milling
and buildup minimal
Off-gas scrubber solution
to waterways via lime-
stone beds
Impounded solids arising
from water treatment
Airborne wastes that leak
from process equipment
and escape treatment
Liquid wastes, treated
for release to waterways
(a) Production estimated from isotopic specific activity of U-238.
-------
Appendix
Work
Sheet
5a
5b
5c
6a
6b
6c
7a
7b
TAELE 21
Waste Stream
Enrichment, solid
Fuel fab., gaseous
Fuel fab., liquid
Total
Annual
Curies
8.5X10
-1
2.0X10-
Fuel fab., solid
1.3X10
Irradiation, gaseous 2.0X10
Irradiation, liquid 8.0X10'
Irradiation, solid 2.2X10
Reprocessing, gas- 2.7X10^
eous
4
Reprocessing, liq- 3.0X10
uid(low level)
(continued)
Annual
Production
1.0X103 lbs(a)
3.5X10 8 lbs
4 3
1.6X10 ftJ
7.4X10"2 lbs (a)
1.8X10-1 lbs(a)
1.0X106 ft3
8.0X109 lbs
2.7X108 lbs
Remarks
Tails uranium assumed to
be a stored product
Primarily particulate
uranium
Supernate resulting from
treatment of aqueous
wastes
Conglomerate solids, pri-
marily paper and plastic
Stack discharge, most of
activity due to noble
gases ^
Tritium activity - 8X10^
Ci; Other isotopes ~ 10
^ 5 3 4
7X10 ft trash; 1.4X10
ft activated components
including 1.3X107 Ci of
Ag-110 and 0.8X10 Ci of
Fe-55 in Control rods;
3X10^ ft 3 "solidified"
liquids
Stack discharge includ-
ing 2.5X107 Ci of Kr-85
and 1.6X10^ Ci of tritium
Tritium activity - 3X10^
Ci, Other isotopes
2X10 2 ci
-------
TABLE 21 (continued)
Appendix Total
Work Annual Annual
Sheet Waste Stream Curies Production
9 5
7c Reprocessing, liq- 6.6X10 8.8X10 gal
uid (high level)
7d,7e Reprocessing, solid 1.3X108 2.5X10^ ft^
-j
Remarks
Information only, aque-
ous nitrate solution
that would be released
as a solid stream in
1985 3 3 8
1.5X10 ft and 1.3X10°
Ci hi-level solids pro-
duced in 1975 with 5 yr
of decay; 2.0X10 ft^
and 4.2X10^ Ci in clad-
ding hulls with 5 yr of
decay; ,-2 . 3X10 5 ft^ and
1.8X10 Ci in trash,
"solidified" liquids,
etc.
-------
TABLE 22
SUMMARY OF GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES
FROM COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY IN 19 80
(Fraction of Radioactivity in each Region, T < 0.05)
U1
No. of
Individual
Source Sites
Mining >200
Milling 20
Conversion 2
Enriching 3
Fuel Fabrication 13
Irradiation 125
Reprocessing 3
fH
r-H
•—1
i-H
(0
(0
(0
M
Vt
u
u
-P
-p
¦p
-p
C
c
o
c
c
0)
a)
O
U
u
¦P
u
u
¦d
C
c
¦P
si
si
ni
Si
£
m
c
-P
-p
iH
-p
-p
rH
(0
-P
d
3
c
CP
rH
0
0
<
0
0
¦H
G
¦p
2
:z
m
w
03
W
<
Si
-P
-P
•p
-P
-P
-p
•p
c
£
¦a
(0
CO
3
w
en
to
3
a)
•H
O
z
W
S
Ui
W
£
m
5
s
—
-
—
T
-
-
1
0.1
T
x,
0,
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
0.8
-
-
0.1
0.2
-
-
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
o
•
H
0.2
0.2
T
0.3
0.1
T
T
0,
0.3
0.1
_
0.6
—
—
—
-------
TABLE 23
PROSPECTIVE WASTE STREAMS FOR NATIONAL DISPOSAL SITES
FROM COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY IN 19 80
Waste Stream
Milling, Solid -
Mill Tailings
Conversion, Solid -
Impounded Drummed
Solids
Fuel Fab., Solid -
Conglomerate Solids,
and Solidified Liq-
uids (b)
Irradiation, Solid -
Control Rods
Irradiation, Solid -
Conglomerate Solids
and Solidified Liq-
uids
Total
Annual
Curies
3.4X10'
5.3X10"
1. 3X10
2. 2X10
1.0X10
Annual
Production
3.6X1010 lbs
4.0X104 lbs(a)
4 3
1.6X10 ft
4 3
1.4X10 ft
1.0X106 ft3
Curies of
Radioactive Constituents
Ra 226, 9X103; Th 230, 6X10^;
Pb 210, 2X10 ; Po 210, 2X10
U 238, 6X10°; Ra 226, 1.6X10°;
Th 230, 4.6X101
Pu 241, 1.3X10 ; Pu 240, 4.8
X103; Pu 239, 3.9X103; Pu 238,
1.9X104
Major Constituents: Ag 110,
1.3X107; Fe 55, 8X106; Ag 108,
4X105; H3, 3.4X10 ; Mn 54, 2.5
X105; Ni 59, 1.5X105
Major Constituents: H 3, 8.0
X10 ; Fe 55, 4.5X104; Co 60,
1.7X104; Ru 106, 8X104; Cs 134,
1.1X10 ; Cs 137, 4.1X10
-------
TABLE 2 3 (continued)
Waste Stream
Reprocessing, Solid
Conglomerate Solids
and Solidified Liq-
uids (b)
Reprocessing, Solid -
Cladding Hulls with
Five Years of Decay
Total
Annual
Curies
1. 8X10*
4. 2X10
Reprocessing, Solid - 1.3X10
High Level Actinide
Containing Wastes with
Five Years of Decay
8
Annual
Production
2.0X105 ft3
2.0X104 ft3
1.5X103 ft3
Curies of
Radioactive Constituents
Major Constituents:,Sr 89-90,
4X10 ; Y 91, 3.7X10 ; Zr-Nb 95,
1.8X105; Ru 103-106, 1.1X105;
Cs 134z137, 7.2X104; Pm 147,
2.3X10 ; Ce 141-144, 1.9X105;
Pu 238, 1.8X10 ; Pu 241, 1.1X10
Major Constituents: Mn 54, 1.5
XI0 ; Fe 55, 6.4X105; Co 60,
3.1X106; Ni 63, 3.9X105; Sb 125,
1.5X104
Major Constituents: Sr 9Q,
X107; Cs 134-137, 6.7X10 ;
3.4
7.2X10|
1. 2X10]?
8.6X10^
1.3X10^
1.1X10^
Eu 155, 4.3X10
Pu 238
Pu 240
Am 241
Cm 244
Sb 125
Pu 239,
Pu 241,
Am 24 3,
Eu 154,
Pm 147,
8.6X10;
2.2X10:
B,6X10;
2.8X10;
1.4X10
(a) Production estimated from isotopic specific radioactivity of U-238
(b) Volume primarily conglomerate solids which is mostly paper and plastic
-------
the attached work sheets was derived from Federal Regulation
10 CFR 20.304 for the disposal of radioactive material by burial
in soil.99 As discussed earlier, the bases for liquid and
gaseous waste effluents are taken to be those in the proposed
Appendix I to Federal Regulation 10 CFR 50:
...to provide numerical guides for design objectives
and technical specification requirements for limiting
conditions for operation for light-water-cooled
nuclear power reactors to keep radioactivity in
effluents as low as practicable."l06
Although this regulation is only proposed and the final values
may be changed, indications are that the final values will be
comparable to those selected.
More specifically, selection of prospective waste streams from
the nuclear fuel cycle to be handled under a national system*
was based on the following criteria.
« Solid Wastes
Wastes would be disposed of at national disposal/
storage sites from any source site or individual
facility if the annual curie content was estimated
to be greater than 50 times the amount specified
in Appendix C, 10 CFR Part 20. (This factor was
derived by using the limits of radionuclides
which could be buried at each site [or 1,000
times those in Appendix C] divide'd by an assumed
plant life expectancy of 20 years to obtain the
annual allowable rate of burial at each site.)**
*The term "national disposal site" refers to the site of the
facility conceptually designed in this report and operated as
part of a national waste disposal system. The disposal site
includes a national repository for storage of solidified wastes
and an accompanying waste processing facility if such is
required.
**It is believed that these provisions of 10 CFR 20 should
receive special study. The provisions allow for the burial of
curie quantities of radionuclides at a user's site.
178
-------
• Liquid Wastes
Wastes would be disposed of at national disposal
sites from any source site or individual facility
if the annual curie content, excluding tritium,
was estimated to be greater than five, and/or if
the annual average concentration of tritium prior
to dilution in a natural body of water was esti-
mated to be greater than 0.00 5 microcuries per
liter.
• Gaseous Wastes
National disposal sites would be required for
disposal of radioactive contaminants from any
source site if the annual average exposure rate
from noble gas effluents was estimated to be
greater than 10 millirems and/or the annual aver-
age concentrations of radioactive iodines or
radioactive material in particulate form with a
half-life greater than eight days was estimated
to be greater than 10~5 times the amount speci-
fied in Appendix B, Table II, Column I, 10 CFR
Part 20.
Typical volumes of water and air effluents from
nuclear facilities were used to convert these
concentration bases to allowable annual dis-
charges .
Review of the bases in conjunction with the information prev-
iously summarized in Table 21 and presented in the work sheets
in Appendices C-F revealed the following:
• All solid waste streams would require disposi-
tion to national disposal sites. However,
special consideration must be given the solid
waste stream from uranium mining and milling.
Currently, solid wastes from milling and con-
version to U3O3 are, for the most part, impounded
or stored in abandoned piles of "mud". Very
large quantities are involved; Reference 137 pre-
dicts that 4 million tons of mill tailings will
be generated in 1980. This study has led to
the conclusion that these wastes should not be
removed. However, disposition of these wastes
should be determined in the reasonably near
future. Assuming proper processing-techniques,
hydrology and geology, it is conceivable that
179
-------
these wastes could be "fixed" in place to keep
them from man1s environment and that current
source sites could become disposal sites. It
should also be noted that the radioactivity esti-
mated here for the mill tailings is only 2 x 10"^
curies per gram or about two-thirds of that asso-
ciated with typical uranium ores.
• The radioactivity of the liquid wastes from
fuel fabrication, irradiation, and repro-
cessing exceeds the values selected for the
bases by at least several fold.* It is
expected that all such wastes will be treated
so that they become releasable to surface
waters, and the remaining radioactivity will
be incorporated into a solid before disposal
within a national system. An exception would
be release of tritium as a gas or vapor to
the atmosphere. Therefore, in the preparation
of Table 22, all the radioactivity shown in
Appendix C work sheets was assumed to be included
in solid waste streams except for the tritium
radioactivity.
• The review indicated that the radioactivity of
the gaseous wastes would probably be below the
values specified for recovery and storage or dis-
posal. The basis for the site average annual
atmospheric "dilution factor" for reactors was
taken as the best dilution factor from 17 exist-
ing nuclear reactor sites. For fuel reprocessing
plants,.the dilution factor was taken as near-
best for the three existing and planned plants.
It should be noted that currently unsettled inter-
pretations related to radiation dose to a person's
skin from noble gases and unfavorable site dilu-
tion characteristics could possibly require
recovery of Kr-85 from fuel reprocessing plants
by 1980 (with conversion to a waste to be stored).
Because of the limits of Appendix C, 10 CFR 20, most wastes from
the nuclear fuel cycle would require off-site disposal. It was
assumed for Table 2 3 that all radioactive wastes from nuclear
power plant sites, and essentially all of the low-level trash
*The liquid volumes were taken as those from the Nuclear Fuel
Services reprocessing plant and the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant.
180
-------
from fuel fabrication and reprocessing plants, would be buried
at sites designated within the national system regardless of
contamination level. It is believed that any conversion to
solids of the radioactivity content in those liquid streams
would not significantly alter the solid volume projections pre-
sented in Table 21 (which were estimates for the relatively
large volumes of solid wastes from other sources).
RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE SOURCES
Radioactive wastes other than those from the nuclear power in-
dustry, DOD, and AEC prime contractors result from a variety
of sources including radiation source fabricators, pharmaceut-
ical companies, chemical companies, hospitals, universities,
and instrument manufacturers. These wastes listed in Table 24
vary widely in both composition and radioisotopic content.
The amount of radioisotopes produced by miscellaneous private
companies was estimated at 3,000,000 curies (mainly Co-60) by
J. N. Maddox of AEC Headquarters. Mr. Maddox pointed out that
specific information on private production may be proprietary.
The compositions and quantities of wastes were obtained from
Reference 112. Estimation of the probable fraction of radio-
isotopes showing up in solid or liquid wastes was based on
usage and processing information.1k0
"The amounts and kinds of radioisotopes to be sold in 1980 were
estimated from FY 197111,1 shipments extrapolated to FY 1980
using a 12 percent compounded growth rate.11,2 The fraction of
radioisotope lost as waste was estimated to be less than one
percent for isotopes used in sealed sources, a loss presumed
to occur during fabrication of the sources. However, in making
promethium sources, waste losses may be as high as 50 percent
due to the vapor-deposition technique used. The waste prome-
thium is wiped out of the vapor-deposition chamber with paper
or rags which are then handled as solid radioactive waste.
For those isotopes used wholly as tracers and as pharmaceuticals
it was assumed that as much as 100 percent may end up in wastes.
For tritium, which is used largely in sealed sources but also as
a tracer, a 70 percent waste loss was assumed. It was further
assumed that all of this waste is sufficiently radioactive to
be shipped to a regulated disposal site. The fraction of radio-
isotope that does not go into waste is presumed to be recycled
to source manufacturers, retained by users or lost through decay.
The results of these estimates are summarized in Table 24. All
isotopes produced in amounts less thaft"one cijrie were eliminated
from consideration. This table shows thai tha.pf^dominant
radioisotopes in the wastes are Co-60, Pm-147, Sr-90, and H-3.
181
-------
TABLE 24
ESTIMATED RADIOISOTOPE DISPOSAL
FROM MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE SOURCES3
Estimated
Estimated
Domestic
Domestic
Percent of Amount
Curies
Shipments
Shipments
Shipped Which is Lost To Waste
Isotope
FY 71 (Ci)
FY 80 (Ci) C
as Waste
1980
Am 241
...
3,212
< 1
< 32
Ce 144
37
103
< 1
< 1
Co 60
3,000,000
8,000,000
< 1
< 80,000
Cs 137
43,400
120,000
< 1
< 1,200
I 131
5.6
15.5
<100
< 15
Ir 192
89
247
< 1
< 3
P 33
1,065
2,953
<100
< 2,900
Pu 238
-
13,022
< 1
< 130
Po 210
997
2,764
< 1
28
Pm 147
213,000
590,000
< 50
<295,000
Sr 90
1,200,000
3,300,000
< 1
< 33,000
Ta 182
3,700
10,260
< 1
100
H 3
91,700
270,000
< 70
<189,000
Total in Waste <601,000
a Includes all domestic wastes except those
from the nuclear fuel
cycle and
those
from the government
•
Isotopes produced in amounts less than 1 curie per year were not included.
A compounded annual growth rate of 12 percent was assumed.
-------
Since no published information was found concerning the volume
of radioactive waste classified according to industrial source,
only the approximate estimate shown in Table 24 could be made.
It has been estimated that the amount of liquid waste generated
per employee at a typical establishment is roughly 2 to 30 cubic
meters per year while the solid waste generated per employee is
about 0.06 to 0.16 cubic meters per year.143
In 1970, the number of people employed by processors and pack-
agers of radioisotopes, by private research laboratories, and
by miscellaneous private establishments in the nuclear industry
totaled 5,729. 1 - *
Extrapolating these employment figures (again assuming a 12 per-
cent annual growth) gives an employment estimate of 17,800 for
1980. The estimated volume of waste for 1980 is obtained by
multiplying the employment figure by the estimated waste volumes
per employee. As a result, in 1980 the volume of liquid waste
generated may be from 1.3 to 19 million cubic feet, and the
volume of solid may be from 38,000 to 100,000 cubic feet.
Because of the lack of published information on these private
waste sources, no reasonable estimate of geographic distribution
could be made.
The number of source users will probably be large (estimated
on the order of thousands), which may complicate the collection
and shipment of waste. However, the total amount of radioactive
waste generated in this category is small compared to that
generated by the nuclear power industry; therefore the impact
upon the disposal site need will not be very great, but allow-
ances must be made for the required transportation systems.
It is suggested that the distribution be assumed to be propor-
tional to the population in each geographic area.
RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM GOVERNMENT SOURCES
The primary sources of government radioactive wastes are the
Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Defense.
Atomic Energy Commission Sources
By far the largest portion of government radioactive wastes are
generated by the Atomic Energy Commission as a result of weapons
production, research and development at AEC laboratories, and
acceptance of wastes from other government agencies and com-
mercial ventures before commercial repositories were established.
183
-------
Distribution and Types of Wastes
The AEC radioactive wastes are widely distributed over the 26
sites listed in Table 25 11,5 and are classified by types as
shown in Table 26 - Each of these sites produces solid wastes
and discharges low-level liquid wastes. The high-level liquid
wastes (from fuel reprocessing plants) are confined to three
sites: Hanford, Washington; Savannah River, South Carolina;
and the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho. "Inter-
mediate-level" liquid wastes (requiring confined storage) are
also produced at seven additional sites: Los Alamos, New
Mexico; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Rocky Flats, Colorado; Miamisburg,
Ohio; Long Island, New York; Argonne, Illinois; and Columbus,
Ohio. Action plans are under study at each of these sites to
reduce or eliminate the liquid wastes by converting them to
solid wastes and/or shipping them offsite.
production Rate of Solid and Liquid Wastes
As shown in Table 27, the total volume of solid wastes cur-
rently produced is about 1.7 million cubic feet per year. Six
million gallons per year of high-level liquid wastes will be
generated in 19 80, mostly from continued nuclear reactor oper-
ation for weapons production at the Savannah River site.
Cumulative Generation of Solid Wastes
In a discussion concerning a transuranium solid waste reposi-
tory in a salt formation, workers at ORNL estimated the cumu-
lative volume through 1980 of compacted, plutonium-contaminated
wastes from AEC facilities1 6 to be relocated to a permanent
repository to be 3,220,000 cubic feet.
An estimate of the total volume of accumulated solid wastes to
be placed in burial grounds at various AEC sites through 1980
is given in Table 28.1,f6 A total of 1,650 million cubic feet
of beta, gamma, and alpha contaminated material is present at
four AEC sites. Only 117 million cubic feet of this is plutonium
contaminated, the rest being fission product-contaminated soil.
Of this, only 2.8 million cubic feet were considered for relo-
cation to the salt mine repository; the remainder would be left
at the four sites which would become in situ repositories.
Radionuclide Content of the AEC Wastes
The long-lived fission products usually inventoried in AEC
wastes are Sr-90 and Cs-137. Quantities of these two products
are usually directly related to the quantities of plutonium
184
-------
TABLE 2 5
IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR AEC SITES
PRODUCING RADIOACTIVE WASTES
Site
AMES
ANL
BET
BMI-C
BNL
FMPC
HAN
K-25
LASL
LOV
LRL-B
L'RXi-Ij
mound
N&
NRTJS
NT 3
OR^'
PAp
PIN
Designation
Ames Laboratory
Argonne National Lab.
Location
Ames, Iowa
Argonne, 111.
Bettis Atomic Power Lab. Pittsburgh, Pa.
Battelle Memorial Inst. Columbus, Oh.
Brookhaven Nat. Lab.
Feed Materials
Production Center
Hanford Facilities
Oak Ridge Gaseous
Diffusion Plant
Los Alamos Scientific
Laboratory
Lovelace Foundation
Lawrence Radiation
Lab, Berkeley
Lawrence Radiation
Lab, Livermore
Mound Laboratory
New Brunswick Lab
Nat. Reactor Testing
Nevada Test Site
Oak Ridge Nat. Lab.
Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant
Pinellas Ordnance
Plant
Upton, N.Y.
Fernald, Oh.
Richland, Wa.
Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Los Alamos, N.M.
Albuquerque, N.M.
Berkeley, Calif.
Contractors
Iowa State Univ.
Univ. of Chicago
Westinghouse
Battelle Mem. Inst.
Assoc. Univ.
National Lead Co.
of Ohio
Several3
Union Carbide
Univ. of Calif.
Lovelace Found.
Univ. of Calif.
Livermore, Calif. Univ. of Calif.
Miamisburg, Oh.
New Brunswick, N.J.
Idaho Falls, Idaho
Mercury, Nev.
Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Paducah, Ky.
St. Petersburg, Fl.
Monsanto Res.
(AEC)
Several*3
Reynolds Elec,
& Eng. Co.
Union Carbide
Union Carbide
General Elec.
Company
185
-------
TABLE 25 (Continued)
Si te
Designation
Location
Contractors
PORT Portsmouth Gaseous
Diffusion Plant
Piketon, Oh.
Goodyear Atomic
Corp.
RF
Rocky Flats Plant
Sandia Laboratories
Rocky Flats, Col. Dow Chemical
SAN
Albuquerque, N.M. Sandia Corp
SNPO Space Nuclear Propulsion Jackass Flats, Nev. Westinghouse
SR
Savannah-River Facil. Aiken, S.C,
E.I. duPont
de Nemours & Co
Y-12 Y-12 Plant
Oak Ridge, Tenn. Union Carbide
a Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company; Douglas United Nuclear;
Westinghouse Hanford Company (subsidiary of Westinghouse);
Battelle-Northwest (Division of Battelle Memorial Institute).
^ Argonne National Laboratory; General Electric Company;
Iaaho Nuclear Corporation; Westinghouse.
186
-------
TABLE 26
QUALITATIVE INDICES* TO TYPES OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES
HANDLED AT AEC SITES
Site
Region
Liquid Wastes
Solid Wastes
Inter-
Contains
No
Low
mediate
High
Trans-
Trans-
Level
Level
Level
uranics
uranics
HAN
Pacific
a
b
c
d
b
SR
South Atlantic
a
b
c
d
b
NRTS
Mountain
a
b
j
d
f
LASL
Mountain
a
b
None
d
b
ORNL
East South Central
a
b,i
None
d
b
FMPC
East North Central
a
None
None
None
k
Y-12
East South Central
a
None
None
None
b
RF
Mountain
a
b
None
e
g
SAN
Mountain
a
None
None
d
f
JtANT
West South Central
a
None
None
d
f
JITS
Mountain
a
None
None
f
f
K-25
East. South Central
a
None
None
None
f
&ast South Central
a
None
None
None
f
PORT
Baa®* North Central
a
None
None
None
f
MOUND
E^st North Central
a
b
None
h
h
BNL
Middle Atlantic
a
b
None
None
h
BMI-C
East North Central
a
b
None
None
h
LRL-B
Pacific
a
None
None
None
h
LRL-L
Pacific
a
None
None
None
h
SNPO
Pacific
a
None
None
None
h
BET
Middle Atlantic
a
None
None
None
h
*See next page for key to index numbers and previous table for identification of
sites.
-------
TABLE 26 (Continued)
Site
Region
Liquid Wastes
Solid Wastes
Inter-
Contains
No
Low
mediate
High
Trans-
Trans-
Level
Level
Level
uranics
uranics
NB
Middle Atlantic
a
None
None
None
h
AMES
East North Central
a
None
None
None
f ,h
PIN
South Atlantic
a
None
None
None
g
LOV
Mountain
a
None
None
h
h
Key to Indices
a. Monitored; treated if necessary; after treatment,
effluent released and residue handled as solid waste.
b. Treated by evaporation, precipitation, ion exchange,
decay storage, etc.; after treatment, effluent released
at or below limits and residue handled as solid waste
or high-level "liquid."
c. Concentrated for interim and long-term storage; over-
heads treated as intermediate- or low-level waste.
d- > Buried retrievably on site.
e. Shipped to approved site for retrievable burial.
-------
Key to Indices (continued)
f. Buried on-site.
g. Shipped to AEC site for burial.
h. Shipped to commercial burial ground.
i. Some ILW has been disposed of by hydrofracturing.
j. Treated by fluidized bed calcination and stored as dry,
granular solid.
k. Placed in raffinate pits with sludges from low-level
liquid treatment.
189
-------
TABLE 27
QUANTITIES OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES HANDLED PER YEAR
AT AEC SITES
!
High-Level
Liquids (million gallons)
— C"'~ -
Solid Wastes
Site
Present
Estimated
1977
Estimated
1982
(thousand cu. ft.)
Present0
HANa
8.0
0.6
0.1
150
SRa
5.0
5.0
5. 0e
370
NRTSa
0.6
0.7
0.7
400
LASL
None
None
None
190
ORNL
None
None
None
160
FMPC
None
None
None
30
Y-12
None
None
None
30
RP
None
None
None
220
SAN
None
None
None
<10
PANT
None
None
None
-
NTS
None
None
None
10-20
K-25
None
None
None
<10
PAD
None
None
None
10-20
PORT
None
None
None
<10
MOUND
None
None
None
100
BNL
None
None
None
<10
ANL
None
None
None
30-40
BMI-C
None
None
None
<10
LRL-B
None
None
None
<10
LRL-L
None
None
None
20-30
SNPO
None
None
None
10-20
BET
None
None
None
20r30
NB
None
None
None
<10
AMES
None
None
None
<10
PIN
None
None
None
<10
LOV
None
None
None
10-20
Total
14f
6f
6e
1700d
See next page for notes and for identification of sites.
190
-------
TABLE 27 (continued)
Key to Indices
Liquid waste volume figures are primarily based on the
rehandling of stored inventories since these mask the
smaller volumes from current operations and some of
the latter are classified.
For this column, "handled" means buried or shipped as
indicated in Table 26; excludes solids produced by
concentration of high-level liquids.
Based on data for 1969, 1970, or 1971.
Total burials at AEC sites; excludes quantities shipped
to licensed commercial burial grounds.
Assumes continued operation of production facilities.
Current inventories total about 86 million gallons of
liquids, sludges, and wet salt cake.
191
-------
TABLE 28
ESTIMATED BACKLOG OF SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTES AT VARIOUS AEC BURIAL GROUNDS
Waste Burial
Site
Volume
(millions of ft"
Total Volume
Including
Beta-Gamma
Soil and
Waste
Transuranium Waste
High Radiation
Level Soil and
Large Equipment
High Radiation
Soil and
Waste
Low Radiation
Soil and Waste
Pre-197l
1971-1974
HAN
1500
3
90
6
0.13
SR
•v 10
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.12a
ORNL
15
1
3
10
o
¦
o
NRTS
^ 3
<0.1
<0.1
2.25a
0.26a
TOTAL
1528
4.1
93.2
19.05
.55
It is assumed that these wastes will be relocated to the proposed national radioactive
waste repository.
-------
produced for nuclear weapons and the total inventories are
classified information. Nearly all of the Sr-90 and Cs—137 are
stored in high-level (heat generating) waste tanks mixed with
other fission products. The other heat generating fission
products have shorter half-lives and decay out during the first
10 years of storage. The fission products which produce sig-
nificant radiation and heat generation levels (during these
first few years of storage) are Ce-144, Ru-106, Ru-103, Zr-95,
and Pm-14 7. In materials contaminated with fission products
only the total beta plus gamma radioactivity is reported, and
the fission product spectrum depends on the age of the waste,
the irradiation time, and the separations that were done during
chemical processing. The total quantities of the fission pro-
ducts present in the AEC wastes could be estimated from classi-
fied data on the rate of production and accumulated quantities
of plutonium over the past 25 years. These inventories would
include significant quantities of such long-lived nuclides as
C-14, Se-79, Zr-93, Tc-99, Pd-107, Sn-126, 1-129, and Cs-135.
The transuranium elements which result from weapons production
are usually characterized as "plutonium,11 and the content is
often reported simply as plutonium-239, the most prevalent
isotope. The isotopic composition of weapons-grade plutonium
is classified information, but "typical" numbers given for
mixed AEC and commercial wastes are 1 percent Pu-238, 60 per-
cent Pu-239, 24 percent Pu-240, 11 percent Pu-241, 4 percent
Pu-24 2, along with associated Am-241, Am-24 3, Cm-24 2, and
Cm-244*5 Additional long-lived nuclides such as Cm-24 5,
Cm-246, Cm-24 7, and Bk-247 are also produced by AEC research
programs such as the transuranium element program.
The plutonium content of accumulated radioactive wastes at AEC
sites is given in Table 29. 11,7 These quantities are orders of
magnitude only. The total is in the range of 1,200 to 2,100
kilograms of plutonium with an additional, classified amount
in high-level liquid waste tanks at Hanford and Savannah River.
This latter quantity is a small fraction of the total plutonium
in accumulated wastes (and can be estimated from fractional
waste losses in the reprocessing plants). In one sense the
plutonium in these wastes may not be waste at all because it is
conceivable that part of the plutonium could be recovered and
added to the plutonium stockpile.
Radiation shielding is frequently required for low-level wastes
containing fission products. Even when fission products are
absent, Am-241 grows into the plutonium from Pu-241 decay; this
sometimes makes shielding necessary, depending on the age of
the plutonium, its total amount, and the self-shielding charac-
teristics of the waste.
193
-------
TABLE 29
ESTIMATED PLUTONIUM CONTENT OF ACCUMULATED RADIOACTIVE
WASTES AT AEC SITES
(As of End of FY 19 72)
Cribs, Ponds,
Tanks or Bins Pits
vo
j*.
Responsi-
bility
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
Site
Hanford^
SRPC
NRTS
Nev. Test
Site
Oak Ridge
LASL
Kg^
A®
Ba
15.1
ca. 7
Notes
or Ref. Kg.
148 277.5
148 0.094
155,e Minor
156
0.634
X
Notes
or Ref. Kg.
148 366
152,d 24.9
f 398
Burial Grounds Other Site Totals
Notes
157
j
Notes
or Ref. Kg.
149,150
153,1 1 ,d -
149,g
0.02 149
2.675 157,i
4.77 153,k
100 to
1000
or Ref. Kg.
644 + A
25 + B
413
h 100-1000
8.3
4.8
Category Totals
20 + A + B
278
800
100 to
1000
1200-2100
+ A + B
-------
TABLE 29 (Continued)
Notes to Table 29
a. Classified; see reference 148.
b. For details, see reference 153.
c. For details, see reference 151.
d. Includes Pu-238.
e. See also reference 149, which indicates 20 kilograms.
f. No data found, but sources such as reference 15 5 indicate
that minor amounts of plutonium may be present in various
seepage ponds, dry wells, basin sludges, etc.
g. Includes 37.5 kilograms awaiting burial as of 6/30/72; see
also reference 155.
h. Estimate based on reference 159.
i. Reference 154 indicates 6.4 kilograms.
j. Little data are found, but gram to kilogram quantities of
plutonium are believed present in old seepage pits. See
references 160, 161, 158. Data from reference 161 were
used in Table IV of reference 158 to estimate that seven
grams of plutonium have carried over into canyon alluvium
from old waste disposal facilities and practices; inferen-
tially, a larger quantity remains in pits.
k. See also reference 163 which indicates 4.65 kilograms and
reference 154 which indicates six kilograms.
195
-------
Waste Compositions
Liquid wastes are either aqueous solutions too concentrated to
dilute to discharge to the environment or very concentrated salt
solutions created by evaporating water and volatile acids to
reduce the waste volume.163 Often the solution is neutralized
with caustic to create a less corrosive solution. These salt
solutions are usually evaporated to dryness to form a salt cake
and treated as solid wastes.
Solid wastes at AEC sites containing a wide variety of chemical
compositions can be divided into six approximate categories:
1) cellulose; 2) ash (incinerated cellulose); 3) sludge; 4) salt
cake; 5) contaminated equipment; and 6) cladding. The relative
volumes of these different types of wastes were not obtained in
this study, but cellulose is by far the largest, with high-level
wastes being primarily salt cake. Typical compositions1636*
are given in Table 30.
Detailed Inventory of a Selected AEC Site—Hanford
In order to display the complex interactions involved in radio-
active waste management at an AEC site, the Hanford Reservation
was selected. The inventory, presented in Appendix P, includes
the waste management steps underway at the site and indicates
that complete decommissioning of such a site could cost billions
of dollars.165"170
Department of Defense Sources
Department of Defense radioactive wastes are principally those
associated with the Navy's nuclear powered ships. The radio-
active wastes from nuclear powered ships and their support
facilities are widely distributed among 12 seacoast installa-
tions. The total quantities of solid wastes, listed in Table
31*71 average 90,000 cubic feet per year and 1,200 Ci per year,
reported as cobalt-60. These solid wastes are shipped to AEC
or commercial burial sites. The total quantity of liquid wastes
discharged to the environment at these sites was 2,600,000
gallons in 1970, containing 0.024 curies of radioactivity
reported as cobalt-60, but including some tritium. The liquid
wastes were subsequently diluted to meet discharge requirements.
Approximately 1,200,000 gallons of liquids containing 0.8 curies
and 150 cubic feet of ion-exchange resin containing 60 curies
were discharged at sea at known remote locations during 1970.
Projections to 1980 are not available, so it is suggested that
1970 figures be used.
196
-------
TABLE 30
TYPICAL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DESCRIPTION
WASTE TYPE
CELLULOSE
ASH
SLUDGE
EQUIPMENT
CLADDING
SALT CAKE
GENERAL
DESCRIPTION
TYPICAL
CHEMICAL
COMPOSITION
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
UNCOMPACTED
COMPACTED
SPECIFIC
HEAT
tBtu«tbH°F>
THERMAL
CONDUCTIVITY
(°Flftl
CLOTH
PAPER
PLASTIC
WOOD
FLOOR SWEEPINGS
SOME GLASS
SOME METAL
SOME CERAMICS
CHEMICAL FORMULA WTfc
INCINERATED
CELLULOSE WASTE
INCt 1 HERTS
CHEMICAL FORMULA WTO
CONCRETE
PLASTER OF PARIS
VERMICUIITE
FeOH
CtCMICAL SALTS
FLOCCULATING AGENTS
ION EXCHANGE RESINS
CHEMICAL FORMULA WT*
STAINLESS STEEL
MILD STEEL
LUC ITT
POLYURETHAtf
SOME OTHER METALS
CHEMICAL FORMULA WTl
STAINLESS STEEL
ZIRCALOY
CHEMICAL FORMULA WT*
ALKALINE SODIUM
SALT5
CHEMICAL FORMULA WT%
NaNOj 45
NaNO^ 1
NaOH S
NaAIO? 20
Na?C03 10
OTHER 3
WATER OF 10
HYDRATION
2.0
2.0
0.2
0.15 (DRY)
CELLULOSE (C,HinOJ 40
6 10 5*
POLYETHYlfNE (C,H > 15
2 4 *
PVC ,C2H3C"x 15
SILICA SiO; 6
IRON Fe 4
ALUMINUM Al 1
CALCIUM CaO 5
OXIDE
WATER H?0 5
NEOPRENE 10
4 ? X
0.1
0.5
0.3
(PLASTIC, CELLULOSE!
0.035
(CORRUGATED CARDBOARD*
SILICA Si02 35
IRON OXIDE Fe^Oj 40
ALUMINA A1?03 10
CALCIUM CaO 10
OXIDE
PERCENT 5
VOLATILES
as
0.65
0.2
(SAND. CLINKER)
0 041
{WOOD ASH)
CALCIUM CaO 15
OXIDE
SILICA Si02 50
ALUMINA AI^Oj 5
MAGNESIA MgO 10
IRON OXIDE Ft^Oj 20
WATER HjO
2
2
0.17
1 CONCRETE CLINKER)
as
(CONCRETE)
IRON Fe 55
NICKEL Ni 10
CHROMIUM Cr 5
PLEXIGLASS (C5H402>x 10
POLYURETHANE (NH.CO-CH 1 10
WATER 1^0 * 5
ALUMINUM Al 1
ZIRCONIUM Zr 5
0.5
2.0
a 12
(STEELI
HIGHLY VARIABLE
o.oa -20
IRON Fe 74
CHROMIUM Cr lg
NICKEL Ni g
OR
ZIRCONIUM Zr 100
as
1.5
ai2
(STEEL)
HIGHLY VARIABLE
0.M-20
-------
TABLE 31
RADIOACTIVE SOLID WASTE FROM U.S. NAVAL NUCLEAR-POWERED
SHIPS AND THEIR SUPPORT FACILITIES FOR 1966 THROUGH 1970
Facility
Region
1966-1969
Average/Year
Curies
Thousand Feet3
1970
Curies
Thousand Feet3
Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Northeast
22
91
14
16
Naval Shipyard
Groton, New London, Conn.
Northeast
8
365
12
140
Electric Boat Div., Tender
at State Pier, & Sub Base
Newport News, Virginia
South
14
276
28
312
Newport News Shipbuilding
Atlantic
Norfolk, Virginia
South
6
27
9
146
Naval Shipyard and Tender
Atlantic
Charleston, South Carolina
South
13
44
8
6
Naval Shipyard and Tenders
Atlantic
Pascagoula, Mississippi
East South
<1
<1
0
0
Ingalls, Nuclear Division
Central
San Diego, California
Pacific
1
2
<1
1
Tenders at Ballast Point
Long Beach, California
Pacific
<1
<1
<1
<1
Naval Shipyard and Base
Vallejo, California
Pacific
8
101
12
2
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
Bremerton, Washington
Pacific
10
71
18
1327
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
Pacific
5
3
5
4
Naval Shipyard & Sub Base
TOTALS
169
979
106
1954
aThis table includes all radioactive waste from tenders and nuclear-powered ships.
This radioactivity is primarily cobalt-60.
-------
TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES
The requirements for transportation of all radioactive wastes,
whether high- or low-level, are similar, the major difference
being the need for heat removal and a greater degree of shield-
ing with high-level wastes. Therefore, transportation treat-
ment for both high-level and low-level radioactive wastes are
combined in this study, with emphasis on high-level waste
transport.
Regulations for Transportation of Radioactive Wastes
The body of Federal regulations concerned with the general
transportation of radioactive materials are those of the
Department of Transportation (DOT).172 In addition, the AEC
regulates the packaging and shipping of fissile material and
large quantities of radioactive materials.173 The Federal
Aviation Administration, the Coast Guard, the Federal Highway
Administration, and the Postal Service have issued special
regulations for shipping by air,17If water,175 highway,176 and
mail,177 respectively. The main burden of these regulations
falls on the shipper, who is required to furnish a safe package
to the channels of transportation. In addition, of course, the
carrier is required to make certain provisions for the safe
handling and storage of packages and vehicles. An unofficial
summary of the DOT regulations, which provides for a general
grasp of the subject, has been published recently.178
Since about 1968 the Federal regulations have been based on,
but are not identical with, the 1967 regulations of the Inter-
national Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).179 The IAEA regulations
are directly applicable only to the operations of the Agency.
However, in the interest of safe international transportation
of radioactive materials, many countries have based their
national regulations on those of the IAEA. It may be antici-
pated that, as the IAEA regulations change to reflect increas-
ing knowledge and experience, so also will those of the United
States. Since 1970 the IAEA has been considering proposals
for a revision of its 1967 regulations. However, it does not
appear that major changes in the United States regulations
will result from the IAEA changes.180 A full discussion of the
technical rationale of an earlier version (1964) of the IAEA
regulations has been published.181
Transportation regulations of the individual States do not
normally impinge directly on the transportation of radioactive
materials as such. However, the typical highway weight restric
tions (35 to 37.5 tons gross weight) have already affected the
shipment of irradiated reactor fuel elements and probably will
199
-------
affect future shipments of high-level wastes because economics
of the massive shielding requirement forces cask designs as
heavy as the transportation system permits.
A review of the classification cf radioactive materials and
their packaging is given in Appendix Q.1';'2,i73,i8o/i8i Classi-
fication into categories depends upon the amount of radioac-
tivity in the shipment. Most low-level wastes fall into cate-
gory B (0.001 Ci to 20 Ci) of Transport Group I for which
packaging must meet requirements under severe accident condi-
tions and DOT approval. All high-level wastes will fall into
the "large quantities" category of Transport Group I which
requires, in addition, special structural tests and both AEC
and DOT approval.
Transportation Safety Requirements
Safety in the transportation of radioactive materials is pro-
vided by two main lines of defense. The first objective is to
prevent release of material or radiation dose from occurring at
all. The second is to reduce the consequences of any accident
that does occur by appropriate recovery action or by equipment
design.
Attainment of the goal of accident prevention, of course, depends
on the actual performance of the people involved. The education
and training of shipping department and carrier personnel in the
importance of strict adherence to the spirit and letter of the
regulations is vital.
An indication of the level of performance of the evolving system
of regulations and procedures may be obtained from the following
record.182 In the period 1949-1970, during which there were
millions of shipments of radioactive material, 160 cases were
reported in which the vehicle was involved in an accident or
package damage was suspected. In 26 of those cases radioactive
material was released outside the vehicle.
Bases for Transportation System Requirements
The conceptual design of a system to transport radioactive wastes
is based on the following criteria:
# All packaging and shipment of radioactive wastes
will be in accordance with applicable Federal and
State regulations now in effect.
• There should be at least one Federal repository
for high-level wastes in the early 1980's. How-
ever, by the year 2000, the capacity needs and
200
-------
expanded shipping needs could well suggest
requirements for additional storage sites.
• The modes of transportation of radioactive wastes
will be those currently in use, i.e., motor
trucks and railroads. While barges are fre-
quently mentioned for the shipment of irradiated
reactor fuel, no firm plans now exist for barg-
ing wastes from current land-based nuclear
reactors.
• The existing commercial disposal sites for low-
level wastes (six as of February 197 3) licensed
by the AEC or agreement States will continue to
operate as part of any national disposal system.
(Alternately, they could be replaced by nearby
sites with different storage designs.) If waste
disposal regulations are changed to require
temporary storage or retrievability of wastes
containing long-lived actinide elements, it is
assumed that these sites will upgrade their
practices accordingly and that the sites will
be modified if necessary to meet other siting
criteria. If the sites do not meet such future
criteria, they will likely be decommissioned and
returned to a status of unrestricted use.
Design of Transportation Systems for Radioactive
Wastes—Containers and Protection
Transportation of type A quantities (less than 0.001 curies) of
miscellaneous wastes will continue in regulation containers
(mostly steel drums) in ordinary freight cars and trucks. Sim-
ilarly, much of the solid wastes from light water reactors may
be shipped in standard steel drums because the concentration
of radioactivity is low enough to qualify as LSA (less than
0.1 micro curies per gram).183 However, the economical ship-
ment of large amounts of radioactive wastes, particularly those
generated in the nuclear fuel cycle, requires specially designed
containers and vehicles. The AEC publishes a directory of con-
tainer standards to assist container designers and shippers of
radioactive and fissile material.18*
Following is a review of some of the recent designs for con-
tainers for type B quantities of low-level (alpha) wastes.185
The first is a rail system being used to ship plutonium wastes
from Rocky Flats, Colorado, to the National Reactor Test
Station in Idaho. A number of 55-gallon drums are loaded
inside two standard 8 foot x 8 foot x 20 foot cargo containers,
which are in turn loaded inside an AEC owned ATMX-600 series
201
-------
railcar. These are massive, double-walled steel box cars
especially designed and constructed to resist the damaging
effects of severe rail accidents.
A commercially designed system now in use at Argonne National
Laboratory utilizes a 5 foot x 6 foot x 7 foot protective over-
pack containing wastes in steel boxes. The overpack is a double-
walled, rectangular steel box with a six-inch space between the
walls filled with shock and thermal insulation to protect the
contents against accident or fire.
A similar but much larger system uses a double-walled, insulated
accident-resistant box having the 8 foot x 8 foot x 20 foot
dimensions of a conventional modular cargo container. It holds
a payload of 15 tons (42 standard 55 gallon drums). These
latter two systems are evolutionary developments from a 33-inch
diameter x 48-inch high, single walled, insulated steel cylinder
designed to overpack a single 55 gallon drum.186 All of these
containers were designed to meet the requirements for type B
packaging.
From consideration of these recent designs it is probable that
the economic solution to the problem of shipping large volumes
of low-level wastes involves a reusable overpack container (which
may be the vehicle itself) which provides the basic mechanical
strength and thermal insulation required by the tests for type
B and "large quantity" packaging. This overpack encloses several
standard containers, such as drums or boxes, which are the units
to be stored or buried at the disposal site. In cases where the
level of radioactivity is high enough to require additional
shielding the overpack may consist of two or more nesting
boxes.18 7
Current plans call for shipment of canisters of solidified high-
level wastes by truck or rail from fuel reprocessing sites to a
Federal repository.l85 A 30 ton cask designed for truck shipment
would contain only three or four canisters while a 100 ton rail-
road cask could hold up to 36 canisters. These casks will have
the same general design as casks used to ship highly radioactive
spent fuel. The casks will have a steel inner shell about an
inch thick and an outer shell about two inches thick. The outer
shell will probably incorporate cooling fins and some form of
internal cooling system. Several inches of shielding material,
probably of steel or depleted uranium, will be positioned between
the two shells. Lead may be used but it is less desirable as
shielding material because of its low melting point. A layer
of hydrogenous material, such as borated water, is included to
provide neutron shielding. The shielding must be sufficient to
reduce the radiation dose rates on the surface of the car or
vehicle and at six feet from the surface to 200 and 10 milliror-s
per hour, respectively.
202
-------
It has not yet been determined whether the fuel canisters will
be shipped "wet" or "dry", i.e., in water or in air. The current
conceptual designs of the repository allow for either possi-
bility.188 An external blower might be needed to keep the
accessible external surface temperature below the DOT regulatory
limit of 180°F. The cask and any auxiliary cooling equipment
would be nestled in a specially constructed, heavily reinforced
rail car.
While the design of high-level waste casks does not require
technological breakthroughs, it does present a challenge with
respect to heat transfer techniques and material characteristics.
The optimum design will require the balancing of several cost
factors including those of preshipment storage, transportation,
heat removal, and shield material and fabrication.
Methods of Transportation
Practically all radioactive wastes are now and will continue to
be shipped by railroad and motor truck. Present plans are to
transport most high-level wastes from reprocessing plants to
the Federal repository by rail in massive casks.188 Low-level
wastes are shipped by rail and truck packaged in a variety of
ways depending on the quantity, form and shielding requirements
of the material. The lack of rail service at nearly half the
reactors already built .and being planned will be an important
factor in the transportation picture.189
If the concept of off-shore nuclear reactors is accepted, barge
shipments of reactor wastes may be necessary. Barges have the
advantage of very large weight limits and low freight costs.
However, barge shipments are slow and there is usually a need
for trans-shipment from/to a land vehicle at one end of the
trip. Air shipments of wastes are penalized by weight and bulk
factors in addition to safety concerns. However, it should be
noted that dirigibles, which would follow courses charted in
detail to avoid surface hazards,"are seriously being considered
as vehicles for transporting large quantities of radioactive
wastes.
Distances from Sources to Disposal Sites
The average one-way distances between various types of sources
and disposal sites were crudely estimated by use of a scaled
map.189 Distances for the miscellaneous producers and users
of radioisotopes were arbitrarily taken to be the same as for
the reactors, which are rather widely scattered. The results
are shown in Table 32.
203
-------
TABLE 32
AVERAGE ONE-WAY DISTANCES BETWEEN SOURCES
AH*D DISPOSAL SITES FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTES
Source
Disposal Site
Distance (miles)
Reprocessing Plants
Reprocessing Plants
Reprocessing Plants
Fuel Fabricators
Reactors
Isotope Producers
and Users
Central U.S.
Repository
Tennessee
Repository
Commercial Burial
Sites
Commercial Burial
Sites
Commercial Burial
Sites
Commercial Burial
Sites
1,000
700
100
200
300
300
204
-------
Methods and Equipment, for Handling Small Radioactive Waste
Accidents and for Decontamination Transport Systems
The stringent containment required by regulations for large
quantities of radioactive materials is expected to reduce to
an almost negligible level the probability of a large accident
in the transportation system. An account of treatment methods
for small radioactive waste accidents and for routine transpor-
tation equipment decontamination is given in Appendix r.»90-*92
Accountability of Radioactive Waste Materials Associated
with Transportation
There are two important types of materials accountability in
the transportation of radioactive wastes, both of which are
required by Federal regulations. The first is applicable to
any radioactive material, while the second is applicable only
to fissile material. To insure that radioactive material is
delivered only to qualified destinations, AEC regulations
require a shipper to determine that the consignee is licensed
to receive such material.193'19* Furthermore, in order to main-
tain accountability, facilitate the tracing of misrouted ship-
ments, and provide vital information in case of accident, the
DOT regulations require the shipper to furnish the carrier
with an accurate quantitative description of the contents of
radioactive shipments.172 In addition, large shippers of
radioactive materials have found it worthwhile to develop a
system of internal documentation based on centralized consignor
authority and standardized forms.195
To prevent the diversion of fissile materials, special AEC
regulations apply to shipments involving more than 5000 grams
of such materials.196 These require that such shipments be in
the continuous personal custody of an authorized individual or
that the carrier use a system of physical protection and
exchange of hand-to-hand receipts at all points of transfer of
custody. The regulations applicable to the security of ship-
ments of fissile material have recently been greatly
strengthened.197 While most shipments of radioactive wastes
will not be affected by this regulation, large shipments of
low-level plutonium wastes and enriched uranium wastes could
be affected.
RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DESIGN
Bases for Radioactive Waste Disposal
The concept of carefully designated and designed disposal sites
for radioactive wastes is based on the premise of prevention of
uncontrolled leakage into the environment. To achieve this
205
-------
objective, several basic assumptions were made which provided
overall guidance for the conceptual design of the sites.
• All radioactive wastes in solid form, except
materials from uranium mills and mines or low-
level wastes which might be acceptable for other
disposal sites, will be received at nationally
designated and licensed disposal sites.
• Radioactive wastes will be divided into the two
broad categories previously defined, low-level
wastes and high-level wastes.
• High-level radioactive wastes received from fuel
reprocessing plants will have been stored for an
average of five years to reduce the heat genera-
tion rate and radiation hazard.
v High-level radioactive wastes will be converted
to a dry solid stable form and placed in a sealed
container prior to shipment to a designated
national repository.
9 Low-level radioactive wastes will be converted
to a dry solid stable form and placed in a
sealed container prior to shipment to a desig-
nated disposal site. Liquid and combustible
wastes may be received at the site and converted
to a dry stable form prior to their disposal or
storage.
• Because acceptable concepts for ultimate disposal
for radioactive wastes are not yet available, the
management concept for high- and low-level radio-
active wastes will be that of interim retrievable
storage for time periods up to approximately 100
years. It is expected that during this retriev-
able storage period the long-term hazards of the
wastes will have been fully evaluated, and accept-
able concepts for disposal or storage will have
been developed. At that time, the decision for
ultimate disposal could be reevaluated.
• The government (AEC) radioactive wastes will be
managed separately by the AEC and will not be
included in the national disposal system in this
study. It is expected, however, that the philo-
sophy for management of AEC radioactive wastes
will be compatible with that of other radioactive
wastes.
206
-------
• The repository will be operational in the early
1980's.
• Environmental safeguards at the national disposal
sites will be enforced to assure isolation of the
radioactive wastes.
Types and Quantities of Radioactive Wastes
The types and quantities of radioactive wastes have been dis-
cussed in detail in a previous section of this chapter, but they
are discussed in summary form here as they relate to the design
of the national disposal sites.
The rate of heat release from commercial radioactive wastes
accumulated through the year 1975 will be about four million
watts after five years of storage at fuel reprocessing facilities
(in 1980). The amount of high-level and other radioactive wastes
generated after 1975 will increase nearly exponentially. For
example, the amount of wastes accumulated at fuel reprocessing
facilities between 1976 and 1980 will be approximately four
times that accumulated through the year 1975.
Government Wastes
A significant quantity of solidified radioactive wastes generated
by the AEC is presently confined at AEC sites in interim storage
facilities. Because of the special circumstances associated with
the packaging and shipment of these solidified wastes to other
disposal sites, the AEC plan for the management of these wastes
is currently undergoing thorough study of promising potential
methods for acceptable on-site long-term storage.198 Management
of AEC wastes within the national system is considered to be
beyond the sfeope of this study, and these wastes are not included
in the designs of the national disposal sites. Shipment off-site
to a national repository for long-term storage could be under-
taken, however^ if no on-site alternative can be shown to be
safe, acceptable, and economical. A complicating factor for
some AEC raflffeaative wastes which is under study is the treat-
ment and disposal of contaminated soil at the AEC sites.
Solid Wastes
1 ¦»
Solid wastes afe the most important type of radioactive waste
in the concept of a national system. Assuming the high-level
solid waste*4is sealed typically in 12 inch diameter by 10 foot
high canister#)vapproximately 600 to 900 canisters would be
available £or^sh$pment to a national repository from commer-
cial nucleSi?*~fflel; reprocessing plants by the end of the year
1980.
207
-------
Solid low-level wastes, are produced at several stages of the
commercial nuclear fuel cycle: 1) mining; 2) milling; 3) con-
version; 4) enrichment; 5) fuel fabrication; 6) irradiation;
and 7) reprocessing. During the year 1980 approximately 2.5
million cubic feet of cellulosic trash (such as paper, cloth,
wood, paints, and plastic) contaminated with radioactive mater-
ial will be produced.137 The densities of the uncompacted
wastes range from about 2 to 200 pounds per cubic feet. About
one-half to two-thirds of the wastes, by volume, are combus-
tible and can be reduced in volume by a factor of about 50 and
in weight by a factor of about 20 by incineration.199'200
About one-half to three-fourths of the wastes, by volume, are
compactable and can be reduced in volume by factors of two to
ten by compression.
For system design purposes, an overall volume reduction factor
of ten was assumed for the above solid low-level wastes after
incineration and compression, resulting in approximately 250,000
cubic feet of solid wastes from the trash produced in 1980.
I-t is expected that about 4 00,000 cubic feet of noncombustible
solids will be generated from solidified liquids, impounded
solids arising from water treatment, activated components of
nuclear reactors, and cladding hulls, during the year 1980.
Assuming the accumulated inventory of solid wastes generated
before 1980 is three times that generated during the year 1980,
the total volume of the low-level solid waste inventory will be
2.6 million cubic feet by the end of 1980. If these low-level
solid wastes are sealed in 4 foot x 6 foot square containers,
approximately 20,000 of these containers will have been received
at a national disposal site from the commercial nuclear power
industry.
Uranium mining and milling tailings are not included in the
totals expected at the national disposal site because of the
large quantities of material involved (estimated at four million
tons per year in 1980). 11,0 Uranium mill tailings have radio-
activity levels of only 2 x 10~9 Ci/gm (about two-thirds of
that in typical uranium ores). Since most uranium mines are
located within 10 miles of a uranium processing mill, it may be
possible to impound these insoluble mill tailings by backfilling
mined out slopes in underground mines, by refilling open pit
mines, or by other in-place fixation techniques.
Liquid Wastes
The types and quantities of liquid radioactive wastes generated
by the nuclear power industry merit review since current prac-
tices involve dilution and controlled release of very dilute
208
-------
wastes (principally tritium). Since tritium has a 12.3 year
half-life, it should riot be considered a long-term potential
contaminant of man's environment. Current AEC regulations201
permit release of tritium if the concentration in water is less
than 0.1 microcurie per milliliter. During the year 198 0, it
is estimated that the amount of tritium released to surface
water at commercial nuclear reactor sites will be 0.8 million
curies.137 About a thousand curies of other isotopes will be
released to the surface waters in 1980 in dilute streams
meeting the AEC regulations.
Liquid plutonium-containing wastes or other liquid wastes con-
taining long-lived radioisotopes should not be released to sur-
face waters above acceptable concentrations. These wastes can
be "fixed" as solids in a variety of ways. Some current prac-
tice includes mixing with concrete or absorption onto solids
such as fuller's earth or diatomaceous earth and packaging into
containers for disposal as solids.139 The quantities of these
materials have been included in the solid waste stream.
It is estimated that by 1980 1.3 to 19 million cubic feet of
low-level liquid wastes will be generated each year by miscel-
laneous private sources.
2 0 2
A current inventory of the Morehead, Kentucky, commercial
burial site reveals that the liquid wastes received averaged
34,000 gallons per year (4,500 cubic feet per year) from 1964
to 1970 with no perceptible increase during this period. In
1971 the liquid waste receipts suddenly increased to 340,000
gallons per year, probably as a result of reactor operators'
shifting to a near "zero release" philosophy. With the assump-
tions that (a) the receipts from reactors would increase at the
same rate as the nuclear power economy (from 8.1 GW(e) in 1971
to 150'GW(e) in 1980) and (b) that the Morehead site currently
represents about 50 percent of the liquid waste receipts by
commercial low-level burial sites in the United States, the pro-
jected liquid wastes received by all burial sites from nuclear
reactors would be 1.4 x 106 cubic feet per year by 1980.
The receipts from nonreactor sources, assuming a growth rate of
12 percent per year, would be 25,000 cubic feet per year in 1980,
This is only 0.13 to 1.9 percent of the amount of waste estimated
to be generated by these nonreactor sources. One interpretation
of the discrepancy could be that 98 to 99.9 percent of the gener-
ated liquid wastes are currently being diluted and flushed down
the sewer. If essentially all of this liquid were to be shipped
to the disposal site (which will be the trend in the future),
the total reactor-plus-nonreactor liquid wastes would be 2.5
million to 20.2 million cubic feet per year.
209
-------
As the retention of radionuclides at the source improves, the
fraction of low-level liquid wastes shipped to the disposal site
is likely to increase significantly unless volume reduction
facilities are installed at the sources. For the purposes of
estimating the size of a national disposal facility, an arbitrary
receipt of 2.5 million cubic feet per year of nonnuclear power
liquid wastes is assumed in 19 80. This corresponds to a total
of 4 million cubic feet per year (30 million gallons per year)
received in total in 1980. The total accumulated receipts
through 1980 are taken to be 16 million cubic feet (1.2 x 10®
gallons).
Gaseous Waste
Radioactive gaseous wastes from the commercial nuclear power
industry are comprised primarily of noble gas fission products.
Some gaseous activation products are also produced in nuclear
reactors. These gaseous fission products can leak or diffuse
into the primary coolant of a nuclear reactor, from which they
are vented. Except for krypton-85 and tritium (which have half-
lives of 10.7 years and 12.3 years, respectively) these radio-
nuclides have relatively short half-lives, so that they decay
rapidly to nontoxic levels. Gaseous wastes are treated by con-
densing any vapors, permitting radionuclides to decay during a
holdup period, and then releasing airborne wastes through high
efficiency filters. Current AEC regulations203 permit release
of gaseous wastes after sufficient dilution in air. These
gaseous wastes are usually released from a stack at least 100
feet tall to achieve atmospheric dispersion. During the year
1980 approximately 4.7 x 10? curies of gaseous wastes are pro-
jected to be released to the atmosphere from the commercial
nuclear power industry.137
High-Level Radioactive Waste—Strategy of Disposal
Policies of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission currently empha-
size retrievable surface storage in the near term for the man-
agement of high-level radioactive wastes.203
In the early 1980's, and until a permanent disposal concept
has been accepted and implemented, an operable Federal repos-
itory may be established for the storage of solidified and
packaged high-level wastes for a period of 100 years. 133 The
AEC thus has deferred commitment to permanent disposal of radio-
active wastes for a period up to 100 years, during which time
continued research and development on the concepts for permanent
disposal might produce significant improvements.
210
-------
The retrievable surface storage concept (the facility is cur-
rently named the Retrievable Surface Storage Facility, or RSSF)
of a Federal repository for solidified and packaged commercial
high-level waste has been demonstrated to be safe, although
public acceptance has not yet been ascertained. The Retriev-
able Surface Storage Facility is visualized in this study as a
group of concrete modular structures, above or just below ground
level, serviced by a single receiving and transfer facility.
One of the concepts studied by the AEC is a water-cooled storage
module design in which high-level waste containers would be
stored in water-filled basins. Air-cooled systems are also
being evaluated.
An option available to commercial fuel reprocessors is the
storage of high-level wastes at the chemical processing plant
as a liquid for as long as five years to permit decay of short-
lived radioisotopes before the waste must be solidified. The
wastes must be transferred from the fuel reprocessing sites to
the Federal repository no later than ten years following repro-
cessing of the irradiated fuel. During the initial liquid
storage period the heat generation rate and radiation hazard
of the waste is reduced, as shown in Figure 26, before it must
be solidified for shipment and long-term storage.20^ The
waste would then be converted to a solid form (which is presently
not well defined but could be a calcine, rocklike, or glassy
form) suitable for transport and storage. The latter two forms
generally have low solubility and leachability in water to
further immobilize the radioactive products and are therefore
generally preferred. These two forms also have a high thermal
conductivity which appears to provide an economic advantage.
The higher thermal conductivity permits solidification of the
high-level waste with a minimum of interim liquid storage, thus
avoiding a large investment in liquid storage tanks and asso-
ciated facilities, or it permits the use of canisters of larger
diameter for older waste. A typical high-level waste canister
of solidified waste is shown in Figure 27.
The canisters of solidified high-level wastes will be shipped
by rail or truck in casks which will provide cooling and radi-
ation shielding in transit. The shipping casks should meet the
requirements of the Department of Transportation205 for survival
after severe tests without the release of radioactive material.
The maximum heat generation rate in each canister of high-level
waste has been tentatively set at five kilowatts of heat when
shipped to the RSSF, but this heat limit is currently being
reviewed. This heat generation limit was established to be
compatible with expected limitations of the proposed pilot plant
repository in bedded salt geologic formations. Because the rate
of heat generation for each canister will steadily decrease with
211
-------
FIGURE 26
HEAT GENERATION RATE OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE
WASTES FROM A TYPICAL LIGHT WATER REACTOR
AS A FUNCTION OF TIME AFTER DISCHARGE
3
FISSION PRODUCTS
2
ACT I N I DE S
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 20
1 40
DECAY TIME (Yf-ARS)
212
-------
FIGURE 27
TYPICAL CANISTER FOR HIGH-LEVEL
RADIOACTIVE WASTE
W
jH
*
RANGE
TYPICAL
DIAMETER
15 cm TO 60 cm
30 cm
LENGTH
.6 m TO 3 m
3 m
213
-------
time as the radioactive products decay, a higher heat limit for
the RSSF could still be compatible with the five kilowatts value
for a salt mine.
Upon receipt of the waste at a repository, the Federal Govern-
ment will assume permanent custody of the high-level radio-
active wastes. Current AEC regulations require that the com-
mercial nuclear fuel reprocessor pay the Federal Government a
one-time charge, which together with interest on the unexpended
balance would be sufficient to defray all costs of retrievable
surface storage, disposal, and surveillance.20''
Potential of Partitioning High-Level Radioactive Wastes
As previously indicated, the hazard and handling problems for
nuclear waste are grossly affected by age, volume, physical and
chemical characteristics and content of fission and reactor
(actinide) products. It would appear that suitable fraction-
ation or partitioning of wastes to portions having different
heat generation rates, specific activity, biological hazard
decay rates, etc. might result in simpler and safer waste man-
agement schemes. Certain waste constituents might be parti-
tioned for later transmutation to innocuous materials in special,
high flux nuclear reactors.
In recognition of this possibility, the AEC has authorized work
on waste partitioning studies with Atlantic Richfield Hanford
Company, Oak Ridge National Laboratories and the Pacific North-
west Laboratories of Battelle-Northwest.1 3 8'2 011' 2 0 5 ' 2 0 7
Criteria and General Description for Retrievable
High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository
The basic criterion used in evaluating proposed methods for the
treatment and storage of high-level radioactive wastes is that
no method should permit the release of biologically significant
amounts of radioactivity into the environment. Other important
criteria for a radioactive waste disposal system are taken from
preliminary AEC-supported studies on retrievable surface
storage systems for high-level wastes.208
Review of the concepts for high-level radioactive waste man-
agement indicates that the system should have the following
characteristics:
• capability to accept sealed canisters of high-
level radioactive wastes which have been previ-
ously solidified before transportation to the
Federal repository to a form which is chemically,
thermally, and radiolytically stable;
214
-------
• assurance of the health and safety of the public
and the protection of the environment;
• safety of operation, including the ability to
remove heat and maintain canister integrity and
retrievability following extended periods of
time;
• controllability of effluent emissions at least
to those in 10 CFR 20, and possibly approach-
ing those in proposed Appendix I to 10 CFR 50
for nuclear reactors, which are generally 1.0
percent to 0.001 percent of those now in
10 CFR 20?
• retrievability under all conditions;
• ability to withstand all credible natural forces;
• reasonable capital investment consistent with
the objectives of safe waste storage for 100
years or more, and safe recovery from unplanned
events;
• modular construction to provide waste storage
space on a schedule consistent with future com-
mercial reprocessing waste deliveries;
• contamination-free operations; and
• minimization of operational activities at the
storage facility. The shippers should conduct
all special operations necessary to meet strict
acceptance criteria.
Until a concept for ultimate disposal of high-level radioactive
wastes becomes available, it is planned that the Retrievable
Surface Storage Facility (RSSF) will be used to store radio-
active wastes. A functional diagram of the RSSF is illustrated
in Figure 28.
The RSSF's primary requirement is to provide safe storage for
encapsulated solidified high-level waste for at least 100 years
and to make it possible to retrieve failed or weak canisters
from storage areas and repackage the contained waste for con-
tinued storage or for shipment.
In the preliminary concept of the RSSF described here,208'209'210
the waste will be stored in water basins built in modules. A
conceptual layout of the water basin is illustrated in Figure
29. New modules will be constructed as they are required to
215
-------
FIGURE 28
ACTIVITIES IN A RETRIEVABLE SURFACE STORAGE FACILITY
FOR HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
ro
(—1
CI
SURVEILLANCE
RECEIVING
(SHIPPING)
STORAGE
TRANSPORT
INTERNAL
LOW
LEVEL
STORAGE
INTERNAL
WASTE
PROCESSING
DECONTAMINATION
RECANNING
STORAGE
PREPARATION
COOLING
EXAMINATION
-------
FIGURE 29
WATER BASIN CONCEPT FOR RETRIEVABLE SURFACE STORAGE
FACILITY FOR HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES
N)
COOLER
\
COOLER
PIPE
TRENCH
CONTAINER
-------
handle the increasing waste inventory. The water in the basins
provides shielding and cooling for the canister. Surveillance
will be necessary to assure that the canisters remain in satis-
factory condition. Extensive monitoring will be used to detect
any evidence of canister overheating, leakage or deterioration
so that necessary corrective action can be taken if the need
arises. In this way, the isolation of the radioactive wastes
will be assured.136
Storage buildings will be designed for a service life-time of
at least 100 years and built to withstand all natural forces
which might be expected at the facility such as severe storms,
earthquakes, and floods, as well as all credible adverse acci-
dent conditions. It is expected that even with nominal main-
tenance the structures can be maintained in serviceable condi-
tion well beyond the design lifetime. The facility will be
designed in accordance with nationally accepted codes and
standards. A quality assurance program will be applied to the
design, fabrication, construction, and testing of structures,
systems and components of the facility, to assure that each
component of the facility will perform its required function.
In addition to the storage basin, the RSSF also will have
facilities to receive, inspect, and decontaminate high-level
waste canisters and their transportation casks and repackage
failed canisters. Transportation casks containing canisters
will be brought into the receiving area within the building
where the casks will be removed from the railroad car or truck
and immersed in a stainless steel-lined receiving basin filled
with water. The canisters will then be removed from the cask
and inspected under water before they are moved into the
storage basin.
Suggested acceptance criteria for high-level radioactive wastes,
based upon preliminary AEC studies,211>212 are 1) maximum heat
per container, 5 kilowatts; 2) canister diameter, 6 inches to
24 inches? 3) overall length, 2 to 10 feet; 4) maximum weight,
8,000 pounds? 5) canister life, 100 years; and 6) waste in a
stable solid form.
The use of retrievable surface storage facilities assures that
there is a safe solution to the high-level waste problem for
100 years and possibly several centuries. During the time
afforded by this action the AEC intends to continue development
of an integrated high-level waste management program to provide
for optimal ultimate disposal.
218
-------
Description of Retrievable Surface Storage Facility for High-
Level Radioactive Waste
The first stage in construction of the Retrievable Surface
Storage Facility will include six to eight concrete-walled
water basin modules, the preliminary design of which209 is
shown in Figure 30. Each module is capable of storing about
500 high-level waste containers. The modules are lined with
stainless steel and filled with water before high-level waste
containers are emplaced for storage. The height of water above
the top of the canisters is sufficient to protect operating per-
sonnel from radiation. Above the modules is an enclosed working
area from which an overhead crane is used to handle canisters
and the optional cover blocks for each module.
Each storage module will be connected to a water-filled transfer
aisle by a swing-type door which is opened to allow passage of
a waste canister. This door will normally be closed to isolate
the water in the module from other modules in the facility if a
leaking container should release contamination. One canister at
a time is moved under water from the receiving basin through the
stainless steel lined transfer aisle to the storage basin. Con-
taminated canisters are repackaged and/or decontaminated as
required before being placed in the storage basin.
The storage basin will be monitored extensively to detect and
locate overheating or leaking containers. Radiation detection
equipment installed in the recirculating water line of each
storage module will provide an early warning of contamination
buildup in the facility. Leaking canisters will be removed from
the storage module and transferred to the repackaging cell for
repair. The contaminated water in the module and transfer
aisles will be pumped to the liquid waste disposal system and
the storage module and transfer aisles will be decontaminated by
flushing with fresh demineralized water. After completion of
decontamination, fresh demineralized water will replace the
original water.
One central ion-exchange loop consisting of a filter, cooler,
ion-exchanger, and auxiliary equipment to filter and clean the
water in the modules by removing extraneous chemical ions will
treat the storage basin water in all modules. The temperature
of the water in each module will be maintained at 120°F by cir-
culation through a heat exchanger. The process flow diagram for
high-level waste storage in a water basin is illustrated in
Figure 31. A closed loop coolinq system consisting of a 5,000
gallon storage tank, two 1,700 gallon per minute pumps and an
evaporative cooler will remove heat from the storage basin
water.
219
-------
FIGURE 30
LAYOUT OF WATER STORAGE BASIN FOR RETRIEVABLE SURFACE STORAGE
FACILITY FOR HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES
-------
FIGURE 31
BASIN WATER PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FOR RETRIEVABLE SURFACE STORAGE
^FACILITY FOR HIGH-LEVEL.RADIOACTIVE WASTE
-------
The water in the storage basins will provide a large heat sink,
permitting shutdown of the cooling system for preventive main-
tenance and minimizing the effect of power failures or equip-
ment breakdowns. The water temperature will rise from 120°F
after the cooling system is shut down and will reach the boiling
point in about two days.210 Restoration of normal cooling
within a day will lower the temperature of the water in the
storage basins and return the system to normal operating condi-
tions. In the very unlikely event that normal cooling is not
restored within two days, the water will boil and its level
will drop a fraction of an inch per hour.210 The water vapor
evolved will be discharged to the atmosphere. Water from either
normal or emergency supplies will be added to maintain the water
level in the basins until normal cooling is restored. The ven-
tilation filters, which will become plugged with water vapor,
will be replaced before the system is returned to normal oper-
ating conditions.
Unit Operations for Storage of High-Level Radioactive Wastes
The principal unit operations in the RSSF are receiving and
handling, repackaging, and decontamination. These are described
in detail in Appendix S.209
Potential Retrievable Surface Storage of High-Level Radioactive
Waste by the Sealed Storage Cask Concept
An alternative concept for retrievable surface storage of high-
level radioactive waste using cooling by natural air convection
has been proposed and is currently being evaluated.188 Although
this concept was not selected as a primary basis in this study,
it is presented here for information and for consideration in
later studies, pending its evaluation by the AEC. This concept,
designated the Sealed Storage Cask Concept (SSCC), appears to
conform to requirements for self-regulating storage for time
periods of hundreds of years.
In this concept, canisters of solidified waste are stored in
individual heavy-walled cast steel casks. The casks would be
stored out-of-doors to allow natural convection of air around
the casks for cooling. Concrete saddles will elevate the casks
above the ground to reduce the rate of corrosion from the con-
tact with the soil. No backup or emergency cooling systems are
required. Assuming only radiant heat transfer between a waste
canister producing five kilowatts of heat and the internal wall
of the cask, the surface temperature of the canister would be
approximately 550°F and the external temperature of the cask
would be approximately 275°F. Internal convection is expected
to lower these temperatures appreciably, probably to below
200°F.
222
-------
A cask sized to accept a waste canister 12 inches in diameter
and 10 feet long would have external dimensions of 45 inches
diameter and 152 inches length and weigh approximately 35
tons.213 The canister, which would produce 5 kilowatts of heat,
would have steel walls 16 inches thick to reduce the exterior
gamma dose rate. The cask design uses an end shielding plug
which would be welded to the cask body with a deep penetration
weld after the waste container was inserted. A sketch of a
cask positioned on support saddles in the field is shown in
Figure . Recent studies indicate cooling would be augmented
by a vertical orientation.
The Sealed Storage Cask Concept requires special attention to
the problem of neutron exposure. Spontaneous fission of actinide
nuclei in high-level radioactive waste could produce a signifi-
cant neutron dose rate at the surface of the cask. 2114 The most
active neutron producer in the waste is curium-244, which decays1
with an 18 year half-life. Although the neutron dose rate from
the waste after 100 years of storage would be reduced to accept-
able levels at the surface of the cask, restriction of personnel
access to the storage area would be required during »the first
few decades of storage. Such restrictions are common and manda-
tory in many nuclear activities.
Preliminary economic analysis of this concept indicates that
capital and operating costs may be less than a water basin
storage system.215 Since the preliminary analysis of the con-
cept has not identified any technical or hazard reasons to dis-
qualify it from the safety viewpoint, the concept is being
developed further in parallel with the water basin and other
storaae systems.
Costs for High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository
Preliminary cost estimates have been made for the high-level
waste repository to provide an initial economic appraisal of the
conceptual design. The facility would be constructed in stages
to handle wastes from a growing nuclear economy. By the early
19 8 0s the first stage of construction would be completed and
the facility would be in operation. This first stage includes
the receiving and handling facilities and storage modules capable
of storing a total of 3,000 waste containers. Since a construc-
tion schedule has not been established, all costs were estimated
in 1973 dollars with no allowance for escalation.
The capital costs of the high-level waste facility were derived
from preliminary estimates by the Atlantic Richfield Hanford
Company for the AEC and are shown in detail only to give an
example of the cost components. More recent estimates with
reasonable variations of the cost parameters indicate capital
223
-------
FIGURE 32
SEALED STORAGE CASK CONCEPT FOR RETRIEVABLE SURFACE
STORAGE OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
45" DIA. X 13* LG.
CAST STEEL CASK
( 35 TON)
12" DIA. X 10' LG CONTAINER
5KW DECAY HEAT
PRECAST
CONCRETE
SUPPORT
SADDLES
^ STEEL SHIELDING PLUG
WELDED IN PLACE BY
ELECTROSLAG WELDING
PROCESS
NOTE: VERTICAL ORIENTATION MAY ALSO BE USED.
224
-------
costs in the range of $20 million to $40 million. The size of
the repository, the quantities of concrete and structural steel
required, the quantity of mechanical and electrical equipment
necessary to provide safe cooling, the amount of stainless steel
required to line the water basins, the quantity and type of
equipment needed for handling and repackaging waste containers,
process controls, auxiliary equipment, electrical wiring, plumb-
ing, and surveillance instrumentation were considered in the
estimates.
A preliminary estimate of the total initial capital cost of the
facility is about $37 million. The first stage of construction
includes the receiving and handling facilities sized to service
subsequent storage modules. Direct and indirect costs asso-
ciated with the buildings, equipment, and auxiliaries for the
receiving and storage facilities amount to $18.5 million,209'210
as shown in the preliminary estimates listed in Table 33. An
allowance of 75 percent of the direct and indirect costs,
amounting to $14 million, was estimated for the design of the
facility, engineering, quality assurance, and contingencies.208
Additional storage modules would be constructed approximately
every five years to meet projected storage requirements.
Due to the remote possibility of an accidental release of a
significant quantity of radioactive material to the atmosphere
an exclusion area will be required around the plant. The
amount of land which must be acquired for this exclusion area
is determined primarily by the exclusion distance, assumed to
be one mile.209 This would require a site property approx-
imately two miles square, or about 2,500 acres. Assuming the
cost of land at $1,000 per acre, the acquisition of land is
$2.5 million of the capital cost. Access roads on the plant
site for trucks and rail cars add another $2 million of the
total capital cost, which depends on the existing transpor-
tation facilities at the selected site. Off-site transporta-
tion systems costs are not included in the estimate.
Costs for operation of the RSSF for high-level radioactive
wastes are $3 million and result primarily from operating man-
power, utilities, materials consumption, and equipment replace-
ment. The detailed basis used in estimating the operating costs
are given in Appendix S.
Transportation Costs for High-Level Radioactive Wastes
Existing commercial railroad and motor truck equipment and
facilities will be used to transport radioactive wastes to a
repository. A typical high-level waste canister, 12 inches in
diameter by 10 feet long, could be transported in a 30 ton cask
by either truck or rail. Such a cask could be shipped 1,000
225
-------
TABLE 3 3
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF TOTAL COST FOR
HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE RETRIEVABLE SURFACE
STORAGE FACILITY
CAPITAL COST
Receiving Facility:
Building
Equipment
Storage Facility:
Building
Equipment
Auxiliaries:
Utility Supply and
Auxiliary Equipment
Site Preparation
Paving and Landscaping
Total Direct and Indirect
Capital Cost of Plant
Facility Design, Engineering,208
Quality Assurance Fee, and
Contingencies (75% of Direct
and Indirect Capital Cost)
Land Acquisition Cost
Access Roads for Truck and Rail
Total Capital Cost
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (See Appendix S)
Operating Manpower
Materials and Services
Other Operating Costs
Total Annual Operating Costs
Direct and Indirect20
Capital Cost
$ 3.7 million
$ 4.0 million
$ 2.9 million
$ 5.8 million
$ 1.5 million
$ 0.2 million
$ 0.4 million
$18.5
million
$14.0
$ 2.5
million
million
$ 2.0
million
$37.0
million
$ 1.4
million
$ 1.0
million
$ 0.6
million
$ 3.0
million
226
-------
miles by truck for about $1,500 (in 1972 dollars).216 Rail
freight costs are about the same as truck freight costs up to
1,000 miles one-way, but the round-trip shipping time is nearly
doubled. Rail shipment becomes more economically attractive
beyond 1,000 miles if shipping time is not a major considera-
tion .
A significant number of shipments of high-level wastes will be
taking place in th.e early 19 80s and hundreds of shipments will
be "required annually by the "year 2000. Casks containing arrays
of three or more waste canisters weighing between 70 and 100
tons will become economically attractive when enough shipments
are made to keep them in use. Because of their weight, these
casks could only be shipped by rail. However, payload-to-gross-
weight ratio of these large casks is improved by a factor of
2 to 3 over casks with single canisters,211 and shipping costs
per canister would be reduced correspondingly. Handling costs
are estimated" at $1,000 per shipment plus $80 per waste canister.
Freight costs are based on a rate of $50 per ton for carload
shipments (minimum weight approximately 20 tons).216
The design for a high-level waste shipping cask should show com-
pliance with the safety requirements of regulatory agencies212
and minimize the total shipping cost. The purchase costs of
casks were estimated at $2, $3, and $9 per pound for iron, lead
and depleted uranium gamma shielding, respectively.211 Lead
shielded casks weigh about 20 percent less than those with iron
shielding, but have a 20 percent higher capital cost.
For single canister casks shipped by truck, the use of lead
shielding may minimize total shipping cost because the round-
trip time is short and hundreds of shipments could be made in
such a cask during its useful lifetime. The capital cost for
one of these casks, which would weigh about 25 tons, is estimated
to be $225,000.
A large cask shipped by rail car containing six high-level waste
canisters would probably use steel shielding because its round-
trip time would be fairly long and its useful lifetime only
about 100 shipments. An estimate of the capital cost of this
cask, which would weigh about 90 tons, is $360,000.
By the early 1980s approximately 900 high-level waste canisters
will have been shipped to the Federal repository. Assuming the
average one-way shipping distance to be 1,000 miles, if one-third
of the waste is shipped in single-canister casks, the shipping
and handling cost for transporting this waste to the repository
and returning the casks to the fuel reprocessors is approximately
$2.6 million (in 1972 dollars, with no allowance for escalation).
These shipments could probably also be made with a total of six
single-canister casks and three six-canister casks, involving a
total capital cost of about $2.4 million.
227
-------
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES
Low-level radioactive wastes may exist in gaseous, liquid, and
solid forms. Most liquid wastes are treated at the point of
origin to reduce volumes with the provision that effluents have
levels acceptable for release to the environment. The concen-
trated radioactivity is then converted to a solid form which
can be handled in the same way as other low-level solid wastes.
This study deals with wastes with radioactivity levels too high
for on-site burial, therefore requiring transportation•to low-
level repositories.
it is believed that low-level wastes (as defined in this report)
containing significant content of long-lived radionuclides
should be stored in Federal repositories. These wastes can
present long-term hazards equivalent to high-level wastes but
will not present the short-term problem of removal of large
quantities of heat. Thus larger volumes of waste can be stored
in a unit volume of repository and a greater freedom is allowed
in the storage configuration. However containment (short- and
long-term) requirements approximately equal those for high-level
wastes.
The conceptual design presented for the LRSSF is developed here
from one of several alternatives suggested as possibilities in
a preliminary study of an alpha waste interim storage facility
made for the AEC.Jl7»165 Other studies, such as the ongoing
LASL study,218 are not yet sufficiently developed to be the
basis of a conceptual design.
The LRSSF consists of a semi-remote receiving and handling area,
an evaporator for custom volume reduction of liquid wastes, an
incinerator for volume reduction and a high integrity interim
storage warehouse.
The volume reduction at the disposal site would vary greatly
with the solids content of the feed liquid. Although volume
reductions of 50 are commonly attained with ceilulosic wastes,
much of the feed material would not be combustible and could be
sorted to.bypass the incinerator; therefore, a relatively con-
servative overall volume reduction factor of ten for solids is
used for design of the incinerator. A volume reduction factor
of ten was also assumed for design of the evaporator to convert
liquids to solids.
The maximum feed to the processing facility during the year
1980 was established in previous sections to be 2.5 x 10^ cubic
feet of solids and 3 x 107 gallons of liquid. For design pur-
poses a solids production rate in 1980 of 700,000 cubic feet
228
-------
per year by the processing facility was assumed. The accumula-
tion of low-level radioactive waste through the year 1980 will
be 106 cubic feet of incinerator ash (resulting from 107 cubic
feet of combustible solids) and 1.6 x 1()6 cubic feet of other
wastes, or 20,000 of the 4 foot x 6 foot x 6 foot standard waste
storage canisters.
A series of five warehouses with a total of approximately 250,000
square feet of floor space (including aisles, etc.) would be
adequate through 1980 with the containers stacked three high.
It is estimated that 40 percent of this area requires shielding
and 60 percent does not. Future requirements beyond 1980 could
be met by expansion. This facility should remain intact with
assured retrievability for at least 100 years during which time
requirements and technology for ultimate long-term disposal
could be developed.
Strategy for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes
The current storage/disposal method for low-level wastes is
direct burial in trenches which are then covered with soil.
Commercial burial sites (and contractors at AEC sites before
1970) have placed all solid wastes, including those with a
high cellulose content, directly in the ground and then back-
filled with soil. In some instances liquid wastes have been
converted to a "solid" by mixing with paper, concrete or diato-
maceous earth and then directly buried. Generally speaking,
there has been little discrimination between low-level wastes
with a predominance of fission product contamination and those
with actinide contamination.
In view of the long-term toxicity associated with most low-level
wastes (specifically, those containing actinide radionuclides)
it is believed that the current AEC practice of 20 year storage
(rather than disposal) should be extended to commercial sites.
Consideration should also be given to extending the retrievable
storage period to 100 years. The goal should be a retrievable
storage period necessary for development of "ultimate" disposal
technology.
Preliminary estimates for several high integrity low-level waste
storage concepts in an AEC-supported study were in the range
of $3 to $5 pter cubic foot,217 compared to a cost of about $1
per cubic foot (plus transportation) in the current commercial
practice of direct burial.219 Because of the potential for con-
tamination spread in the event of a fire, it may be advisable
to render all combustible low-level waste material incombustible
before storage. Prior destruction of combustibles has the ad-
229
-------
vantage of significant volume and storage cost reduction. Sim-
ilar reasoning is applicable to concentration/solidification of
liquids.
Inevitably, there will be a host of users of radioisotopes
without adequate volume reduction and/or solidification facil-
ities. Thus the retrievable surface storage facility for low-
level wastes (LRSSF) should include such capabilities in order
to perform custom processing. Fees for the service could be
based on the initial volume of waste, the final solids content
of the "ashes", the corrosiveness of the chemicals present, and
the radioactivity level in the solid or liquid waste.
An AEC task force220 studied the costs of existing and proposed
facilities for reduction of solid wastes by incineration. Their
results (Table 34) show that an elaborate offgas treatment
system is required for incineration, the capital costs are
relatively independent of throughput rate, and operating costs
per unit throughput are a strong function of rate. Sources of
small outputs may be unable to afford an incinerator, and it
may be economically desirable to consolidate compaction from
large sources unless transportation costs for the wastes are
high. Other waste volume reduction techniques which are in
earlier stages of development are discussed in Appendix T.
The early focal point for a disposal site for commercial low-
level wastes centered on storage in bedded salt. Storage of
low-level radioactive wastes is already being practiced by West
Germany in a salt mine at Asse.221 No preferred concept for
ultimate disposal of low-level wastes exists. Preliminary con-
cepts for interim retrievable surface storage facilities for
these wastes were investigated briefly by the Atlantic Richfield
Hanford Company (ARHCO) for the AEC in a study reported in June
1972.132 The major concepts suggested by ARHCO were 1) single-
level surface vaults with personnel access or warehouses
strengthened to withstand tornadoes and earthquakes, 2) multi-
level vaults, 3) "canyon"-type concrete vaults without person-
nel access to failed containers, 4) silos for bulk storage of
incinerator ash, 5) an "artificial mountain" honeycombed with
vaults that might be converted into a permanent repository, and
6) direct burial of 55 gallon drums in concrete-lined and
covered V trenches. Clearly, all of these concepts provide
retrievable surface storage.
Currently, design bases for storage of at least the transuranic
portion of the low-level wastes are being defined for the AEC
by the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. The tasks in this
program are defined as 1) Characterization of Alpha Wastes,
230.
-------
TABLE 34
INCINERATOR COSTS AT LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE FACILITY
FOR 1980 THROUGHPUT
Fraction of Solid Waste
Processes at
Storage Facility
Maximum
Throughput
(pounds per hour)
Capital
Costs
Operating Costs
{$ per cubic foot)
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
143
285
712
1430
$1.4 million
1.5 million
1.7 million
2.0 million
6.0
3.8
2.3
2.0
-------
2) Characterization of Environments, 3) Hazards and Conse-
quences Evaluation, 4) Proposed Criteria for Alpha Wastes, and
5) Optimization of Form Environment. Early work is directed
toward waste storage problems associated with thermal and radio-
lytic waste degradation, chemical characterization of wastes,
methods for screening stations and monitoring of large volumes
of solid wastes, and preliminary radiological considerations
and packaqe integrity during the first 20 years of retrievable
storage. 8
A further consideration outside the scope of current high- and
low-level waste management involves oversized contaminated pro-
cess equipment. This waste could be stored as is, the origi-
nator could be required to reduce its bulk, or the national
disposal facility could contain sawing and mechanical compac-
tion equipment. With the large size and weight penalties for
packaging and shipping of solid radioactive wastes, any reduc-
tion to the standard maximum package size should be done before
receipt at the disposal site.
In the context of this report, the national disposal site will
consist of a processing facility and a storage facility. The
terminology "national disposal site" for low-level radioactive
wastes is at variance with the usual terminology, '"storage site",
used in the nuclear industry for burial grounds or repositories
for low-level wastes.
Criteria and General Description for Retrievable
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage System
The overall criteria used for the conceptual design of the
treatment and storage of low-level radioactive wastes in this
report are derived from those previously cited for high-level
wastes. The basic premise is that the system should not permit
the release of biologically significant amounts of radioactivity
into the environment.
The system for storage of low-level radioactive wastes was
designed to meet the following requirements:
• it should accept sealed canisters of chemi-
cally, thermally, and radiolytically stable,
solid low-level radioactive wastes;
• for those low-level wastes which were not con-
verted to an acceptable form prior to receipt at
the disposal site, it should provide conversion
services for additional fees. These services
consist of sorting, handling, volume reduction
232
-------
of combustible solid wastes, evaporation-solid-
ification of liquid wastes, and encapsulation of
wastes which require treatment;
it should provide instantaneous processing capa-
city at the rate of waste production in 1980 for
a plant operating at an efficiency of 80 percent
(24 hr/day, 7 day/week operation);
the health and safety of the public and the pro-
tection of the environment should be assured;
storage capacity for all treated and packaged
low-level radioactive wastes accumulated between
1973 and 1980 should be provided;.
operation should be safe and should include the
ability to maintain canister integrity and retriev-
ability after extended periods of time;
effluent emissions should be controlled at least
to those in 10 CFR 20, and may be required to
approach those in proposed Appendix I to 10 CFR
5010 6,138 for nuclear reactors, which are generally
1.0 percent to 0.001 percent of those now in
CFR 20;
the stored wastes should be retrievable under all
conditions;
the facility should be able to withstand all
credible natural forces;
reasonable capital investment should be made
consistent with the objectives of safe waste
storage with retrievability for 100 years or
more and safe recovery from planned events;
construction should be modular to provide space
on a schedule consistent with future waste
deliveries;
contamination-free operation should be provided;
and
operations at the disposal site should be mini-
mized when the burden of special operations
necessary to meet strict acceptance criteria can
reasonably be conducted by the shippers.
233
-------
Until a concept for permanent disposal* of low-level radioactive
wastes becomes available, a retrievable surface storage facility
should be used to store low-level radioactive wastes. It is
assumed in this study that only one such facility will be
required by 1980.
Other design considerations, such as surveillance, design life-
time, and integrity should be similar to those for high-level
wastes.
The use of man-made retrievable surface storage facilities
assures that there is a safe solution to the low-level waste
problem for many tens of years and possibly several centuries.
During this period development of an integrated waste manage-
ment program should be completed to provide for optimal ultimate
disposal.
Description of Retrievable Surface Storage Facility for Low-
Level Radioactxve Wastes
The concept selected for disposal of low-level radioactive wastes
consists of a processing facility for volume reduction plus a
facility for storage of the packaged residue for up to 100 years.
A flow diagram for the operations in the facility is shown in
Figure 33.
The head-end materials-handling portion of the facility will
provide systems for receiving and storage of liquid and solid
wastes, segregation of solid wastes into combustible and non-
combustible fractions, and decontamination facilities for trans-
portation, materials handling, and process equipment. Material-
will flow from the head-end materials handling facility to the
processing systems or storage. The facility will be capable of
handling radioactive materials shipped by rail or truck in bulk
or package condition. The receiving section will have access
to the decontamination facility so that transportation equipment
can be decontaminated as required. The receiving facility will
be housed in the processing building to assure that all radio-
active materials are contained during transfer operations.
*Permanent disposal of low-level radioactive wastes may require
confinement for hundreds of thousands of years. A practical
technique for accomplishing this is not yet available.
234
-------
FIGURE 33
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROCESSING AND STORAGE FACILITY
CLEAN GAS TO
ENVIRONMENT
UN SORTED
COMBUSTIBLE
SOLID WASTES
COMBUSTIBLES
CJ>
SEMi-
REMOTE
RECEIVING
FACILITY
NONCOMBUSTIBLES
LIQUID
WASTES
ASH
CLEAN
WATER
DRY
NONCOMBUSTI BLE
INCINERATED
WASTE
IN 4'x4'x6'
CONTAINERS
6'x6'x4' CONTAINERS
TRANSPORT
TRANSPORT
POTENTIAL EVENTUAL
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
RETENTION
POND
CONDENSER
SORTER
EVAPORATOR
INCINERATOR
CANNING
FACILITY
GAS
CLEANING
EQUIPMENT
HIGH INTEGRITY WAREHOUSE
FOR STORAGE
~ 100 YR DURATION
-------
Sufficient storage will be provided for one week's production
capacity of both liquid and solid wastes prior to processing or
final placement for storage. Several storage tanks will be pro-
vided so that the liquids can be segregated, neutralized, mixed
with other wastes, and prepared as fuel for the evaporation or
incineration processes. Multiple glove boxes equipped with
sorting equipment will allow segregation of the solid waste into
noncombustible fractions for transfer to storage or to the pack-
ing area for final packaging prior to storage. Feed preparation
of combustibles for incineration will also be performed in glove
boxes. The decontamination facility to be located in the head-
end materials handling and processing facility will be designed
to handle the transportation equipment as well as equipment used
in the processing facility. ,
Both combustible liquids and solids will be fed into a remotely
controlled incinerator in a shielded area or into an alternative
processing scheme for oxidation and volume reduction. Due to the
present state-of-the-art, incineration was selected. Use of
controlled air incineration to minimize the generation of fly
ash and to provide complete oxidation of the offgases is antici-
pated. The offgases will be routed through a gas cleaning system
to assure.that the releases are within standards. The same off-
gas cleaning equipment will be used to process noncondensible
gas from the evaporation and condenser system. The gas cleaning
system will consist of wet and dry mist elimination systems,' a
wet scrubber, and a final stage of High Efficiency Particulate
(HEPA) filters. Solids from the incinerator and the gas cleaning
systems will be transferred to the solids processing system for
final packaging.
Noncombustible liquids will be processed through a remotely
operated evaporator located in a shielded area. Special modifi-
cations of evaporation equipment may have to be designed to
handle these radioactive liquids. Solids from the evaporation
step will be transferred to the solids processing system for
final packaging. Overheads from the evaporation system will be
condensed to remove condensables and noncondensables will be
routed through the gas cleaning system for particulate removal
before discharge to the atmosphere. Condensate and all other
process water will be routed to a retention basin for chemical
and radioactive analysis before final discharge. Wastewaters
that do not meet effluent standards will be recycled through
the evaporation system.
The solids processing systems will be designed to handle all
noncombustible solid wastes capable of fitting into the standard
4 foot x 6 foot x 6 foot high metal canisters. The facility
will not be capable of processing large pieces of equipment for
disposal (as previously discussed, these will have been reduced
236
-------
in size and packaged at their sources) but it will include
packaging and compaction equipment. It is anticipated that the
final canister will have a welded closure to assure long-term
containment. A decontamination section is provided to allow
for final decontamination of the waste canisters as part of the
final packaging facility. The packaging operation will be per-
formed in glove boxes to control contamination.
The processing systems will be housed in a building with two or
three ventilation zones to assure that air is always flowing
from the zones of lower-level contamination to the zones of
higher-level contamination. Building ventilation will be a
major design consideration for this facility since personnel and
the environment must be protected from the escape of contami-
nation. All processing and operations must be done in enclosed
hood-type facilities, detailed design of which must be carried
out with extreme care to assure confinement of radioactive con-
tamination. All waste products (solid and liquid) generated
within the facility, primarily from decontamination operations,
are processed internally and handled as waste received from
outside sources.
The receiving, handling and processing facility will be connected
to two central corridors which in turn connect with the several
warehouse structures. For 1980 a total of five warehouses, each
100 feet wide by 500 feet long, will be arranged side by side and
will connect at right angles to the central corridors. Each
warehouse can accommodate 4,000 waste containers in layers
three high. Future expansion of the storage facility will be
achieved by building additional warehouses and extending the
central corridors. The overall layout is shown in Figure 34.
Two types of warehouses are used, one of which will be for wastes
requiring shielding (up to about three feet of ordinary con-
crete) . Waste canisters which require shielding are transferred
by remotely operated crane down through the access corridor to
the entrance of the appropriate warehouse. There the waste
canister is transferred to the remotely-operated warehouse crane
for transfer through the air lock and into its storage position.
Wastes which do not require shielding are transported by fork-
lift.
Each warehouse is provided with its independent supply of
treated and prefiltered ventilation air. The compartmented
ventila-tion exhaust from each warehouse is separately filtered
and monitored prior to joining the exhaust air from the remain-
ing warehouses. This compartmentation facilitates identifi-
cation of canisters which have developed leaks during storage.
All exhaust air from each warehouse is combined and passed
through a bank of high efficiency filters and is monitored
before being exhausted through the central facility stack.
237
-------
FIGURE 34
to
u>
00
OVERALL LAYOUT OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE FACILITY
¦--] I 1
RECEIVING
AND
PROCESSING
FACILITY
SHIELDED
WAREHOUSES
1 r
I
I
I
__.11...
FUTURE
EXPANSION
1 I
CENTRAL ACCESS CORRIDOR
^STACK^ AIR LOCK ENTRANCE (TYPICAL!
CENTRA
V /
RETENTION POND
L ACCESS CORR
UNSHIELDED
WAREHOUSES
DOR
" T ~
TT
STORAGE
WAREHOUSE
(TYPICAL'
-------
Unit Operations for Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Unit operation at the disposal site for low-level radioactive
wastes will involve 1) receiving, sorting, and handling;
2) decontamination of transportation devices, work areas, and
equipment; 3) concentration, conversion to solid, and canning
(e.g., incineration of solid wastes and evaporation of liquid
wastes); and 4) storage for an extended period.
These operations are discussed in detail in Appendix t.1 00,222-226
Environmental Safeguards at the Repository Site for Low-
Level Radioactive Waste
A detailed survey of the geology of the site with regard to
groundwater flow and aquifer characterization, structural and
long-term stability characteristics of the underlying strata,
and tectonic stability and frequency of earthquakes will be
required before the plant is located.
Prevailing meteorological conditions (wind velocity and direc-
tion versus time, air "dilution" factors, precipitation) and
background radioactivity should be monitored and well estab-
lished before site selection and during site operation. Because
of the long storage time anticipated, population trends should
be anticipated and the existence of the storage facility should
be considered in long-range local and regional plans. Arid
regions of low population density With deep water tables are
generally preferred but are not essential. It is assumed that
an exclusion distance of at least one mile around the activities
within the site, or especially ."rom the ventilation stack loca-
tion, would allow for good atmospheric dilution.
Safety Provisions
Provision for improbable but possible spills and accidents in
the receiving area will be identical to those which must occur
during transportation (discussed in Appendix Q). Unloading
will be done within an enclosed area with well controlled vent-
ilation t9 prevent direct release of contamination to the
environment wh'ich might result from surface contamination of
containers or rupture of containers during handling. Isolation
of spills and cleanup following routine radioactive decontami-
nation procedures192 will be effected. High radiation levels
in wastes will be contained by special shielding. All other
material with low radiation doses will be treated in hoods or
glove boxes in the same way plutonium is handled in nuclear
fuel plants. Direct monitoring of personnel for radioactive
contamination and indirect monitoring of radiation doses with
239
-------
badges, pencils, and rings will be conducted. Because of the
definition of low-level wastes, no significant heat generation
problem is anticipated.
Evaporator operation results in the entrainment of some radio-
active aerosols, which are controlled with close-coupled off-
gas equipment, and is by far the process step with the most
potential for contamination spread by incidents such as temper-
ature and pressure excursions. Combustion of organic liquids
and cellulose in materials could result in temperature excur-
sions and possible explosions if operating conditions become
abnormal. Design for automatic pressure relief (to another
enclosed vent system) and equipment shutdown would be an
integral part of equipment design, particularly in view of the
potential hazard of the radioactivity in the processed material.
Release of radioactivity outside of the processing facility
would be avoided by backup ventilation decontaminating (filter)
systems in case the primary offgas treatments fail. Spills
resulting from the canning operation would be handled with
routine isolation and cleanup procedures. Sampling of the
retention pond should prevent aqueous releases. Environmental
surveillance should include the placement of nearby wells for
sampling purposes.
Safety problems associated with the storage facility are 1) can
rupture followed by contamination spread, 2) criticality,
3) overheating, and 4) natural disasters. Can rupture will be
detected by ventilation gas sampling, followed by isolation
and removal procedures. Criticality potential detection equip-
ment will be located in the storage array. Similarly, temper-
ature recording will detect unusual radioactive heating. These
will be supplemented with automatic fire alarms and automatic
fire fighting equipment. Fire should be avoidable in the
storage areas because combustible wastes will have been prev-
iously incinerated. The facility will be constructed to sur-
vive tornadoes and earthquakes and located to avoid floods and
ground subsidence. Procedures to prevent sabotage or theft are
not yet well developed beyond the usual military-type guard
system, a factor which must be considered in detail during the
final design phase. In any event, a high, unclimbable fence
will surround the total property of the disposal site, and
another fence should probably be installed around the proces-
sing and warehouse area. The total site should have appropri-
ate audio/visual surveillance.
Accountability and Monitoring
A major problem in handling low-lievel radioactive wastes is
the determination of the amount of radioactivity in the
incoming wastes. Waste producers will be required to inventory
240
-------
radioactivity in the wastes they send in terms of curies or
grams of fissile materials and curies or grams of other radio-
active materials.
The incoming wastes must be monitored for total radiation level,
external contamination and the total fissile content (to deter-
mine the potential for achieving criticality). It should not
be necessary to reopen cans already adequately treated and
packaged for storage. The initial monitoring will result in
segregation on the basis of radiation level, the need for con-
tainer decontamination, and the need for treatment. Normal
radiation monitoring and isolation techniques should be used
in the sorting area with the assumption that all materials con-
tain plutonium.
All effluents of the volume reduction processes will be moni-
tored (stack gases, retention pond effluent) before release.
Because of the possibility of accidental releases during pro-
cessing, environmental monitoring of air, water, land, and
biota and people around the site should be conducted continu-
ally or routinely.
The solid waste materials should be monitored before canning to
provide an estimate of the content of specific nuclides. This
will require some sampling. It is hoped that the technology
for low-level continuous inventorying of solids will be. developed
to perform this task, but such technology is not available at
this time. A more feasible alternative would be to do "whole
body" monitoring of the can after sealing. Improvements in
current technology would also be needed for this operation. A
check for consistency would then be made between an accumulation
of measured can contents and the estimates at the source/ with
a best estimate being assigned forever to the can contents.
Inventory controls would be imposed to decrease the likelihood
of creating a critical mass during storage and to segregate
temporarily high radiation field materials until decay.
A continuous program of air sampling and can monitoring is
needed to check for failed cans.
Once the wastes are safely canned and stored in the warehouses,
accountability of radioactive materials is largely a matter of
restricting unauthorized access to the facility, keeping ade-
quate records of inventories placed in storage, properly label-
ing each can for identification, and periodically estimating
real-time and projected inventories of radionuclides that build
up and decay as time progresses. This last item seriously com-
plicates the inventory record problem, but it is desirable to
help define the current and future potential- hazard of the waste
241
-------
and to provide input data for decisions that might be necessary
regarding future disposition of the waste. Duplicate records
should be kept in permanent, offsite storage centers so that
future generations can have access to them.
Costs for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site
The capital and operating costs for facilities with incineration
capacities of up to 500 pounds per hour have been estimated, but
no data on actual operating or capital costs for facilities of
the size required to meet the total production rate in 1980 were
available.220 Therefore, a capital and operating cost estimate
was made for a facility that could concentrate an average of
3,500 gallons of liquid radioactive waste and incinerate an
average of 1,400 pounds of solid radioactive waste per hour
(these are average hourly.production values comparable to the
annual rates previously described). The capital and operating
costs of remote radioactive processing facilities are highly
dependent on the design criteria and operational procedures
established for the facility. The details of these high-spot
estimates are presented in Appendix U.
Capital Costs
The estimated capital cost for the processing facility is rounded
to $20 million, as shown in Table 35. The high-spot capital
cost for the storage facility is $24 million, also shown in
Table 35.
The storage warehouse will occupy a space of about five acres.
The processing facility will be smaller, about 0.5 acres. To
provide added protection for the public, a controlled plant area
will be needed around the plant and warehouse. A one mile
exclusion distance should be adequate for low-level wastes.
This would require a site property of about 2,500 acres.
Assuming the cost of land is $1,000 per acre, the acqui-
sition of land is about $2,500,000. Access roads on the
plant site for both truck and rail car add another $2 million
to the total capital cost.
Costs were established on the basis of buildings able to with-
stand tornadoes and earthquakes, with use of the present state-
of-the-art practice for contamination control, shielding, and
remote handling. Capital is also dependent on the height to
which the canisters are stacked. The standard 4 foot x 6 foot
x 6 foot high canisters can be stored from one to five high
and satisfy technical requirements for storage. If containers
are stacked three high, the capital cost for a storage facility
is $8.19 per cubic foot of material stored.
242
-------
TABLE 3 5
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS FOR LOW-LEVEL
WASTE RETRIEVABLE SURFACE STORAGE FACILITY
PROCESSING FACILITY ESTIMATED COST, $
Head End Material Handling $4,100,000
Incineration Area 1,900,000
Evaporation Area 1,600,000
Waste Packaging Area 640,000
Auxiliaries 900,000
Total Direct & Indirect Capital Costs $9,140,000
Design and Contingencies 6,860,000
Subtotal 16,000., 000
Land Acquisition Cost 2,500,000
Access Roads for Truck and Rail 2,000,000
Total Capital Costs for Processing ~20 500 000
Facility ' '
STORAGE FACILITY
Two Shielded Buildings $10,000,000
Three Unshielded Buildings 7,500,000
Design Contingencies 6 ,100,000
Total Storage Facility Cost $23,600,000
TOTAL COMPLEX CAPITAL COST $44,100,000
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS $ 5,570,000
Processing $ 5,570,000
Storage 1,330,000
TOTAL COMPLEX OPERATING COST $ 6,900,000
243
-------
Operating Costs
Operating costs were developed using the capital costs as the
primary basis.
Total operating costs were estimated to be $10 per cubic foot
of solids stored or $1 per cubic foot of solid waste as received,
and $0.14 per gallon of liquid as received. Storage operating
costs for the year 1980 were estimated to be $2.40 per cubic
foot per year. The operating costs are dependent primarily on
capital costs and operating efficiency. This study shows that
the processing costs ($5 , 600,000/yr) will be the major cost item
and the storage costs ($1,300,000/yr) the minor cost item per year,
but the storage costs are accumulative over a period of years.
Design and Construction Schedule
The major elements involved in implementing a radioactive pro-
cessing and storage facility include overall hazard and concept
analysis, design, construction, acceptance testing, and environ-
mental impact and licensing activities. The length of time
required for impact statement and licensing activities is
difficult to estimate, as no precedent has been set. If the
disposal site is built and operated by a firm with experience
in handling and disposal of radioactive wastes, safety analysis
and environmental impact activity can probably be completed in
two to three years. Assuming that detail design is not started
until all licensing and environmental impact work is complete,
an additional three years would be required before the plant
could be operable at full capacity. Thus, the total time
requirement would be about six years. If the environmental
impact and licensing work can be conducted in parallel with some
design and construction, the facility might be fully operational
in a minimum of approximately five years.
Transportation Costs for- Low-Level Radioactive Wastes
For estimating costs in 1972 dollars a highly simplified model
is used. Estimated average values of all variables are used
throughout. It is assumed that all waste is shipped a one-way
distance of 300 miles, half by rail and half by motor freight.
The waste is packed in expendable 55 gallon drums (type A),
which are in turn carried inside a large type B overpack.186
The reusable overpack has the standardized external dimensions
of 8 x 8 x 20 feet, weighs 7.5 tons, and holds 4 2 drums weighing
up to a total of 15 tons.
244
-------
The capital cost is the purchase price of the reusable overpacks.
The operating costs are assumed to have four significant compo-
nents: freight costs "(including the return' of the empty over-
pack) ; purchase costs of the expendable drums; handling costs
to pack and load the containers; and capitalization costs
(amortization and interest).
The AEC has estimated that the annual volume of low-level
wastes in 1980 will be 4,000,000 cubic feet per year.189 Un-
fortunately, a corresponding weight is not given. It is
assumed here that the average density is 7 0 pounds per cubic
foot (including the weight of the drum). This value is an
average of the values for compacted wastes (40 pounds per cubic
foot)22 * and for cemented solid wastes (100 pounds per cubic
foot).227 With these bases, the weight of the low-level wastes
produced in the year 1980 will be 120,000 tons. Assuming the
42 drums in a shipment are completely filled, there will be a
total of 13,000 shipments per year.
Capital costs have been estimated as follows: the number of
days required for a round trip (including loading and unloading)
is nine days, the average of values for rail and truck.216
Assuming an overpack utilization factor of one-half (the equiv-
alent of idle time adding an additional nine days per round
trip)-, each overpack is shipped about 20 times per year. Thus,
a total of 630 overpacks is required. Assuming a cost of $2
per pound for the overpacks, the total capital cost would be
$19,000,000.
To estimate the freight costs the rates for rail and truck
loads of 44,000 pounds are averaged to give $2.10 per hundred
weight. Assuming the return trip of the empty overpack costs
one-half of the amount of the loaded trip, and considering the
ratio of tare to net weight, the effective freight cost is $95
per ton of waste. The cost of the expendable drums, of which
540,000 are needed, is estimated to be $20 per each. To
obtain the handling costs, it is assumed that it takes 40 man-
hours of labor to pack and seal 100 drums and 24 man-hours to
load an overpack for shipment. It is assumed that costs of
unloading at the disposal site are included in the storage
charges. Labor costs (including a multiplier for overhead)
are assumed to be $10 per hour. Capitalization costs (amorti-
zation and interest) are assumed to be 20 percent of the capital
costs per year. The resulting operating costs are given in
Table 36 both in terms of the annual costs and various unit
costs, including costs per unit weight, costs per unit volume,
and costs per shipment.
245
-------
TABLE 36
1973 OPERATING COSTS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES IN 1980
Category
Total $
(million/yr)
Per Unit Weight
($/ton)
Per Unit^Volume
($/ftJ)
Per Shipment
($/trip)
Freight
11.4
95
2.9
880
Drums
10.8
90
2.7
830
Labor
5.3
44
1.4
410
Capitalization
3.8
32
1.0
290
Total
31.3
261
8.0
2410
-------
Costs of Retrieval of Buried Low-Level Radioactive Wastes
A sizable quantity of low-level radioactive wastes has heretofore
been direct-buried at commercial burial sites and at AEC facili-
ties before 1970. Subsequent burials at AEC sites have been in
"retrievable" drums with 20 year integrity.
A recent study168 of the AEC site at Hanford, Washington, indi-
cated costs of $45 million for retrieval of 5.2 million cubic
feet of wastes in burial grounds at a rate of $8 per buried
cubic foot.
At the above rate the cost of retrieval in 19 80 of 2.5 x 10^
cubic feet of buried commercial wastes with an accompanying
tenfold volume of soil would be about $20 million, or eight
times the cost of burial with present practices. Assuming a
storage cost of $10 per cubic foot in a more permanent storage
facility such as that designed in this study, the total cost of
storage of the retrieved commercial waste and its accompanying
soil would be about $250 million.
Thus the cost of a decision in 1980 to dig up the buried wastes
would be on the order of $300 million, or more than one hundred
times the cost of direct burial and much more than the cost of
high integrity storage of the original wastes even without volume
reduction by incineration.
247
-------
248
-------
CHAPTER CONTENTS
CHAPTER VI
SITING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE PROCESSING
AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
BRIEF
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF SITE SELECTION
HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
DEVELOPMENT OF SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
EARTH SCIENCES
Geological Criteria
Hydrological Criteria
Soil Criteria
Climatological Criteria
TRANSPORTATION
ECOLOGY
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES UTILIZATION
SITE SCREENING PROCEDURES
Area Size Determination
INFORMATION SOURCES
REGIONAL DIVISIONS
COUNTY SUBDIVISIONS
RANKING AND WEIGHING SYSTEMS—DEVELOPMENT AND
APPLICATION
Page No.
251
255
256
257
258
258
260
261
263
265
267
269
271
272
272
273
274
276
249
-------
CHAPTER VI
SITING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE PROCESSING
AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
BRIEF
Section 212 of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970 places the
following requirement on this study:
,...Such report shall include:...(4) an inventory
of possible sites including existing land or water
disposal sites operated or licensed by Federal
agenci es.
This phase of the study requires assessment of potential waste
processing and/or disposal sites on a nationwide basis, par-
ticularly for the 48 conterminous states, with the objective
of selecting a wide assortment of candidate sites which best
fulfill predetermined site selection criteria. These criteria
principally involve major health, safety, and environmental
parameters, as well as related potential economic trade-offs
primarily associated with costs of transportation and offsite
disposal of the processing plant's liquid and solid waste pro-
ducts. Such trade-offs should not compromise other considera-
tions of site integrity, however. Other economic factors
would include land values and the availability of adequate
utility services (water supply, electrical energy, etc.). The
guiding philosophy for choosing hazardous waste disposal sites
has been to minimize any potential environmental consequences.
The development of initial site-screening criteria embracing
the areas of health, safety, and the environment has drawn
heavily upon expertise in a number of scientific and engineering
disciplines. This task demanded a technical team with extensive
practical knowledge of hazardous waste problems and their solu-
tions, as well as the ability to recognize the many interrela-
tionships anong the criteria areas being defined and evaluated.
As a first step in establishing site selection or screening
criteria, it was necessary to define the general criteria, which
were determined to lie within four major categories: earth
sciences and climatology (i.e., physical and chemical consid-
erations) ; ecology; transportation; and human environment and
resources utilization. The second step required further deter-
mination of the parameters to be assessed in each category, the
quantitative "desirable-undesirable" limits associated with
251
-------
those parameters in the context of siting a hazardous waste pro-
cessing/disposal site, and the pertinent nationwide information
needed to maintain site-screening consistency among and between
the various parameters and categories. Evaluation of this phase
of the study naturally led to the question of the size of areas
to be surveyed in the screening process.
Although a typical processing/disposal site will nominally occupy
several hundred acres, it was not practicable to screen the
entire country on such a small areal basis. Furthermore, the
information needed for such a country-wide procedure (with very
few exceptions, such as population density) is not available on
such detailed, small-scale areas. The available information
varies greatly in consistency within and between States, depend-
ing upon the organizations and objectives for which the infor-
mation was collected. Thus, the country had to be surveyed on
a manageable area-size basis using developed site-screening
criteria and relevant data presented in a uniform nationwide
manner. The county-size areal unit (3,050 counties in the con-
terminous U.S.) appeared to be of manageable size for the survey.
Additionally, much of the needed information is presented on a
county basis in such publications as the National Atlas.228
These two favorable considerations resulted in a desirable bal-
ance between the number of areas to be evaluated and the amount
and consistency of data readily available for each area.
The general approach of the site selection process was to firs£
divide the U.S. into multi-county regions. Each county within
a region was then ranked according to predetermined major factors
and the rankings aggregated to obtain the total ranking. Spheres
of influence for major industrial waste production areas served
as the bases for regional delineation (see Table 37).
Ranking of counties according to specific characteristics in
each of the four criteria categories, without regard to waste
generation sources and amounts, is insufficient when considering
transportation of wastes. It is necessary to consider both the
transpqrtation risk and economic aspects in selecting potential
sites for processing/disposal facilities. To help compensate
for this potential shortcoming, the country was divided into 36
regions with boundaries established primarily on the basis of
equal distance from common waste sources and amounts, modified
by physiographic considerations. The counties in each region
were then evaluated and assigned relative rankings in each cri-
teria area.
The ranking procedure which was developed recognized that the
four criteria categories would not be of equal weight in deter-
mining site suitability. Indeed, such an equal weighting of
evaluation parameters is rare in any decision-making process.
252
-------
TABLE 37
INDUSTRIAL WASTE PRODUCTION CENTERS
1. Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Bellingham, WA
2. Portland, OR; Vancouver, Longview, WA
3. San Francisco Bay Area, CA
4. Ventura, Los Angeles, Long Beach, CA
5. San Diego, CA
6. Phoenix, AZ
7. Salt Lake, Ogden, UT
8. Idaho Falls, Pocatello, ID
9. Denver, CO
10. Santa Fe, Albuquerque, NM
11. El Paso, TX
12. Fort Worth, Dallas, Waco, TX
13. Austin, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, TX
14. Houston, Beaumont, Port Arthur, Texas City, Galveston, TX
15. Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Bartlesville, OK
16. Wichita, Topeka, Kansas City, KS
17. Omaha, Lincoln, NB; Des Moines, IA
18. Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, MN
19. Cedar Rapids, MI; Burlington, Dubuque, IA; Peoria, IL
20. St. Louis, MO; Springfield, IL
21. Memphis, TN
253
-------
TABLE 37 (Cont'd)
22. Shreveport, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, LA; Jackson, MS
23. Mobile, Montgomery, AL; Tallahassee, FL; Beloxi, Gulfport,
MS; Columbus, GA
24. Huntsville, Birmingham, AL; Atlanta, Macon, GA;
Chattanooga, Nashville, TN
25. Louisville, Frankfort, Lexington, KY; Evansville, IN
26. Albany, Troy, Schenectady, NY
27. Indianapolis, IN; Cincinnati, Dayton, OH
28. Chicago, Kankakee, IL; Gary, South Bend, Hammond, Fort
Wayne, IN
29. Midland, Saginaw, Grand Rapids, Detroit, Dearborn, Flint,
MI; Toledo, OH
30. Columbus, Cleveland, Youngstown, Akron, OH
31. Pittsburgh, Johnstown, Erie, PA
32. Charleston, WV; Portsmouth, Norfolk, VA
33. Charleston, SC; Savannah, Augusta, GA
34. Winston-Salem, Raleigh, Greensboro, Charlotte, NC
35. Baltimore, MD
36. Philadelphia, Allentown, Harrisburg, PA; Camden, Elizabeth,
NJ; Wilmington, DE
37. New York, NY; Newark, Paterson, NJ
38. Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Watertown, NY
39. Boston, MA
40. Orlando, Tampa, Miami, FL
41. Little Rock, Pine Bluff, Hot Springs, AR
254
-------
Accordingly, an analysis was carried out to determine the
appropriate relative weights for each major criteria cate-
gory. The final rating or score of a county within a region
was the sum of the products of the rank within each criteria
category and the weighting of that criteria category.
This screening, ranking and rating procedure was applied to
all counties located in the 3 6 regions which cover the country.
The output listing of all 3,050 counties, grouped by regional
ratings (Appendix M) allows for the orderly and rational
selection of counties within each region for the site-
specific reconnaissance, and later detailed field studies
required for validating an actual candidate site.
A number of Federal agencies assisted measurably in identify-
ing 23 existing hazardous waste disposal sites and 44 tracts
of Federally-owned land that appear to meet the criteria and
could potentially be released for use as treatment/disposal
sites. Generally, the latter were tracts of up to several
thousand acres located primarily in the Western States.
A number of general monitoring requirements applicable to
essentially all waste processing/disposal facilities were
defined. Site-specific conditions, including treatment pro-
cesses, would dictate the monitoring frequency and locations,
as would any special monitoring and analysis requirements.
The technique developed and used for initial delineation of
candidate sites appears to be practicable for use on a
nationwide basis. Generally, the site selection process for
an industrial plant location involves surveying relatively
small intrastate areas for which detailed information may be
obtainable. This would be the logical next step in the pres-
ent scheme of selection once firm waste production data
(sources and amounts) are accumulated for a specific,
relatively small geographical area. No claim is made that the
top candidate counties identified by the screening method
employed are wholly optimum. Rather, the results indicate
that a greater fraction of the land, or number of potential
sites, in the high-ranked counties will be suitable for waste
processing/disposal sites than in the low-ranked counties. The
determination of specific highly suitable sites would, of
course, have to rely upon the results of more detailed, site-
specific analyses.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF SITE SELECTION
The goal of site selection activities was to establish a
practicable method for identifying, evaluating, and ranking
potential processing and disposal sites and to apply the
255
-------
method nationwide to arrive at an initial list of area rank-
ing with respect to site suitability.
Site selection studies for any industrial plant require an
information base on the plant characteristics. Such data as
land requirements, transportation needs, labor availability,
utility services needs, plant capacity, processes and opera-
tions to be used in the plant, raw material sources, and
effluents and waste products generated by the plant are neces-
sary in establishing site selection criteria. Much of this
background information was obtained from the effort on plant
processes and facility design (Chapter IV). After obtaining
these data, the criteria for site selection were defined, the
major emphasis being placed on health, safety, and environ-
mental considerations.
It was recognized early in this study that two types of sites
based on somewhat different criteria would need to be identi-
fied: waste processing plant sites and long-term hazardous
waste disposal/storage sites. The criteria differences for
the two types of sites are mainly in the areas of earth
sciences and transportation. Also, only a few sites would
probably be required for long-term storage of the processed,
isolated hazardous materials. In contrast, many sites may be
required for the processing plants, because of the risk and
economics involved in transporting large volumes of hazard-
ous wastes from a multitude of generation sources.
HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
As the first step in developing the site selection method-
ology, a comprehensive list of potential health, safety and
environmental criteria applicable to both processing and
disposal/storage sites was prepared (Table A-90, Appendix M).
These criteria embraced all possible site characteristics,
including the processing and waste input-output considera-
tions that are later used to determine the degree of rele-
vance of the various criteria.
The list of potential siting considerations was assembled
from a number of scientific and engineering disciplines,
drawing upon the expertise of the program participants in
their particular fields. At this initial stage of establish-
ing site selection criteria, the intent was to assure that all
criteria that might possibly be pertinent to site selection
has been identified. The list was critically reviewed to
determine the key characteristics requiring evaluation, to
develop a rationale for their relevance, and to establish the
quantitative bases for their evaluation. This criteria
256
-------
definition procedure benefited measurably from information
that is being made increasingly available (primarily through
local, State and Federal agencies) on hazardous waste dis-
posal guidelines, surveys, and investigations.
DEVELOPMENT OF SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
Federal and State organizations, particularly, have recognized
the possibility of present and future problems of hazardous
waste processing and disposal. Significant efforts have been
made to inventory and survey present disposal areas (primarily
landfills) which receive industrial hazardous wastes, on the
bases of short-term occupational health and safety and poten-
tial long-term waste decomposition and migration. In many
cases, general criteria have been prepared and potentially
favorable sites identified that satisfy the criteria. Most
of these investigations are related to waste burial rather
than processing considerations. Nonetheless, they were valu-
able in establishing and later verifying the earth sciences
criteria.
The final general criterion areas considered appropriate for
site evaluation, based on processing and disposal information,
are listed below.
• Earth sciences
Geology
Hydrology
Soils
Climatology
• Transportation
Risk
Economics
• Ecology
Terrestrial life
Aquatic life
Birds and wildfowl
• Human environment and resource utilization
Demography
Resource utilization
Social impact
The next phase of the site selection sequence required that
these criteria be evaluated in detail to determine the spe-
cific sub-items of concern and to arrive at a site ranking or
value-function procedure.
257
-------
A rationale was developed for each criterion area; the sub-
items of concern were enumerated on the bases of processing
and disposal data and the sizes of the areas to be evaluated.
Details of area sizes are presented later in this chapter.
EARTH SCIENCES
Health and safety plant siting considerations attendant to the
waste processing/disposal site and operations are heavily
dependent upon earth science factors, including climatological
considerations. Plant vessels and equipment and the buildings
in which they are located are the first barrier to processing
plant accidents and/or intentional or accidental releases of
plant effluents. The surrounding natural environs form a
secondary boundary. The major questions to be answered in this
area are: what capabilities or barriers do the environs offer
for mitigating the effects of accidents and effluent releases,
while maximizing the effectiveness and minimizing the area and
resources insulted; and, in doing so, what natural earth
science resources might be removed from future beneficial uses?
At disposal/storage sites where processed hazardous materials
might not necessarily be stored in high-integrity containers,
the immediate environs would be the primary barrier for assuring
long-term isolation. The effects of earth science factors
(e.g., foundation soils characteristics, water supply, tornado
and earthquake potential) on the suitability of sites for plant
construction and operation were of less importance, but were
considered when undesirable conditions (such as mountainous
terrain) were obvious.
, „ . . 229-250
Geological Criteria
In establishing a technique for locating potential sites for
hazardous waste treatment and disposal, analyses were carried
out for three main geologic categories, geomorphic/topographic,
tectonic, and stratigraphic. Although geology covers the
interrelationship of all processes within the earth, in the
context of this study hydrology and soils were considered to
be separate important areas more directly related to site
suitability. Hydrology considers the surface and groundwater
from supply and pollution standpoints; soils considers the
potential as a disposal medium and as a secondary barrier to
accidental waste release. In this respect, both hydrology and
soils can be quantified to some extent, even on a regional
basis. The remaining geologic considerations must be treated
more subjectively until a study develops into a very site-
specific case.
258
-------
Previous stud.vns have begun to encompass the potential geologic
problems associated with siting a waste disposal facility.
Within the last decade, some common geologic criteria associ-
ated with solid waste disposal by landfill and land burial
have emerged. Engineering geology, which is the application
of physical geologic factors to promote efficient land use
and insure stability of various structures and facilities, is
routinely used in efforts to reduce or prevent problems
associated with development and to reduce the impact of
development on adjacent areas. By subjective integration of
the criteria developed in these diverse areas, a more general
set of geological considerations was developed to serve as a
guide for evaluating the potential adequacy of sites for
hazardous waste disposal systems on a regional basis.
Within each region, individual counties were first ranked on
the basis of a mean slope index (average topographic relief).
Counties with a predominance of high land relief (greater
than 10 percent slope index) were ranked as least desirable.
Areas of high relief are associated with active geological
processes which generally impose severe restraints on land
use: site engineering and construction costs would be
relatively high; special roads or improved transport routes
would be necessary (increasing system costs and potential spill
hazards); and geology tends to be more complex and variable
over local areas of site dimensions, therefore requiring
more detailed studies. Folding, fractures, faults, and
landslides often associated with high relief areas coupled
with generally higher precipitation can also provide major
recharge points for groundwater aquifers. Areas of flat
slope (less than 1 percent) were also considered undesirable
to some extent. These areas are located predominantly along
floodplains of major streams, swamps, or in sinkhole areas.
Natural drainage is poor, soils are generally unconsolidated,
and competing land use for agriculture, recreation and eco-
logic preserves is more prevalent. If proper precautions are
taken the land can be used for disposal sites, but at a higher
cost and safety risk. Moderate slopes of 1 to 10 percent
present the fewest land use constraints for hazardous waste
processing/disposal sites.
Within any region the presence of a gross extent of surface
or near-surface faulting resulted in a further modification to
a county's rank. In areas where major faults are known there
is a higher probability of localized faults and fractures
being found during detailed site study. Faults and fractures
can provide high permeability paths to the groundwater system
and increase the potential for pollution from a waste process-
ing/disposal system. Earthquake history, both frequency of
occurrence and magnitude, was considered to be related to the
259
-------
potential for additional faulting in a given area. Areas of
frequent earthquake occurrence also may prove unsuitable for
deep disposal of waste products because of the potential
triggering effect. Earthquakes per se are a perceived risk,
requiring higher design costs and presenting difficulty with
public acceptance.
The general rock sequences in each region were considered to
be water supply sources and tertiary barriers to unplanned
waste release. Centers of sedimentary basins were thought
to be the most desirable because of the thicker stratigraphic
sections available. Areas with outcrops of igneous and meta-
morphic rocks were looked upon as unfavorable because of the
generally restricted amount of space available for subsurface
disposal, even at shallow depths. Basalt, limestone and
glacial outwash plains would be considered unfavorable because
of associated high permeabilities and potential rapid hydraulic
transport of wastes from an unplanned release. Limestone
terrain and glacial outwash plains with thick unsorted gravel
and floodplain deposits were also considered undesirable from
the standpoints of site engineering and cost of construction,
among others.
Hydroloqical Criteria251 287
According to the hydrological criteria used, the counties con-
sidered to be least desirable contain considerable floodplains,
large bodies of water, or a high groundwater table. Counties
judged to be most desirable for processing sites contain water
supply sources (groundwater and/or surface water) continually
providing at least 200 gpm of high-quality water, are underlain
by noncarbonate consolidated rock aquifers, and lack most of
the least-desirable characteristics listed above.
Floodplains are undesirable for two reasons, the first of which
is related to safety. A processing site should logically be
located above the elevation of the probable maximum flood to
protect the plant, equipment, and wastes from being inundated.
Secondly, floodplains are normally located in zones of high
water tables, high wave runup, and permeable soils. In addi-
tion, structures located in floodplains act as restrictions to
water movement.
Zones of high wave runup are undesirable because of the flood-
ing potential and the associated accidental releases of haz-
ardous materials. Zones of high water tables are undesirable
because of the possibility of contamination of water supplies
ir. the event of an accidental release. Greater depth of the
water table provides more filtration of contaminants by the
earth materials. Effectiveness of filtration is related to
260
-------
the type of malarial, the rate of fluid movement, and the dis-
tance traveled prior to entering a water supply system. The
rate of fluid movement is dependent upon the permeability of
the earth materials and the hydraulic gradient. In general,
steep gradients are associated with low permeability, and vice
versa. Steepness of the terrain also has an effect on the
hydraulic gradient; in general, the steeper the terrain, the
steeper the hydraulic gradient. A low hydraulic gradient is
desirable because such a gradient accompanies flatter terrain.
However, a low gradient might indicate a very permeable aquifer
that is a valuable source of water. This would increase the
risk of transporting a hazardous waste from the site.
It was estimated that each processing site must have an accept-
able continuous water supply of 200 gpm. Quality of the water
source determines the cost necessary to make it acceptable for
use in the various plant processes.
Areas underlain by noncarbonate consolidated rock aquifers were
considered superior to those areas underlain by aquifers of
carbonate consolidated rock and by unconsolidated aquifers.
The Latter implies unconfined surficial aquifers, which are
undesirable on the depth to water table basis. Carbonate
(limestone) aquifers are generally undesirable because they
can contain solution cavities and potential high permeability
channels.
In summary, the prime hydrological consideration was the possi-
bility that released liquid waste might enter and contaminate
potable water sources. That probability, in addition to those
constraints on releases attributable to plant design and opera-
tion factors, is related to the site conditions discussed above.
Some areas of the country have been identified as already having
contaminants in the local groundwater regime because of irriga-
tion and other practices. Such sites were not downgraded in
the site suitability ranking, since there exists the possibil-
ity of recovery in the future (by dilution mechanisms) if such
detrimental practices are terminated. In some instances, can-
didate sites were downgraded because of the inability to obtain
the nominal water supply required by the waste treatment
facility.
Soil Criteria 2 8 8~ Jk1
Soil characteristics were considered to be of importance in
four categories: 1) as a secondary barrier to unplanned waste
releases; 2) as a landfill disposal medium for relatively insol-
uble waste components; 3) as a surface upon which structural
foundations are constructed? and 4) as a medium for growing
agricultural plants rather than as a waste treatment plant site.
261
-------
The following are the soil criterion categories considered for
site ranking:
• Secondary waste barrier
Distance to groundwater
Sorption capacity (cation exchange capacity, pH)
Soil texture
Soil depth
Soil structure
Slope
• Landfill disposal medium
• Suitability for foundation construction
• Medium for agricultural purposes rather than as a
waste site
Serving as a secondary- waste release barrier is considered to
be the most important function. Although accident prevention
can be engineered into the facility, an absolute guarantee that
no accidental waste solution release will ever occur cannot be
provided; thus, this function of soil was given the highest
priority. The movement (percolation) of a released solution
through the soil occurs over a finite period of time; therefore,
time is available in which to respond to a release. In addition,
many waste components are sorbed by soils, which allows even
longer response times.
The distance to groundwater and the soil depth criteria affect
both solution movement and sorbed component movement. The
greater the soil depth, the more time will elapse before ground-
waters are contaminated by a release. The soil texture, soil
structure, and slope criteria primarily affect the movement rate
of liquids. The finer the texture, the lower the soil perme-
ability, and the more slowly the liquids will move through the
soil. Similarly, the more structured and layered the soil, the
lower the soil permeability. The greater the slope, the faster
the liquids will run off the soil surface and the slower will
be the infiltration rate. These characteristics tend to spread
any release over a much greater surface area. The soil sorption
capacity criteria, as measured by the cation exchange capacity
(CEC) and soil pH, affect only sorbable waste components. The
greater the CEC, the greater the surface area of a soil, and
the greater tends to be the sorption of all sorbable wastes
includinq cations, anions, and organics. The higher the pH,
the greater tends to be the sorption of many sorbable compo-
nents, particularly the heavy metals.
The remaining three soil functions were judged to be of consid-
erably less importance than the secondary barrier function. In
262
-------
these, engineering techniques can overcome the inadequacies of
the soil. If the soil at the waste processing site is unsuit-
able for landfill disposal of insoluble wastes, for instance,
this relatively low-volume waste can be shipped to another site
for burial at minimal cost.
Soils which contain large percentages of montmorillonite clay
or which consist primarily of silt-sized particles will result
in higher foundation construction costs. The relatively low
value of this category accounts for some nominal added construc-
tion costs attendant to such soils. The use of Class 1* agri-
cultural land for the siting of a waste treatment plant perma-
nently removes this land from the growing of agricultural crops.
However, Class 1 farmland is plentiful in the United States,
which lessens this impact. The relatively low importance of
this category serves as an incentive to the use of land which
is equally suited for the siting of a waste treatment plant but
is not prime farmland.
Initial rankings were made for all counties within each of the
36 regions. The rankings were based on the criteria described
above and were made by the integration of data from the National
Atlas soil suborder, relief, and land-surface form maps. When
sufficient soil surveys were available, they were used to cali-
brate key soil suborder, physiographic, and land surface form
areas for making absolute county rankings.31'3 Sufficient soil
surveys were available for calibrating all soil suborder,
physiographic, and land surface form regions for the Eastern
United States and the Western States of Texas, Oklahoma,
Nebraska, Kansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota. However, for
the remaining eleven Western States it was necessary to rely
upon a more generalized small scale map to fill in source
data.
Climatological Criteria3 * *~3k8
The meteorological criteria judged important in the siting of a
hazardous waste processing plant vary locally, regionally, and
nationally. For the county-unit size considered in the present
study, only regional and national criteria could be considered.
*A soil capability classification is used by the Soil Conser-
vation Service to group soils generally according to their
suitability for most kinds of agriculture. Capability classes,
the broadest grouping, are designated by the Roman numerals
I through VIII. The numerals indicate progressively greater
limitations and narrower choices for practical use. Class I
soils have few limitations restricting their use.
263
-------
Meteorological factors used were mainly precipitation, wind
roses, air pollution potential, and extreme weather potential
(hurricanes and tornados). The precipitation index was based
on the judgment that high precipitation values were undesirable.
This was felt to be a defensible position for most plants based
upon a variety of advantageous factors: simpler plant design;
a potential for more effective operation of evaporative systems;
less chance of an accidental release or leaching of spillage in
concentrated form into the groundwater; better road conditions
for transportation of materials; and the potential for com-
bining the waste processing plant with a temporary or permanent
storage facility at the site. On the other hand, low rainfall
portends several disadvantages: if a potentially dangerous
respirable material is released into the atmosphere, it may be
desirable to have rainfall scavenge the material from the air.
The present ranking, therefore, does not apply to plants where
there is a strong potential for release of hazardous respirable
material within the affected area.
In general, it would be better for most materials to be dis-
persed to low concentrations by the atmosphere as much as pos-
sible, and moderate rainfall rates would be desirable. Another
potential argument against low rainfall is that in some situ-
ations a plant may have a low-level continuous output of mate-
rial that is deposited on the surrounding region; a long-term
surface buildup of the material may occur if there is not suf-
ficient rainfall to remove it, at least occasionally, from the
surface. Hence, although it is generally true that sites with
lower rainfall rates are most desirable, sites with very low
rainfall may also be undesirable if the analyses for a particu-
lar plant show that low-level routine releases of hazardous
materials might build up in the environment. In the dryest
regions routine releases become more critical in the plant
design from a meteorological viewpoint. However, considering
the nature and design of the hazardous waste processing plants,
these considerations were not deemed major, and the weighting
was used to favor sites with low annual mean rainfall rates.
Primarily, maps and values published by the Department of Com-
merce, Environmental Sciences Services Administration were
used as data sources.
The problem involved in using published wind roses at the pre-
sented scale was mainly concerned with the relationships between
the trajectory from the site and population densities. A
population-weighted index for the surface wind rose was prepared
for each site; populations for adjacent sites were used for the
weighting. In the East where counties are fairly small, the
index was used without changes; however, in the larger counties
in the West these criteria lost much of their validity, and
were therefore modified. An index based on winds' potential
264
-------
trajectories over population centers in the larger counties
was used. Published national maps of air pollution potential
were used in the ranking. Generally, sites with small air pol-
lution potentials were deemed to be most desirable from the con-
sideration of both routine and accidental releases.
Regions of high tornado potential were given lower rankings.
Plant design, transportation hazards, and perceived risks were
the major factors influencing this criterion. Hurricane poten-
tial was similarly taken into account in the rankings.
3 % 9 * 3 5 8
TRANSPORTATION
Two basic considerations in transportation of hazardous wastes
for processing and disposal are the hazards of transporting
the waste and the economics associated with transportation.
Economic variables considered in criteria selection include
relative volumes of wastes generated at given points, relative
transportation distance between major waste generation points,
the transportation network of the area being ranked, and the
transportation link between the area being ranked and other
waste generating points. Risk variables considered in criteria
selection include the distance traveled, type of terrain tra-
versed, and number and sizes of metropolitan areas traversed
during transit of waste.
The criteria used in the transportation ranking were as follows:
(1) the number and relative size of major waste pro-
duction areas within an approximate 250-mile radius
of the county being ranked;
(2) the transportation link between the county being
ranked and the major waste production areas;
(3) the transportation network of the county being
ranked;
(4) the relative rail distance between the county
being ranked and the major waste production
areas; and
(5) the route of travel between the county being ranked
and the major waste production areas, including the
number and relative sizes of metropolitan areas along
the route and the terrain traversed over the route.
The number and relative sizes of major waste production areas
within the sphere of influence of the county being ranked were
utilized primarily as a measure of waste volume for comparison
with other waste production areas. A distance of about
265
-------
250 miles was superimposed upon the criteria as the geographi-
cal transport limit for one day. Beyond this limit the trans-
portation costs increase substantially as a result of overnight
expenses for drivers and the potential hazard increases when
the loaded wastes are stored on the carrier overnight. The
volume of waste produced within a region as well as the dis-
tribution of the waste production is considered to be of
significant economic importance. Relative waste volumes used
in this phase of the study were typically based upon the waste
production areas identified, the population size of the waste
production area, and knowledge of the industrial intensity of
the waste production area.
The transportation link between the county being ranked and
major waste production areas within a 250-mile radius was used
to measure the efficiency of the access between areas. Links
were determined by mainline rail trackage and major highway
access; rail linkage was typically the most critical. The
determination of transportation linkage was primarily based
upon the directness of the link.
The transportation network of the county being ranked was used
to determine the quality of access to other areas. Major
considerations within this criterion were the availability of
rail and major highway access in both north-south and east-
west directions.
The measure utilized to account for transport distance was
the relative rail distance between the county being ranked
and major waste production areas within a 250-mile radius.
Rail distance was used because rates for freight movements,
including motor freight, are typically based upon rail miles.
Distances between the point of consideration and major waste
production areas are important for several reasons. Distance
is economically important because transport cost for any given
volume is normally some function of distance. Distance is also
an important consideration in determining risk because of the
relationship between risk and distance traveled; risk of
accident typically increases as distance increases. Transport
handling, such as switching, normally increases with distance
and correspondingly increases the risk. Also, the time associ-
ated with transport increases with distance and thus increases
the risk because of the additional exposure to potential accidents.
The routes of travel between the county being ranked and major
waste production areas within a 250-mile radius were utilized
to assess risk. Two major considerations were associated with
this criterion: the first was the number and relative size of
metropolitan areas along the route. This aspect was considered
because risk normally increases with the number and sizes of
metropolitan areas to be traversed. Metropolitan areas introduce
266
-------
two important risk characteristics, people and congestion.
The severity of any accident increases with the number of
persons exposed to the accident and the probability of accident
increases with traffic volume. The second major consideration
was the type of terrain traversed along the route. The more
rugged the terrain, the greater the potential for accidents.
Each of the criteria listed above was considered in,the rank-
ing of each county. Quantitatively evaluating each of the
criteria as it related to a particular county ranking was
determined to be infeasible. This decision was influenced by
the scope of data requirements, data inadequacies, and the need
to consider criteria in a matter peculiar to a given region,
i.e., the transportation profile of each region. As a result
of these constraints, each criterion was objectively evaluated
for each county in the United States. The final rank assigned
to a county is an evaluation of how well the county meets the
criteria in relation to other counties in the region and also
in relation to counties serving major waste production areas
within a 250-mile radius.
Generally, counties that ranked high were considered to be the
best locations, to serve as collection points for wastes gen-
erated both within and outside the region. They have excellent
transportation networks with links to all or most waste produc-
tion areas within a 250-mile radius. They are typically the
best sites available in the region based on the criterion under
consideration. Conversely, counties with low rankings were
considered unacceptable from a transportation perspective.
Typically, they fit one of the following situations: no rail
facilities, dead-end rail facilities, more than 250 miles to
any major waste production area, or distance and risk factors
imposed by terrain and other physical landforms sufficient to
warrant the county as unacceptable.
ECOLOGY 3 5 9 - 3 6 2
Ecosystems are highly complex and consist of many physical,
chemical, and biological components inter-connected by a multi-
tude of functional pathways. In attempting to characterize
ecosystems it is useful to limit the description to the pre-
dominant parts of the system. The indicator approach is commonly
used when it is neither possible nor desirable to make appro-
priate measures or estimates of the status of all the compo-
nents of the system. Instead, selected groups of species,
habitats, or other important components are examined in some
detail and used as an index to estimate the overall quality or
condition of the ecosystem.
267
-------
Land use has provided such an indicator for this study. The
inference of ecological quality from land use involves a
logical, two-step process. The land-use patterns followed here
mapped the major existing vegetation types in the United States
and their uses, e.g., cropland, ungrazed desert shrubland,
ungrazed forest, and woodlands. The various vegetative types
and their uses are excellent indicators of the environmental
quality of a specific region. Vegetation, by the nature of the
photosynthetic process, is the source of organic energy for an
ecosystem. The productivity of the vegetation in terms of
energy or biomass is important in regulating the numbers and
kinds of animals which can exist in the ecosystem and in the
use man can make of that system. Vegetation also provides
breeding and nesting sites and protective cover for animals,
thus enhancing the quality and utility of the system.
Another advantage of using land-use patterns as an ecological
indicator is that it gives some measure of the degree of inter-
ference man has imposed upon the natural environment. For
example, urban development represents an extreme departure
from the natural state and as such has little value as a
smoothly functioning balanced ecosystem.
Fifteen types of land use were recognized. These were ranked
in order of increasing ecological importance as follows.
• Urban
• Desert shrubland, ungrazed
• Barren land, alpine meadows above timberline
• Desert shrubland, grazed
• Open woodland, grazed
• Subhumid grassland and semiarid grazing land
• Cropland
• Irrigated land
• Cropland with grazing land
• Cropland with pasture, woodland, and forest
• Woodland and forest with some cropland and grazing
• Forest and woodland, grazed
268
-------
• Forest and woodland, ungrazed
• Swamp
• Marshland
Areas which ranked high for the siting of industrial facilities
such as hazardous waste processing plants were low in ecological
quality because of either urban development or physical-chemical
limitations imposed by natural conditions. Agricultural lands
dominated an intermediate grouping. Here, disturbance from
man has decreased, but the monoculture results in a less diverse
system with reduced stability and resiliency. Forests, which
characterize the third grouping, represent an improvement in
both diversity and stability over the other two groups. Finally,
swamplands and marshes, because of their high productivity and
extreme sensitivity to disturbance, were found to be incompat-
ible with the processing plants and disposal/storage facilities.
The major land-use types were determined for each region from
a land-use map of the fifteen recognized types. Few regions
were found to contain more than four or five types. The land-
use type in the region most suitable for industrial development
was assigned the highest ranking and the least suitable land-
use type was given the lowest ranking. Completely incompatible
swamp or marshlands were specifically noted. Land use types
of intermediate suitability were given intermediate rankings
compatible with their positions in the above list.
Using an overlay showing the counties in a region, the propor-
tion of a county's area in each land use type was estimated.
The sum of all land use type ranks times the proportion of that
type in the county gave the overall regional ranking for that
county. These overall ecological rankings are indicative of
the probability of finding an actual site (about 200 acres)
within the county. As discussed earlier, this does not mean
that low-ranked counties cannot have excellent sites; rather
it indicates that in high-ranked counties the probability of
being able to find an ecologically suitable site is greater
than in the low-ranked counties.
human environment and RESOURCES UTILIZATION 363~37a
The development and assessment of pertinent criteria in this
category, particularly those related to the human environment,
are especially difficult. Evaluation of the effects of man's
actions on man has always required a high degree of judgment
which has been complicated by historical and geographical vari-
ations in societal desires. The establishment of criteria and
their relative importance to the human environment, therefore,
269
-------
was approached from two viewpoints. The first includes an
analysis of factors which can be quantified easily (population
distribution, recreational demand) and which lean heavily
toward health and safety considerations (site distance from
natural areas, population concentrations). The second viewpoint
considers those factors which are in the difficult-to-quantify
area of public attitudes and acceptance. These were assessed
mainly by using demographic data to determine on a county-by-
county basis site suitability with respect to existing and pro-
jected population density and characteristics such as age, tenure,
income and education. Generally, large urban residential areas
such as Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA) were
considered unsuitable, although it was recognized that many of
these have associated well-planned industrial parks which might
accommodate waste processing plants. Conversely, much industry
is ill-situated in such areas, particularly industry about which
residential areas grew early in this century. While large
centers of population generate the bulk of the wastes (implying
favorable transportation considerations), there is no identi-
fiable uniform attitude on the part of political entities or
the populace concerning hazardous waste processing plants
located nearby, even in the industrial parks. Also, even though
the real risk for such facilities will be minimized by design
and operational planning, the perceived risk wiil be high and
may well dictate the exemption of highly populated areas from
consideration.
Other human environment parameters that were deemed unfavorable
were: non-industrial developed shorelands (because of their
value for open space, recreation, and other human uses and
because of current protective legislation); areas of high
scenic and recreational interest; proximal international bound-
ary areas; counties with significant numbers of historical or
cultural features; and counties with high densities of schools,
hospitals, and similar sensitive facilities. In the ranking
system of 0 to 5 which will be discussed later in this chapter
the 0 ranking provided a special "flag" for counties where
political or public attitudes might have a significant impact
on the county's relative rank.
Although not included in the ranking or value judgment phase
of this study, public acceptance of waste processing and dis-
posal/storage sites is of concern and means for reflecting this
factor should be integrated into the site selection process.
Development and evaluation of criteria in the area of resource
utilization presented some problems. It had to be done care-
fully to assure that the criteria in this category did not over-
lap or include those in other categories, particularly earth
sciences, ecology, and the human environment, thereby resulting
in double-accounting.
270
-------
Included in the definition of resource uses were minerals and
their extraction, agriculture (aside from ecological considera-
tions) , manufacturing, recreation/tourism commerce/ and unique
commercial, industrial, residential, and other developments.
Compatibility was determined primarily by considering dominant
resource utilization patterns and potential and projected
demands within each county.
The distinction is rather fine between several of the criterion
parameters noted in this category and those included in the
human environment category. In addition, many of the informa-
tion sources required in the value ranking process are identical
and, in some cases, integrate several of the parameters in the
data presentation. For this reason the two categories were
grouped together as one criterion.
SITE SCREENING PROCEDURES
Two approaches were assessed for site screening, a search
technique and an overall survey technique. The search approach
involves looking for specific sites that appear to satisfy the
selection criteria as closely as possible. This is a somewhat
random elimination procedure, although some degree of organized
assessment is possible. For the most part,- it requires search-
ing the country using available appropriate literature to
identify candidate sites of substantial size (but smaller than
county-size) which satisfy as many of the criteria as possible.
With this method, however, a vast amount of literature concern-
ing past studies which varies greatly in depth, breadth and
accuracy among sites must be acquired and evaluated and many
good candidate sites will undoubtedly be overlooked because of
a paucity of information. Some of the interrelationships and
tradeoffs between criterion areas may be greatly subjugated.
The search technique is most applicable for site selection in
relatively small regions after they have been identified in the
nationwide survey, and it would logically lead into the site
reconnaissance survey.
With the nationwide survey approach used in this study no sites
are overlooked in the site screening? thus the bias involved
in considering only candidate sites for which specific relevant
information is already available is eliminated. Potential
problems with this method, some of which can be resolved satis-
factorily, are concerned with the uniformity, detail and accuracy
of the needed evaluation data, the size of the areas into which
the country is divided, and the potential interactions between
these areas (and between larger regional divisions) in the final
ranking procedure.
271
-------
Area Size Determination
Having decided that the nationwide survey approach was best
for the initial site screening, it was then necessary to
determine the appropriate areal subdivisions. There was a
need for balancing the site ranking scheme in terms of both
the number of areas to be considered and the number of criterion
areas to be evaluated. In combination, the product of these
two factors determined the size of the evaluation matrix. For
example, if the country is divided into 2 00-acre areas, the
nominal size of a waste processing/storage site, the total
number of areas to be evaluated would be on the order of ten
million. Clearly, this would result in a matrix of unmanage-
able size; but, more importantly, the task of acquiring the
needed criterion data would be impossible. It was therefore
felt that the size of the areas had to be enlarged to make
both matrix size and data collection practicable.
INFORMATION SOURCES
A myriad of information sources exist that are potentially
useful in determining how suitable sites meet site selection
criteria. The areal coverage of this information varies from
small plots of only several acres (e.g., studied for locating
or investigating the operation of a specific landfill site) to
regional areas (e.g., studies describing the water resources
of a major river basin). Furthermore, the details and objectives
of these investigations vary to a corresponding degree; some
examine only one feature or consideration (e.g., water supply
or pollution potential), others examine a host of considerations
(e.g., foundation soils, water supply, adjacent land uses,
climatic conditions, transportation access). Although much
of this information might be applicable to site selection,
there is no workable method for collecting, sorting and then
evaluating the data contained in these many publications on a
consistent and efficient basis. The task of just determining
the value of the information in a single criterion area would
be insurmountable. Also, such information resolution is often
complicated by opinion differences of investigators on the
interpretation of study results from essentially identical
studies.
Information bases were sought that would present the required
data on a nationwide scale, .yet in adequate detail to differ-
entiate between the areas selected for evaluation; that would
be accurate, current and acceptable to the scientist, engineer
and layman, and that would be consistent and uniform in resolv-
ing the many input data from which the results were derived.
Publications such as The National Atlas of the United States.
Annual Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide, Climatic Atlas
for the United States, population census reports, and others
272
-------
as noted iri the reference section do provide the information
needs in the optimum form for the nationwide site selection
evaluation. Additionally, these comprehensive publications
represent a great amount of effort expended by experts in the
various fields who have access to past and current literature
and whose interpretation and integration of data is in a con-
stant state of review and updating.
REGIONAL DIVISIONS
Information on waste generation sources and amounts showed
considerable variation from region to region. On a percentage
basis, the relative amount of waste generated in each of the
nine census regions is estimated as follows:
Percent of Total
Census Region* Generated Waste*
1 - New England 4
2 - Mid-Atlantic 19
3 - East North-Central 27
4 - West North-Central 6
5 - South Atlantic 8
6 - East South-Central 5
7 - West South-Central 18
8 - Mountain 2
9 - West 11
*Data source: waste generation tables, Chapter III.
This unequal distribution of wastes across the country emphasizes
that waste treatment plants may vary in size, number, and con-
centration as well as in the order in which they might be con-
structed and operated. Transportation risks and economics,
primarily, dictate that processing facilities be provided on a
regional basis. This called for the definition of a logical
regional division of the country and an evaluation of all the
areas within each region for site suitability. In the first
step the industrial waste production areas were listed by major
city and adjacent-city groupings.
The conterminous United States was subdivided into 36 waste
treatment regions based upon distances from the 41 identified
major industrial waste production centers (Table 37). A maxi-
mum of about 200 miles in the East and 250 miles in the West
was set as the allowable distance between the treatment site
and industrial waste production centers in a given subregion.
These are the maximum distances a truck could haul a waste load
and return in a shift-day. It is expected that a truck in the
273
-------
West would be traveling in fewer restricted speed zones, so
the maximum distance is greater than in the East. Some of
the regions do not contain an industrial waste production
center, but such centers are found in surrounding regions.
No region was permited to cross any major physiographic barrier.
Figure 35 shows that the regional divisions are smaller in
the East than in the West.
COUNTY SUBDIVISIONS
The problems associated with choosing the final areal sub-
divisions to which the site evaluation criteria would be applied
have been described: namely, the data constraints and unmanage-
ability of very small areas, and the lack of specificity and
data variability for large areas. Examining the information
demands and suitability for satisfying site criteria needs, it
can be seen that few of the parameters show sharp changes at
political boundaries (townships, counties, states); rather,
there is a blending or gradation in the values of most param-
eters over fairly large areas (e.g., climate, soils, vegeta-
tion) . Thus, adjacent moderate-sized subdivisions will have
identical values for many of the parameters considered in
ranking sites.
If one tries to discriminate or interpolate these data into
finer detail, the data sources described earlier (National
Atlas, etc.) become no longer applicable, and the information
needs fall back upon the many nonuniform literature sources
that present extreme complexities in the analysis sequence.
Ideally, a compendium of current and uniform data applicable
to all the evaluation parameters by states, or more desirably
by counties, would best satisfy the nationwide site selection
information needs—a 4 8 or 3,050-volume set of Site Selection
Information Encyclopedia. Such volumes do not exist, of course
nor is it probable that any will ever be assembled. '
Individual publications on counties or smaller areas usually
created for industrial promotion present information required
for site analysis with varying degrees of detail and accuracy.
Some of these, prepared at considerable expense and effort,
are quite accurate and reflect the expertise that has gone into
their preparation. Others are shallow and obviously inaccurate
in many areas, reflecting the public relations approach more
than scientific validity. In any case, too few adequate publi-
cations of this type exist to form a competent base for nation-
wide site selection analysis.
Lack of an existing uniform information base between the National
Atlas type of data source and the many detailed and varied
reports on individual areas and criterion parameters dictated
274
-------
FIGURE 35
SITE SELECTION REGIONS
to
-J
tn
-------
that the final subdivision be of a size that one could confi-
dently evaluate from the information presented in the nation-
wide data sources. These sources, in some instances, could
be supplemented by more detailed consistent nationwide data
available from publications on specific subject areas (e.g.,
rail transportation networks in the United States) and from
easily accessible agency record files (e.g., The National
Weather Records Center).
The finest subdivision available for publications such as
the National Atlas is the county. Transparent overlays are
available for all of the topical maps in the Atlas. Further-
more, the county system of division (3,050) is nearly ideal
for evaluation and matrix manageability. It was clearly under-
stood that using an area so much larger than an actual site
area would not identify specific sites. Rather it was recog-
nized that the analysis would define those counties where the
general existing conditions would be most or least suitable
for sites. This could also be expressed as the relative number
of potential sites per county.
The next phase of the site selection process involved apprais-
ing each region county-by-county, using the previously discussed
criteria with appropriately assigned rankings and constructing
a weighting system for the criteria so that they could be com-
bined to arrive at a total rating for each county.
RANKING AND WEIGHING SYSTEMS—DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION
The task of ranking sites (in this case, counties) according
to their fulfillment of desired criteria is closely related
to the amount of detailed information available. A fairly
precise ranking, 1-10 for example, requires considerably detailed
information. For the amount of detailed information available
to this study a site ranking (or value function) of 1-5 was
deemed appropriate for each criteria area.
Thus, the ranking process consisted of an analysis of each
county by each professional, who then assigned a value of 1-5
to the combined parameters in his particular criterion area.
The highest ranking of 5 was assigned to those counties where
conditions best satisfied the criteria. Conversely, a ranking
value of 1 was assigned to counties where conditions were least
satisfactory. Values between 1 and 5 reflect the degree to
which the parameters of concern approach optimum conditions.
As discussed previously, a value of 0 was reserved as a "flag"
to denote potential critical concerns in counties relative to
the difficult-to-assess human environment and resources uti-
lization criterion category.
276
-------
Following the assignment of a ranking to each county in each
criterion area, these values had to be summed to reflect the
relative importance (weight) of each criterion area in determin-
ing the overall county rating. The weighted value-function
approach was deemed the most applicable method for this phase
of the site selection analysis.
The weighted value-function approach requires the development
of two factors for each parameter under consideration—the
weighting factor and the value function (ranking). The value
function is based on a scientific or technological judgment by
knowledgeable professionals of the suitability of each site
with respect to the criteria. The weighting factor, on the
other hand, is subjective and involves the opinion of individuals
or groups of individuals as to the relative importance of each
criterion area. The individuals supplying the opinions may or
may not be knowledgeable in these areas. The value function
makes it possible to compare alternative sites in terms of
their effect on a particular siting parameter. However, it is
not possible to sum all of the effects for an overall evaluation
of each alternative site without weighting factors; that is, it
is not possible to technologically state that air quality is
more important than water quality, or preservation of aquatic
biota is more important than avoidance of visual intrusions on
the landscape. Since individual opinions may differ as to the
importance of each parameter, different groups may produce
different sets of weighting factors which, in turn, could pro-
duce different rankings of alternative sites. However, if the
groups are large enough, the sets of weighting factors should
not be too different.
The weighting factors used in this study demonstrate one method
for obtaining the factors. They were statistically derived
from the individual responses of ten professionals working on
the site selection study. Further explanation of the weighting
determination technique is presented in Appendix M. The sum
of weighting factors equaled 100, and the product of the weight-
ing factor (0 to 100) and ranking value .(0 to 5) for each siting
criteria resulted in a number which can be summed over all of
the siting criteria for a given county. This summation for each
county represents a quantitative rating which can then be numer-
ically compared against a perfect score (500) and against the
other counties within the region. Additionally, the weighting
assigned to the earth sciences criteria was distributed among
the four subcategories using a procedure identical to that used
for weighting the major criterion areas only the earth sciences
professionals participated in this determination. These sub-
category weightings varied slightly between some regions, depend-
ing upon the relative importance attached to them by the evaluators.
277
-------
The weightings determined by the team of professional partici-
pants follow.
Earth Sciences (Physical/Chemical) 31
Geology 7
Hydrology 8
Climatology 10
Soils 6
Transportion 28
Human Environment and Resource Utilization 23
Ecology 18
These final values were the result of a second iteration of
the weighting procedure and differ by only 1 to 2 points from
the values arrived at in the initial weighting. Table A-94
in Appendix M is a tabulated print-out showing the counties
within each region, their respective rankings in each criterion
area, the weighting factors for each criterion area, and the
summation of the products of rankings and weightings. The
tabulation is presented in descending order from highest to
lowest ranked county within a region.
The results of the county-by-county ranking process confirmed
some anticipated relationships. For example, several groups
of adjacent and similarly-ranked counties maintained these
rankings throughout the summation process and showed similarity
in the overall rating values, all being either fairly high or
low on the final rating list. This happened because, as dis-
cussed earlier, the parameters considered do not change abruptly
nor do they recognize political boundaries; climate is the
most obvious case. In general, the higher-ranked counties
have the lowest population and overall development. This
reflects to some degree that the criteria tend to favor areas
less attractive for human habitation for many of the same
reasons that they are sparsely inhabited or developed. For
example, inadequate water supply is generally a favorable
condition for siting since there is less potential for pollut-
ing a major aquifer or stream. Poor agricultural soils, if
they are calcareous, might be favorable for removing spilled
hazardous materials by soil-sorption mechanisms.
In addition, several of the criteria areas relate closely to
population densities, and the rankings reflect direct propor-
tional or inverse relationships. Croplands, which ranked high
in the ecology category (lack of species diversity), also
usually ranked relatively high in the human environment category
278
-------
(low population density, fewer people exposed to potential
accidents)- High transportation rankings (good road and rail
networks) tender to correspond with low human environment
rankings (high population densities). Such relationships were
less evident in the earth sciences category. However, on con-
siderations of climatic extremes (hot and dry or cold and wet),
there were two inverse relationships with the human environment.
Both extremes resulted in low population densities; however,
hot and dry conditions are favorable site characteristics
(particularly for disposal/storage sites), and the cold and
wet conditions are climatically unfavorable conditions.
In summary, the ranking and weighting procedure developed for
a nationwide survey of sites results in a rating system which
should be a useful base for further detailed site investigations
within the defined regions. The techniques similar to those
used in the ranking process have been utilized successfully in
many industries (e.g., siting nuclear power plants), although
in most of those instances the criteria were initially more
completely defined through experience, guidelines or regulations.
Criteria for this study had to be developed from conceptual
plant designs with largely unknown risk probability, accept-
ability values, and other factors that only operational experi-
ence will quantify; nevertheless, the evaluation technique is
sound.
CHARACTERISTICS AND LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND POTENTIAL SITES
The desirable and undesirable characteristics presented earlier
are discussed below for each criterion area. A summation of
the major characteristics was made to describe an "optimum"
processing or storage/disposal site. In general, the character-
istics for the two types of sites are the same; the disposal/
storage site would have more rigid isolation and less rigid
transportation features than the waste processing site.
• Location of the site should prevent any significant,
predictable leaching from accidental waste spills,
planned effluent disposal, or planned hazardous waste
treatment products storage to shallow unconfined
aquifers either in use or of potential use.
• The base of the treatment plant site should be at
least twenty feet above the high water table.
• The base of the primary storage site should be at
least one hundred feet above the high water table.
• The site should be located where no significant hydro-
logic surface or subsurface connection exists with
standing or flowing surface water .
279
-------
• The site should be outside floodplains or shorelands.
• The infiltration rate of surface and foundation uncon-
solidated materials should be very low to provide time
for corrective measures to prevent leakage into any
subcropping bedrock or alluvial aquifer beneath the site.
• The site should be a minimum of 2000 feet from existing
wells that draw water for human or livestock consump-
tion from an underlying aquifer.
• The site should be a minimum of five miles from munici-
pal wells, watershed boundaries, or water intakes in
static water bodies, or one mile upstream from any river
intake, whether municipal or otherwise.
• The site should not be located within one mile of any
active fault.
• The primary storage site should be located in a Seismic
Risk Zone 0, 1 or 2 in order of preference. No primary
storage site should be located in Risk Zone 3.* (See
Figure 36).
• The site should be located in areas with low surface
slope away from the site to obtain good drainage and
to minimize landslide potential.
• The site should be located in the optimum wind direction
with respect to nearby population centers, as deter-
mined by the local wind rose.
• Adequate water and power supplies should be readily
available.
• The site area should have low rainfall and high
evaporation.
• Either the site should be located outside the paths
of recurring hurricanes and tornados or proper engi-
neering safeguards should be developed.
• The site should not be located within, or immediately
adjacent to, important recreational areas, natural/
cultural areas, wilderness areas, national parks,
Indian lands, wildlife refuges, or wild and scenic
river areas.
~Seismic Risk zones have been defined by S. T. Algermissen in
"Seismic Risk Studies in the United States," Fourth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, 1969,
and are a part of the Uniform Building Code.
280
-------
ISJ
00
LEGEND
I NEGLIGIBLE TO Ml NOR DAMAGE POTENTIAL (ZONE 0 AND 1)
1^3 MODERATE DAMAGE POTENTIAL (ZONE 2)
HH MAJOR DAMAGE POTENTIAL (ZONE 3)
SEISMIC PROBABILITY MAP
FIGURE 36
-------
• The site should be within a relatively short distance
of existing rail and highway access.
• Major waste generation sources should be nearby, and
wastes transported to the site should not require
transfer during shipment.
• The plant should be located in an area of low species
diversity and uniqueness (flora and fauna), where
plant operations will have a low potential for damag-
ing adjacent ecosystems.
The potential trade-offs among these characteristics are
obvious in some cases; for example, engineered safeguard
features can be included in the plant design to overcome a num-
ber of undesirable site features, particularly those in the
earth sciences category. Such extra safeguards are sometimes
quite costly and would need to be evaluated on a site-specific
basis.
Another site-specific consideration that will require evalua-
tion is the suitability of a location for storing or dispos-
ing of both hazardous wastes and detoxified waste salts on-site.
Various areas of the country have different potential for
disposing of wastes by deep-well injection, land burial or
landfill. Although this potential is recognized, the many
unknowns in local geologic and hydrologic conditions, with few
exceptions, require that a site reconnaissance study be carried
out to prove the integrity of on-site disposal/storage. Rarely
is adequate detail known about potential well-injection sites
to make this a viable consideration in determining site suita-
bility at the investigative stage employed in this study.
All other factors being equal, a location with a high on-site
disposal potential would rank higher than one without this
option. Again, this is a trade-off that requires evaluation
on a site-specific basis.
Existing and Potential Hazardous Waste Sites
Table a-92 (Appendix M) is a listing of existing hazardous waste
disposal/storage sites. These are primarily sites for radio-
active and Department of Defense wastes, and were located con-
veniently near major waste generation sources (e.g., munitions
plants and depots, nuclear fuel fabrication and reprocessing
facilities). However, their locations also reflect isolation
and many other desirable features discussed earlier. Informa-
tion on non-Federal facilities is sparse, although a number of
States have compiled site descriptions (See Table A-92) and
regulations for State-licensed disposal facilities.
282
-------
Several Federal agencies were requested to evaluate their land
holdings and to provide a listing of tracts which appear to
satisfy the siting criteria and could probably be made avail-
able for hazardous waste treatment or disposal operations.
The resulting listing (Table A-92) identifies various tracts,
most of which are located in the Western United States, with
only a few convenient to the major waste generation centers
in the East. Small areas on large military camps and bases
(some abandoned or partly abandoned) distributed about the
country would probably fulfill many of the desirable site
characteristics.
Site Monitoring Requirements
One phase of this study was to determine the general site
monitoring requirements, principally from the viewpoint of
routine effluent releases and accidental (possibly undetected)
releases and spills. It is recognized that when a site is
selected a study will have to be undertaken to determine the
specific monitoring needs based on site and surrounding condi-
tions and to define sampling locations, frequencies, and
analyses. However, the following considerations apply to
essentially all sites.
Prior to construction a thorough ecological monitoring of the
actual site and environs should be performed. The parameters
to be measured would be essentially those developed for the
final site selection process. Aquatic parameters would be
used when water bodies are located near enough to the site to
be influenced by the construction activities. Preconstruction
measurements will provide the baseline to which later measure-
ments can be compared. They will also provide the architect-
engineer with recommendations concerning habitats to avoid and
erosion control procedures that might be necessary. During
construction, ecological monitoring would consist of periodic
inspections of the site and surrounding areas to determine
whether the construction recommendations are being followed
and to locate any problems that develop.
Periodic monitoring (annual or biennial) of the area near the
site involving the same parameters used in the preconstruction
monitoring program should be conducted throughout the life of
the plant to identify any alterations which might take place
in the ecological environment. While normal operation of the
plant is not expected to cause any adverse effects on the local
ecology, periodic checks will insure that any unexpected changes
are detected. These checks will also provide the necessary
baseline for determining the amount of ecological damage result-
ing from an accident at the plant and will indicate the best
procedure for restoring the natural environment following
such damage.
283
-------
The meteorological monitoring requirements for any processing
(or disposal) plant would have two purposes—evaluation of the
impact of routine trace releases of hazardous materials and
use in accident release situations. With present methods of
estimating atmospheric diffusion, it is recommended that a
minimum of two levels of air temperature and one level of wind
speed and direction be collected. Additional meteorological
monitoring would be largely site dependent. Relative humidity
would be required if an evaporative system is utilized, or if
natural fogging occurs frequently. In addition, precipitation
records should be kept for assessing the extent of leaching
or scavenging by rainfall in the case of an accidental atmo-
spheric release or spill. Air quality samplers for specific
chemicals released in gaseous effluents (e.g., particulates,
SO2, N0X) should be installed at appropriate locations based
on site diffusion data.
Hydrological monitoring is required for both waste processing
plants and disposal sites to detect routine and accidental
releases of liquid effluents. A system of piezometers (obser-
vation wells) should be installed in unconfined aquifers
around the site and concentrated in potential water and waste
movement paths downgradient from the facility. Measurements
of the water levels in these observation wells on a monthly
basis will normally be adequate to assess the seasonal and
long-term changes in groundwater contours required for pre-
dicting paths of movement should wastes enter the system.
Any confined (artesian) aquifers should be similarly monitored
to determine potential interconnections of aquifers and paths
of waste migration. Unless there is evidence or indication
of significant waste infiltration into the soils, a monthly
sampling frequency should also be adequate.
Analyses should be performed on the water samples to detect
detoxified salts or hazardous materials of concern. Comparison
of analytical results from downgradient wells with those from
upgradient wells will also provide a basis for evaluating the
significance of any observed changes in water quality. A
bimonthly sampling frequency should be established to assess
quality changes. If there is an indication of significant
waste release, the sampling frequency should be increased.
Downstream monitoring stations and a bimonthly sampling frequency
should be established for surface streams in the vicinity of
the waste facility to detect any water quality changes that
might be due to facility operations.
Waste disposal operations such as deep-well injection pose
site-specific hydrological monitoring requirements. Generally,
a comprehensive pre-disposal well drilling program is required
284
-------
to characterize the waste injection zone, both geologically and
hydrologically, and those zones above and below the waste
receiving layer to determine locations and degree of inter-
connection. Many of these same wells may serve as monitoring
structures after injection operations commence. Usually, the
injection and other wells are equipped with pressure gages to
provide information on injection abnormalities.
Landfill or land burial sites should be equipped with appropriate
soil-settlement gages to detect short- and long-term changes
in compaction/settlement rates that might indicate a breach
of the storage facility's integrity. Monitoring for seismic
events should not be necessary at these facilities.
evaluation and extension of the rating system
Consideration was given to possible extension and modification
of the site rating system used, and particularly to how it
might be adapted to achieve a national (rather than regional)
rating of sites. With the present system no candidate sites
are omitted from the screening procedure. An apparent dis-
advantage of the regional system is the relative nature of the
rankings. The counties within the regional boundaries were
compared to determine their suitability as sites. However,
comparison among counties in different regions was not made.
Thus, a county ranking high in one region might rank somewhat
lower if included in an adjacent region. Should the regional
boundaries be significantly redrawn to meet any future needs,
the existing regional ratings would need reevaluation.
A national rating system which ignores regional boundaries is
appealing but is probably premature at this stage. Such a
system would presumably yield a priority order of site develop-
ment which would require additional information unavailable in
this study. Some criterion areas (e.g. ecology) would be
adaptable to rankings on a national scale, but other areas,
particularly transportation, would be difficult since these
evaluations depend heavily upon waste source and quantity
data. A sliding value-function scale and possibly a varying
weighting scale would probably be required to appropriately
consider these criteria. Any change in weighting would alter
the present regional ratings and possibly require that they
be reevaluated. Appraisal on a regional basis results in less
margin for error in the transportation category, since the
site must be within one day's travel time of waste sources.
The risk evaluation, which is difficult to assess because of a
scarcity of data (e.g., type and severity of accidents due to
material transfer, car switching, day versus night transport),
would probably be the major problem of concern, since transpor-
tation economics are relatively well-defined.
285
-------
The most logical approach to achieving a national rating
appears to be one of determining where the county criteria
rankings of 1 to 5 on the regional scale would fit into a
scale of about 1 to 15 for the national appraisal. This
relative value would vary for each region. For example, the
vegetation type (part of the ecology criteria) in the South-
west differs significantly from that in the Northeast; thus,
the highest ranked site ecologically in the Southwest may
rank much higher on a national basis than the highest ranked
site in the Northeast. This procedure would be followed in
all four criterion areas, and the weighted rankings summed to
obtain a national rating of all counties.
In summary, the procedure for developing a national rating of
counties is fairly straightforward and should yield results as
reliable as those of the regional ratings. However, this
logical next step should be undertaken only after additional
and more accurate waste generation source and quantity data
are available.
SITING CONSIDERATIONS AS RELATED TO DISPOSAL METHODS
Chapter IV describes three methods for disposal/storage of the
hazardous materials and of the salt solutions (brines) that
result from waste processing. All of these methods require
assessments of site suitability, principally with respect to
the earth sciences criteria. Brine disposal in marine waters
leans heavily upon evaluation of hydraulic mixing and the
potential effects on marine ecosystems.
Deep-Well Injection of Brines * 79-3 8 1
The specific location of a waste injection well must be
evaluated by a detailed geological subsurface investigation.
However, regional geological conditions can be used to evaluate
the general suitability of certain areas for injection wells.
The regional favorability map (Figure 37) indicates that
certain areas of the continental United States, such as the
Rocky Mountains, are generally unsuitable for waste injection,
wells because igneous or metamorphic rocks lie at or near the
ground surface. Such rocks do not generally have sufficiently
high porosity or permeability to warrant their use as a disposal
formation. Areas with extensive extrusive volcanic sequences
exposed are generally not suitable for waste disposal wells.
Even though these rocks have porous zones, they usually contain
fresh water. The waste disposal potentials of the Basin and
Range Provinces (see angled lines on map) are largely unknown
due to complex geologic conditions.
286
-------
FIGURE 37
DEEP WELL DISPOSAL SITES
~'I
GENERALLY UNFAVORABLE
(INTRUSIVE IGNEOUS OR
METAMORPHIC ROCKS)
I I GENERALLY FAVORABLE
GENERALLY UNFAVORABLE
(EXTRUSIVE VOLCANICS)
GENERAL FAVORABILITY
UNKNOWN
-------
Although the central valley of California is geologically
well suited for the installation of disposal wells, several
factors discourage their use. Thick sequences of sandstone
in the region provide suitable injection horizons, but dis-
continuities in pervious strata and earthquake hazards
are negative factors. Although the geology of the West Coast
is complex, coastal areas north of Los Angeles may contain
satisfactory potential sites for injection wells.
The Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains are underlain by thick
sequences of sedimentary rock which, except in oil and gas
producing areas, are generally suitable for deep well injection.
The midcontinent and much of the Midwest are underlain by
rather thick sequences of sedimentary rocks. Most of the
injection wells in use today are located in these areas.
The final appraisal of a disposal well site is usually deter-
mined by a two-phased geologic investigation. The first phase
includes an evaluation of potential sites on the basis of
available data. The second phase consists of a more detailed
evaluation of subsurface conditions based on information
obtained from drilling a pilot hole or the injection well.
Information sought during the first phase of the investigation
and prior to the installation of an injection well includes
the extent, thickness, depth, porosity, permeability, tempera-
ture, water quality, and piezometric pressure of potential
injection zones. The presence of impermeable confining beds,
lateral changes in rock properties, the existence of faults or
joints, and the occurrence of any mineral resource in the area
must also be evaluated. Existing wells in the area which may
penetrate the potential injection zones must be located since
if not properly plugged liquid wastes could escape through
these wells.
The second phase of the investigation is conducted during the
drilling and testing of the injection well. Often the actual
injection zone is not selected until the well has been drilled
and a number of potential zones have been tested for porosity,
permeability, temperature, and piezometric pressure, and until
the chemical quality of water in the potential injection zones
has been evaluated. Pumping tests are used to measure the
permeability and water samples are obtained for chemical
analysis. Other important rock properties are measured by
geophysical logging, drill-stem testing tools, or by laboratory
tests on core samples. The results of these geologic investi-
gations are used not only in evaluating the feasibility of
subsurface waste disposal but also to provide basic data for
designing the injection well and the optimum rate of injection.
288
-------
Wastes may have different requirements relating to their
extent of horizontal and vertical travel with time. For
example, a chemically stable dilute waste may require only
injection into, and dispersion in, a body of rapidly circu-
lating groundwater that is recharged continually. However, a
biochemically unstable effluent may require a residence time
within the injection zone to permit further reaction. As an
example, a very concentrated waste may require a long residence
time without dispersion. The following system of zone classi-
fication has been proposed.
Zone of Rapid Circulation
The zone of rapid circulation extends from the land surface
downward some tens or few hundreds of feet. Injection into
this zone is normally precluded.
Zone of Delayed Circulation
This zone is generally composed of fresh water which circulates
continually and freely, but is retarded sufficiently that
residence time varies from several to many decades or even a
few centuries. Certain innocuous waste waters have been
injected into this zone successfully with suitable monitoring.
Subzone of Lethargic Flow
In this subzone the native liquid is commonly saline and has
very low movement measured in hundreds or even thousands of
years. This subzone of lethargic flow is a primary zone for
potential storage of the more concentrated wastes.
Stagnant Subzones
These subzones are, with few exceptions, several thousand feet
below land surface and the fluid is hydrodynamically trapped.
This zone would seem ideal for injection of very toxic wastes.
However, the capability to accept and retain injected fluids
needs to be assessed with extreme caution.
Dry Subzones
A common type of dry subzone would be a salt bed or dome in
which free water is virtually nonexistent and which may be
impermeable in a finite sense. Waste injected into such a zone
would be wholly isolated from natural hydrodynamic circulation.
However, since movement could occur through hydrofractures,
performance of a dry subzone under injection should be assessed
cautiously.
289
-------
In the past, not enough attention has been given to the monitor-
ing of deep well disposal systems. Monitoring of injection
wells is desirable to determine the extent of travel of injected
waste, possible well casing or cement failures, the escape of
waste through fractured or faulted cap rocks or through other
abandoned or operating wells, and any loss of permeability in
the disposal zone due to injection.
Monitoring is also required to determine the pressure needed
to maintain a constant injection rate, since this increases
with time. An increase in pressure could result in decreased
permeability in the vicinity of the well bore by plugging the
formation. A sudden increase in the intake rate of the injec-
tion well might indicate the opening of horizontal or vertical
fractures in the injection horizon and possibly in the con-
fining beds, or the failure of the well casing, cement, or
packers. Such monitoring activities should be documented and
made requirements -of State and Federal laws relating to deep
well disposal.
Related to monitoring requirements is the necessity for develop-
ing adequately planned methods and procedures for rapidly
instituting corrective actions in the event of a system failure.
It is recommended that research be conducted to establish a
list of proper monitoring and implementation methods associated
with deep well disposal and to develop procedures for institut-
ing corrective actions in the event of a system failure.
In addition, complete operating records are required for denot-
ing quantities and types of wastes injected into a particular
stratum. Such records usually are required by State and Federal
legislation.
The use of deep well disposal techniques should be limited at
the present state-of-the-art to those waste stream, constituents
which have low toxicity and do not have breakdown or expected
reaction products demonstrating high toxicity. This recommenda-
tion is based primarily on the apparent lack of control over
wastes after injection. Without proper and adequate monitor-
ing techniques the migration of ha2ardous materials from the
storage area may not be detected until there is an effect on
the non-storage area (groundwater contamination, etc.) when it
might be too late. Furthermore, even if an unexpected migration
is detected, there are currently no tested procedures to reverse
the migration, allow total recovery of the materials, or seal
the periphery to stop further migration.
In summary, deep well disposal methods can be utilized subject
to detailed geological investigations and selection, rational
selection of wastes to be disposed, and proper monitoring so
that disposal can be controlled to eliminate migration.
290
-------
t • i f. • .382-390
Land Burial Disposal
Land burial is adaptable to hazardous materials that require
permanent disposal. Disposal is accomplished by either near-
surface or deep burial. In near-surface burial, the material
is deposited either directly into the ground, in stainless
steel tanks, or in concrete lined pits beneath the ground.
The standard procedure for deep burial is disposal in salt
mines, hard bedrock, or shale formations by use of hydraulic
fracturing, as discussed previously in deep well disposal.
In land burial, the waste is transported to the selected
site where it is prepared for final burial. Transportation
of the wastes to the burial site can be accomplished by any
of the following: by common carriers along with shipments of
ordinary wastes; by contract carriers who handle only the
hazardous materials to be buried but collect wastes from various
sources; or by private carriers who transport their own wastes
from the point of origin to the burial site.
Either solid or liquid wastes can be received at the burial
site. To reduce the mobility of the wastes before burial all
liquid wastes should be converted to a solid form, which
requires that special solidification equipment be located at
the burial site. Heavy equipment for excavation and lifting
and special monitoring instruments and stations will also be
required.
At present, near-surface burial of both radioactive and chemical
wastes is being conducted at several Atomic Energy Commission
and commercially operated burial sites. These wastes are buried
in unlined trenches approximately twenty feet deep. The trenches
are filled to within two to five feet of the surface and are
covered with either asphalt or vegetation to reduce infiltra-
tion of water. Radioactive wastes are stored in either liquid
or solid form in steel tanks enclosed in concrete.
Pilot plant studies have been conducted for deep burial in
salt formations and hard bedrock. These wastes are buried
approximately 1,000 to 1,500 feet beneath the ground in unlined
tunnels. After the tunnel is filled, it is backfilled with
salt and sealed positively (e.g., with concrete).
Land burial operates on the principle of permanent confinement
and isolation from the biosphere. The wastes can be disposed
of near the surface in specially constructed trenches or pits
designed to retain the wastes and prevent infiltration into the
soil. They can also be buried deep beneath the ground where
better isolation from the biosphere is afforded. For either
method the form of the waste, type of container, and site
291
-------
geology are of utmost importance in determining the suitability
of any land burial disposal process.
The selection of a site for the disposal of hazardous materials
is dependent upon several factors, including physical charac-
teristics of the wastes to be buried, environmental character-
istics of the area, operating equipment and waste handling
procedures required, and the geographic characteristics of the
surrounding area.
For long-lived materials, it is imperative that the disposal
site be located on State or Federally-owned land to ensure that
perpetual monitoring and care can be maintained. Even though
Government ownership of the site is required, on-site operation
can be performed by a private concern.
In selecting the location of a disposal site, the environmental
characteristics of the area are important. Of principal con-
cern are meteorology, geology, hydrology, and seismology. if
a particle of gas escapes to the outside environment, its fate
is determined by the prevailing meteorological conditions.
Therefore, detailed meteorological data are required. The
frequency of wind direction toward any given sector determines
the degree of possible risk to the population within that sec-
tor from material emitted upwind. Besides wind direction, wind
speed affects the dilution rate of the material. The amount
and rate of rainfall are significant factors in determining
the amount of material that can be leached from the wastes.
The geology and hydrology of the area determine the degree of
waste confinement. Factors influencing the movement of the
waste include: types of formations in the area, such as gravel
clay, sand, and shale which have variable permeabilities and '
sorption capacities; depths of the various formations; and
depth to the water table. For a given waste, formations of
low permeability and high sorption capacities generally retard
waste movement. Deep formations and a large depth to water
table allow increased interaction between the sediments and
the wastes.
Since water represents the main vehicle of transportation for
any significant quantities of wastes from the burial site, the
site should be located as far as possible from any important
groundwater sources. Since the groundwater can convey the
wastes to the surface streams, it is necessary to determine
the possible movement of groundwater from the burial site into
streams, springs, and other water sources. The points of
groundwater discharge must be established and the dilution
capacity of the surface streams determined.
292
-------
In near-surface burial, the wastes should also be buried as
far as possible from any wells or surface streams in order to
maximize the retention time in the soil if leaching does occur.
In this way the waste can be retained by the natural processes
of absorption, filtration, and ion exchange. The trenches or
pits should be covered with an impermeable material (concrete,
clay, shale, or asphalt) or with vegetation to prevent infiltra-
tion of water. Coverage with vegetation is less desirable
than covering with impermeable material, since some infiltra-
tion of water can occur, especially during periods of heavy
rainfall.
Seismic hazards such as faults, earthquakes, and tsunamis are
the major phenomena to be considered. Since there is a general
lack of knowledge about earthquakes, it is necessary to make
conservative estimates and evaluations of the critical seismic
data. A seismic probability map of the United States
(Figure 37) depicts zones of no moderate and major damage
The largest zone of possible major earthquake damage lies along
the West Coast of the United States.
In locating the disposal site, it is necessary to provide
sufficient distance between the site and the surrounding popula-
tion to minimize the danger to the general public from either
normal operation or accidental releases. Federal regulations
(10 CFR 100) specify that nuclear reactor plants be surrounded
by zones of low population. This same regulation should also
apply to disposal sites for hazardous materials. The major
areas with a population density of less than 30 persons per
square mile are located in the midwest, southwest, and north-
west regions of the United States. In addition, location of
the site should be selected to minimize the distance required
to transport the hazardous materials to the site.
Near-surface burial of low-level radioactive wastes is being
conducted at several AEC sites and also at six commercial
burial sites. The locations and descriptions of the sites
are included in Appendix M, Table A-92. In addition to radio-
active wastes, some of the commercial burial sites also handle
certain chemical wastes. These commercial burial sites are
regulated by the AEC or by an AEC agreement with the individual
States.
At each of these commercial sites, the wastes are buried in
trenches approximately 20 feet deep, from 25 to 6 0 feet wide,
and from 300 to 700 feet long. The design of the trenches at
each site is fairly similar. They are planned to avoid the
groundwater table and are constructed with a bottom drain and
293
-------
sump for water monitoring. The trenches are unlined, so the
extent of leaching is dependent on the permeability of the soil.
At each site liquid wastes are solidified by mixing with vari-
ous additives such as concrete, which absorb and solidify the
wastes. These commercial facilities also offer packaging and
transportation services.
Landfill Disposal
Wastes received at a hazardous waste disposal facility or
generated as the residue from other neutralization/detoxifica-
tion processes can be solids, liquids, sludges, or slurries,
or combinations thereof. Common landfill disposal methods for
these materials include (1) mixing with soil, (2) evaporation
and infiltration, and/or (3) shallow burial.
Combinations of these methods can be involved in a disposal
process. For example, in the spreading of a slurry on land,
the liquid content may either evaporate or infiltrate into the
subsoil. Solid wastes will normally be incorporated in a
landfill and buried. Liquids, slurries, and sludges might also
be incorporated in a landfill; however, because of the large
quantity of moisture contained in these wastes, disposal prac-
tices usually involve spreading them on land or placing them
in ponds to maximize evaporation or infiltration.
Landfills operate on two principles: (1) utilization of the
absorptive capacity of the soil and, perhaps, some biological
degradation of the wastes by soil microorganisms; and (2) stor-
age of wastes so that they are isolated from direct contact
with man and the surface environment. Some liquid wastes are
currently discharged in areas where infiltration and percolation
into underlying porous sediments will have limited possibility
of groundwater contamination, because of depth to water or
specific retention capacity. In other cases, simple shallow
burial of solid wastes in a geologically "dead" area is the
method of disposal. It must be stressed that the usability
of any landfill site is basically determined by the site's
characteristics, and investigation of these characteristics
is of utmost importance to site selection.
Basic meteorology must be a part of the selection investigations
for a proposed hazardous waste disposal site. The two primary
elements of this investigation are determination of the average
rainfall in the area and construction (from available historical
data) of a wind rose for the site.
294
-------
Demographic data for the area consists of a plot of the popula-
tion distribution within various radii of the site which can
be compared with the direction of the prevailing winds.
The geological and groundwater conditions should be investigated
through a program of field inspection and testing involving
soil and rock examination and the boring of test holes. The
investigation should study the depth to and occurrence of
groundwater, its natural quality, and the existence of natural
impervious barriers. The soil types, permeability, depth and
thickness of impervious layers, extensiveness of their lateral
continuity, and occurrence of dip and strike of the layers
should also be determined. The investigation should indicate
that either geologic and hydrologic conditions will prevent
migration of hazardous material onto adjacent properties or
that appropriate design features are feasible to preclude such
migration.
The number of test holes required to indicate underlying geo-
logic conditions should be related to the adequacy of detailed
information from other sources. Information should be pro-
vided oh underlying geology to confirm rock types and ground-
water conditions (absence of groundwater and/or its occurrence
and quality). Shallow zone exploration should involve drilling
a minimum of three test holes on the site to a depth determined
by the geologist in charge of the investigation. More test
holes may be necessary, depending on the size of the property
and the potential for variable geologic conditions. Drilling
logs should be included in the report for any test holes or
monitoring wells constructed.
The area used for any hazardous waste disposal facility should
be free from potential geological hazards, such as known earth-
quakes, faults, and landslide zones. In areas of major subsi-
dence, this hazard should also be evaluated. Land slippage or
settlement can result in rupture of levees surrounding indus-
trial waste ponds, exposure of buried hazardous materials, or
liquids breeching or overtopping pond walls. The effect on
slope or levee stability of waste liquids percolating through
soils or other zones of weakness must be considered in the
design of waste disposal areas.
If the method of operation ifelies on the infiltration of large
quantities of liquids, the natural soils on the property
should be relatively permeable to allow infiltration to occur.
Sufficient subsurface storage capacity for the liquids should
exist. Conversely, if impervious basins are desired and the
295
-------
native soils are not suitable for that purpose, impermeable
materials may have to be imported or artificial linings
installed.
Soil and rock types should also be suitable for the kind of
excavation work anticipated. Excavations for the disposal
facility should not create hazards of slope instability or
problems of erosion. Slope degrees should be consistent with
good engineering practice for the particular soil or rock type
involved. Erosive soils should be protected by use of mulches,
hydroseed applications, or other means.
Finally, if artificial barriers are to be installed, a report
should be submitted indicating the long-term competence of
such a barrier. Response to seismic activity and the possi-
bility of shrinkage and cracking due to drying or action of
the hazardous wastes should be evaluated. Pre-tests should
be made on all prospective liners to determine compatibility
with the material being disposed.
Ocean Disposal of Hazardous Waste Materials3 9 1 0 1
The oceans have always served as the ultimate disposal sink
for all the waterborne waste material carried by the natural
and man-made streams discharging at their shores and for all
the atmospheric pollutants scrubbed from the air by rain. In
addition, with increasing frequency in this century, hazardous
waste materials have been deliberately shipped out to sea and
dumped as either an expedient or an economically attractive
disposal technique. These hazardous waste materials have
varied widely in type, in quantity, and in frequency of dis-
posal. Three examples of this diversity may be cited as
typical.
(1) "Spent" sulfuric acid (seven to ten percent
H2SO4 and up to thirty percent FeS04> wastes
from steel pickling and titanium oxide pigment
manufacture processes are shipped daily to sea
in specially designed barges, at the rate of
2.7 million tons per year.
(2) The U.S. Army program for deep sea disposal of
obsolete chemical munitions was terminated in
1970 with the scuttling in the Atlantic of a
stripped cargo vessel laden with 418 concrete
vaults which contained a total of 135,432 pounds
of GB chemical warfare agent (non-persistent
"nerve gas") and 32,605 pounds of explosives.
296
-------
(3) Individual 55-gallon drums filled with sodium metal
sludge (75 percent Na, 25 percent Ca) are pierced and
dropped from the decks of merchant vessels into the
Gulf of Mexico on an intermittent, unscheduled basis.
The examples cited above illustrate the three basic techniques
for ocean disposal of hazardous waste materials. The first
technique is bulk disposal of liquid or slurry-type wastes.
The waste materials are loaded into barging equipment, generally
specially designed tank barges. The barges are towed to sea
and emptied while underway at off-shore distances ranging from
10 to 125 miles.
In the past, the U.S. Army and Navy have stripped obsolete or
surplus World War II cargo ships and loaded the ships with
obsolete munitions of all types. The "explosive waste" laden
hulks were towed out to the pelagic depths beyond the Atlantic
and Pacific continental shelves and scuttled in predesignated
sites.
The third basic technique employed for deep sea disposal of
hazardous materials is the sinking at sea of containerized
hazardous/toxic wastes. The individual containers, generally
55-gallon drums, are carried as deck cargo or* merchant vessels
and are discharged overboard at distances from shore that,
dependent upon the contents, may be well over 300 miles.
The operating principles involved in the three basic techniques
employed for deep sea disposal differ in their use of the
ocean. Sea water is used as a reacting, neutralizing medium
and/or a diluent in the bulk disposal of industrial wastes
from tank barges. By contrast, obsolete munitions detonated
in the deep sea employ the ocean as a cushioning, isolating
medium to protect the on-shore environment from the effects of
the detonation. Similarly, disposal of concrete-encased obso-
lete chemical munitions and obsolete conventional ordnance
items (undetonated) by burial in several thousand feet of
water use the ocean as a means of isolation, to minimize or
prevent both potential and actual impact upon the on-shore
ecosphere.
The deep sea disposal of containerized hazardous wastes is
based upon the principles cited above. Where the drums are
deliberately ruptured at the surface, the ocean is used as a
reactant and/or a diluent. Those drums that are weighted
and sunk intact beyond the continental shelf employ the thou-
sands of feet of water for protective isolation of the barrels
and their contents.
297
-------
There were 281 ocean areas designated for the disposal of
wastes of all types in 1969. Of these areas, 117 were used
for the disposal of hazardous wastes. The regional distri-
bution of these locations is summarized in Table 38.
TABLE 38
MARINE DISPOSAL AREAS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES
(By Region and Waste Type)
Waste Type Pacific Atlantic Gulf Total
Industrial waste
9*
15*
16
40
Radioactive Waste
10*
25*
2
37
Explosive and chemical
munitions
19*
19*
11
49
Total
38
59
29
126
(No duplicates)
* Areas used for two or more types of wastes.
A number of studies have been made of the environmental effects
of ocean dumping of hazardous materials. Because of the unique
requirement by the Galveston District of the Corps of Engineers
that laboratory and field studies of the effects of the wastes
be filed in support of disposal applications, the majority of
these studies have been carried out in the Gulf of Mexico.
Results of the various studies indicate that the toxic effects
of the hazardous chemical and pesticide wastes are generally
limited to short time periods and areas in immediate proximity
to the discharge or dump. In general, the rate of dilution is
so high that after twelve hours it is impossible to detect
analytically chemical differences between "contaminated" and
uncontaminated sea areas.
The toxic effects of waste acid discharged from tank barges at
sea are minimal; the zooplankton from samples in the immediate
discharge zone were immobilized temporarily, but recovered
rapidly in unpolluted water. Chlorinated hydrocarbon wastes
discharged in Gulf waters killed fish and plankton in direct
contact with the undiluted waste. In contrast, there was no
effect observed on marine life at the surface two to four hours
after discharge. The general ocean surface and upper level
298
-------
effects of chlorinated hydrocarbon discharge range downward
from the upper extreme noted above—fish and plankton kill—
through laboratory-study detected inhibition of photosynthesis
and respiration, to total absence of observable effect. The
possible effects of the discharged chlorinated hydrocarbons
at deeper levels and on the bottom have not been determined.
Unpierced barrels loaded with sodium sludge (75 percent metal-
lic sodium, 2 4 percent metallic calcium) have on two occasions
been retrieved in the Gulf of Mexico by fishermen. These
barrels were not pierced prior to dumping as prescribed, nor
were they dumped in the prescribed area. Pierced barrels of
the sodium sludge exploded when dropped overboard, produced
no significant effects on the microbiota and, due to the
probable barrenness of the area, produced no visible fish kill.
Deep sea disposal bulk transport systems vary from modern,
specialized tank barges to obsolete hulks. The majority of
bulk liquid and slurry hazardous wastes dumped at sea are
transported in specially designed tank barges of from one to
five thousand short tons in capacity. The tank barges are
of double-skinned bottom construction and must be certified
for ocean waters by the U.S. Coast Guard. The barge cargo
is under U.S. Coast Guard regulations covering the bulk ship-
ment of chemicals from the United States.
Industrial waste-laden barges are transported to the industrial
waste disposal areas desiqnated in Figures 38, 39, and 40
for the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico Coast, at
off-shore distances that depend upon the type of waste and the
regulatory procedures. Typical distances are, for acid wastes,
15 miles from New York City; for toxic chemical wastes,
125 miles into the Atlantic; for Gulf of Mexico operations,
125 miles from the coast (at the 2,400 foot depth line). In
the disposal area, typical barge speeds from 3 to 6 knots are
used; typical discharge is at 6 to 15 feet submergence, at
rates that vary between 4 and 20 tons per minute.
Containerized toxic industrial wastes, as noted earlier, are
dumped at sea after transport as deck cargo on either merchant
vessels or contract disposal vessels. The individual containers
are either ruptured at the surface or weighted for sinking.
There is no single "operating design" or operating practice
that covers the wide variety of materials thus disposed of.
299
-------
FIGURE 38
PACIFIC COAST DISPOSAL AREAS
R.
SEATTLE
WASH
PORTLAND
ORE
LEGEND
E EXPLOSIVES AND TOXIC CHEMICAL
AMMUNITION
® EXPLOSIVES AND TOXIC CHEMICAL
AMMUNITION, INACTIVE SITE
I INDUSTRIAL WASTE
R RADIOACTIVE WASTE
R
(D—¦¦/1
V ms/\*
\\ E ©
NOTE: SUBSCRIPT INDICATES
NUMBER OF SITES
El (ER)MTSAN
CALIF
¦SAN DIEGO
300
-------
FIGURE 39
ATLANTIC COAST DISPOSAL AREAS
legend
E EXPLOSIVES AND TOXIC CHEMICAL AMMUNITION
© EXPLOSIVES AND TOXIC CHEMICAL AMMUNITION,
INACTIVE SITE
| INDUSTRIAL WASTE
R RADIOACTIVE WASTE
BOSTON
CONN
NOTE: SUBSCRIPT INDICATES
NUMBER OF SITES
NEW YORK-
PHILADELPHIA
BALTIMORE
A
'VA
NORFOLK1
N. CAR
S. CAR
CHARLESTON. . - . -
GAVr^S 'E.J
© T
JACKSONVILLE
. ~
301
-------
FIGURE 40
GULF OF MEXICO DISPOSAL AREAS
LEGEND
E EXPLOSIVES AND TOXIC CHEMICAL AMMUNITION
© EXPLOSIVES AND TOXIC CHEMICAL AMMUNITION,
INACTIVE SITE
I INDUSTRIAL WASTE NOTE: SUBSCRIPT INDICATES
R RADIOACTIVE WASTE
NUMBER OF SITES
TEXAS
HOUSTON.
LA
PORT
ARTHUR
I
NEW
4 ORLEANS
i.-©
302
-------
Conclusions
The selection and ranking of hazardous waste processing and
disposal sites on a nationwide basis presents a challenge of
no small magnitude. The initial approach of establishing
criteria, with their ranking values and weightings, appears to
be sound and corresponds to similar methods used by industry
in site selection. Problems arise from the absence of reliable
data on the performance of existing facilities, since only
several exist that even remotely approach the designs described
in Chapter IV.
Waste generation data also complicate the integration of trans-
portation risk and economic parameters into the site suitability
assessment. The study team believes that transportation con-
siderations will weigh heavily in determining the service area
of a waste treatment plant. Accordingly, the regional approach
to site selection reflects transport distances that appear
reasonable at this time in light of the available data.
As discussed earlier in this chapter, attention must be given
to ways in which a high-ranked area (county) outside but near
the periphery of a region can be integrated into both its own
region and the adjacent region—interregional interactions.
Further, the conversion of the rating system to achieve nation-
wide (versus regional) ratings of the counties presents an
additional challenge, one which will be crucial with respect
to transportation criteria.
The selection of county size as the controlling ranking crite-
rion appears near optimum with respect to a manageable evalua-
tion matrix, and to uniformity and validity of available
information. Certainly, any significantly larger area would
require data smoothing and integration which might compromise
the assessment accuracy, reduce the desirable spread in the
final ratings, and eliminate the low- and high-ranked sites.
Choosing an area smaller than the county would present nearly
insurmountable problems with respect to the size of the evalua-
tion matrix and to adequate, uniform data across the country.
Too many potential sites could be overlooked in the screening
process.
No attempt was made at this stage of site evaluation to relate
suitability to any logical order of site development. Such
determinations must await the improved waste generation data
and associated economic information that will logically come
from implementation of a hazardous waste regulatory program.
303
-------
The rating output of counties (Table A-93,Appendix M) is,
therefore, not a firm and final listing in any sense. Rather,
it should be considered as a guide to further more detailed
evaluations and a starting point for those who might become
involved in reconnaissance studies for detailed site selection.
304
-------
CHAPTER CONTENTS
CHAPTER VII
IMPLEMENTATION
Page No.
BRIEF 309
INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES 311
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES 312
Alternative One: No Change in Existing System 312
Advantages 312
Disadvantages 312
Degree of Federal Involvement 312
Implementation Strategy 312
Sum/nary 312
Alternative Two: State Responsibility and Standards 313
Advantages 313
Disadvantages 313
Degree of Federal Involvement 313
Implementation Strategy 313
Summary 314
Alternative Threet State Responsibility and
Standards with Federal Subsidy to Finance State
or Locally Operated Systems 314
Summary 314
Alternative Four; State Responsibility and
Standards with Federal Tax incentives to
Encourage Satisfactory Hazardous Wastes Management 314
Advantages 314
Disadvantages 314
Degree of Federal Involvement 315
Implementation Strategy 315
Summary 315
305
-------
CHAPTER CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No.
Alternative Five: State Responsibility with
Standards Meeting Federal Guidelines 315
Advantages 316
Disadvantages 316
Degree of Federal Involvement 316
Implementation Strategy 316
Summary 316
Alternative Six: State Responsibility and
S tandards Meeting Federal Guidelines with
Federal Subsidy to Finance State or Locally
Operated Systems 317
Advantages 317
Di sadvantages 317
Degree of Federal Involvement 317
Implementation Strategy 317
Summary 318
Alternative Seven: Federal Responsibility and
Standards with No Management System 318
Advantages 318
Di sadvantages 3J8
Degree of Federal Involvement 318
Implementation Strategy 318
Summary 318
Alternative Eight: Federal Responsibility and
Standards with Federal Subsidy to Finance State
or Locally Operated Systems 319
Advantage 319
Di sadvantages 319
Degree of Federal Involvement 319
Implementation Strategy 319
Summary 320
Alternative Nine: Federal Responsibility and
Standards with No Management System but with
Federal Tax Incentives to Encourage Satisfactory
Waste Management 320
306
-------
CHAPTER CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No.
Advantages 320
Disadvantages 320
Degree of Federal Involvement 320
Implementation strategy 321
Summary 321
Alternative Ten: Federal Responsibility and
Standards with Private Facility Ownership
Operating Under State Licensing and Enforcement 321
Advantages 321
Disadvantages 321
Degree of Federal Involvement 322
Implementation Strategy 322
Summary 322
Alternative Eleven: Federal Responsibility,
Standards, and Facility Ownership, with Operation
by Private Enterprise Under Federal Contract 322
Advantages 322
Di sadvantages 322
Degree of Federal Involvement 323
Implementation Strategy 323
Summary 323
Alternative Twelve: Federal Responsibility,
Facility Ownership, and Operation 323
Advantages 323
Disadvantages 324
Degree of Federal Involvement 324
Implementation Strategy 324
Summary 324
institutional Alternatives Matrix 324
Summary and Conclusions 32?
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW - STATE LEGISLATION/REGULATIONS 327
FEDERAL LEGISLATION/REGULATIONS 329
307
-------
CHAPTER CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No.
Substantive Aspects 332
Water 333
Air 335
Pesticides 335
Toxic Substances 336
Land Use 337
Environmental Impact 338
Legislative References 339
Recent Legislation 340
Transportation Aspects 341
Administrative Structure 341
Regulations 344
Interested Agencies: Jurisdiction 345
Inspection of Containers Before Transit 346
Inadequacies of the Present Federal System
of Controlling Transportation of Hazardous
Wastes in Interstate Commerce 346
Lack of Resources 347
Lack of Coordination Between DOT and
Other Agencies 347
Inadequacies in Substance of Present Standards 348
Lack of Uniform Investigatory Processes 348
Lack of Information to the States and
Municipalities 349
Lack of Information to Industry 350
Enforcement Problems 350
SUMMARY 350
Policy-Making 350
Lack of Resources 351
Coordination 351
Substantive 35^
FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS 352
308
-------
CHAPTER VII
IMPLEMENTATION
BRIEF
As pointed out in Chapter I, a system for the management of
hazardous wastes will consist of both physical entities
(transportation systems, processing facilities, and disposal
sites) and the institutional and financial arrangements
necessary to the functioning of the system. In addition, a
number of other issues are involved in successful implementa-
tion:
• the range of implementation options;
• effectiveness in meeting the goal;
• Federal cost and employment;
• legislative requirements;
• compatibility with other efforts in public health
and environmental protection; and
• private sector involvement and equity.
The first of these is a key issue. There are numerous separate
and distinctly different potential implementation mechanisms,
ranging from a highly restrictive Federally owned and operated
system to the simple, unrestricted publication of guidelines.
The optimum mechanism obviously lies within this spectrum.
From this wide selection of possible implementation methods a
comparative analysis of several viable alternatives has been
made. And, since institutional arrangements are founded
principally upon laws, related State and Federal legislation
was examined. As a result of this analysis, advantages and
disadvantages of 12 alternative institutional arrangements and
the strategy required for the implementation of each have been
identified.
A matrix (given on page 325) summarizes each institutional
alternative and rates (on an ascending scale, with the least
desirable rating as the highest number) its six essential
characteristics. The total rating, as well as the individual
values for each alternative, could be useful in selecting the
309
-------
optimal institutional arrangement to effectively handle the
nation's hazardous wastes. Finally, the institutional arrange-
ment considered most suitable for managing hazardous wastes
in the United States is discussed.
Note that considerations given in this chapter refer only to
nonradioactive hazardous wastes. Radioactive wastes have tra-
ditionally been the subject of Federal controls and, in the
case of high level wastes, Federal stewardship in final disposal.
A more complete discussion of the special attributes associated
with radioactive wastes is given in Chapter V.
Certain key findings and conclusions regarding implementation
schemes have become apparent in the course of these efforts:
• Taking all things into consideration—the magnitude
of the problems to be solved, the cost to society and
its equitable distribution, incentives for diminution
of the problem, and general administrative workability—
the most effective institutional alternative appears
to be a combination of Federal responsibilities and
standards for hazardous waste management with the
operation of privately owned waste processing, storage,
and disposal facilities under licenses issued and
controlled by the State governments.
• New regulations and controls in hazardous waste
management can be expected to result in minor
restructuring of business practices if the arrangement
described above is adopted. The largest impact will
be the accelerated development of an industry devoted
to providing hazardous waste management services
which now exists in only a rudimentary form.
• The timing and emergence of a well-developed hazardous
waste management service for industry will be sensitive
to the nature of the regulations promulgated, and
particularly to their level of enforcement. In
essence, regulatory and enforcement programs can
create a market for such a service industry.
• Legislative activities in hazardous wastes management
at State and lower jurisdictional levels are at
present minimal. This perhaps indicates that short-
term, more visible problems attract the most attention
and long-term consequences are not yet fully apprec-
iated.
310
-------
INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
The following twelve institutional options were selected
from the many possible to cover a range of responsibility
and standards, incentives, and Federal investment.
1. No Change in Existing System
2. State Responsibility and Standards
3. State Responsibility and Standards with Federal
Subsidy to Finance State or Locally Operated
Systems
4. State Responsibility and Standards with Federal
Tax Incentive to Encourage Satisfactory Hazardous
Waste Management
5. State Responsibility and Standards Meeting
Federal Guidelines
6. State Responsibility and Standards Meeting
Federal Guidelines with Federal Subsidy to
Finance State or Locally Operated Systems
7. Federal Responsibility and Standards, but No
Management System
8. Federal Responsibility and Standards with
Federal Subsidies to Finance State or Locally
Operated Systems
9. Federal Responsibility and Standards, but
Private Management System with Federal Tax
Incentives to Encourage Satisfactory Waste
Management
10. Federal Responsibility and Standards with
Private Facility Ownership Operating Under
State License and Regulation
11. Federal Responsibility and Facility Ownership,
Operated by Contract to Private Enterprise
12. Federal Responsibility, Facility Ownership,
and Operation
311
-------
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative One: No Change in Existing System
This alternative is simply a continuation of the status quo
under which hazardous wastes are disposed of in a variety of
ways by a variety of public and private waste handlers. The
alternative envisions no change in standards or regulatory
requirements and no incentive or subsidy of any kind.
Advantages
1. No Federal money would be required to implement
this alternative.
2. No legislative changes would be required.
3. No new Federal employees would be required.
4. This alternative is now operating—nothing
further needs to be done.
Disadvantages
1. The present system is generally considered to be
ineffective in protecting public and environment
from adverse effects of hazardous wastes.
2. Little or no stimulus is offered to private sector
involvement due to lack of effective regulation
and the high risk involved in operation.
Degree of Federal Involvement
This alternative represents the minimum possible involvement
of the Federal Government in the management of the nation's
hazardous wastes, short of decreasing the current involvement.
Implementation Strategy
None is required since this alternative is currently in
operation.
Summary
This alternative is not satisfactory and should not be consid-
ered seriously since the present method of handling hazardous
wastes is inefficient and ineffective in protecting the public
and the environment from their possibly adverse effects.
312
-------
Alternative Two; State Responsibility and Standards
This alternative involves enactment of Federal legislation to
place the responsibility for hazardous waste management with
State governments and direct them to adopt appropriate State
standards for this operation. It could involve Federal
financial assistance (i.e., program grants) to State regulatory
agencies to assist them in carrying out this alternative.
Advantages
1. Few additional Federal funds would be required to
implement this alternative. Those required would
consist principally of program grants to State
regulatory agencies.
2. Only minor changes in existing legislation would
have to be effected.
3. Very few new Federal employees would have to be
hired.
Disadvantages
1. This mechanism would be ineffective in bringing
about necessary changes in existing unsatisfactory
waste management systems.
2. This alternative offers little, if any, incentive
to private enterprise to invest capital and resourc-
es in hazardous waste management.
Degree of Federal Involvement
This alternative increases slightly the present involvement
of the Federal government in traditional areas of management
of the nation's hazardous wastes.
Implementation Strategy
Drafting and submission of legislation to Congress directing
State governments to enact appropriate standards and enforce
them would be required. The legislation would also have to
authorize program grants to State regulatory agencies to
assist them in enforcing the standards. These changes
could be incorporated into amendments to the present Federal
Solid Waste Disposal Act which expires June 30, 1974.
313
-------
Summary
Although this alternative would probably result in more effective
management systems, it still lacks the necessary involvement to
assure proper operation.
Alternative Three; State Responsibility and Standards with
Federal Subsidy to Finance State or Locally Operated Systems
This alternative contains the basic elements of Alternative Two
plus the inclusion of Federal subsidies or construction grants
to State or local waste management agencies for constructing
and operating hazardous waste management facilities until such
time as user fees would financially sustain the system.
Summary
Although more efficient than Alternatives One and Two in properly
handling hazardous wastes, this alternative still lacks the
desired level of effectiveness. This factor, coupled with a
high Federal cost, detracts from adoption of this alternative
as the preferred system.
Alternative Four: State Responsibility and Standards with
Federal Tax Incentives to Encourage Satisfactory
Hazardous Wastes Management
In addition to the elements of Alternative Two, this alternative
contains a Federal tax incentive for industries to encourage
satisfactory hazardous waste management. The incentive could
allow a favorable depreciation schedule on capital investment
or actually reduce corporate tax rates if satisfactory hazardous
waste management were demonstrated.
Advantages
1. Cost to Federal Government would be moderate to low
(there would be some loss in revenue due to the tax
incentive).
2. This alternative would encourage waste producers to
solve their own problems.
3. Only minor increase in Federal employment would be
required to implement this alternative.
Disadvantages
1. This alternative could be difficult to administer.
314
-------
2. Sources of hazardous wastes other than industry
are not considered.
3. Tax incentive is minimally attractive to marginal
waste producers.
4. This alternative lacks promise of effective hazard-
ous waste management.
5. Although waste producers might be stimulated to
solve their own problems, the alternative offers
very little encouragement to the private waste
management sector to enter the field with its
capital.
Degree of Federal Involvement
The alternative represents a slight increase in Federal
involvement in the management of hazardous wastes as compared
with present levels of activity. The increase would be in
areas traditionally considered to be within Federal purview.
Implementation Strategy
This alternative would require substantial changes in exist-
ing legislation, principally concerning the details of the
tax incentive. The Treasury Department and EPA would have to
work closely together to develop workable recommended legis-
lation. Following enactment, a mechanism would be required
to inform industry about eligible systems and to regularly
inspect them for adequacy.
Summary
Management of this alternative appears awkward, with only
minimal prospects for successfully coping with the problems
of hazardous waste management.
Alternative Five: State Responsibility with
Standards Meeting Federal Guidelines
This alternative contains the basic elements of Alternative
Two, with the added requirement that State standards meet
Federal guidelines for managing hazardous wastes. Further,
if State standards do not meet Federal guidelines or if the
State regulatory agencies fail to adequately enforce the
standards, the Federal government could preempt the State
agencies, requiring the adoption of meaningful standards
and/or their enforcement.
315
-------
Advantages
1. This alternative would require only minimal increase
in Federal funds.
2. Implementation would require few new Federal employees.
3. This alternative offers moderate encouragement to
involvement of the private sector in the management
of hazardous wastes.
Disadvantages
1. The threat of Federal enforcement proceedings increases
the projected effectiveness of this alternative over
Alternatives One and Two, but the system lacks the
mechanism to assure early satisfactory hazardous
waste management.
2. The dichotomy of institutional responsibility for
enforcement could cause conflict.
Degree of Federal Involvement
This alternative increases the level of Federal involvement in
the management of hazardous wastes in the area of regulation,
making it comparable to existing legislation in air and water
pollution control.
Implementation Strategy
While significant changes in existing legislation would be
required to implement this alternative, they would be relative-
ly simple to frame because of past history in air and water
pollution control. Following enactment, a major program of
coordination with State regulatory agencies would have to be
initiated to insure effective operation.
Summary
Low Federal cost appears to be the chief advantage of this
alternative. It lacks an effective mechanism to assure satis-
factory hazardous waste management and appears to have small
chance for success.
316
-------
Alternative Six; State Responsibility and Standards
Meeting Federal Guidelines with Federal Subsidy
to Finance State or Locally Operated Systems
This alternative contains the basic elements of Alternative
Five with the addition of a Federal subsidy or construction
grant to finance systems. Compliance with State standards
and Federal guidelines would be prerequisite to receiving
a grant.
Advantages
1. Construction grants provide a mechanism for initia-
tion of a waste management system and promise a
fairly effective program.
2. Funds would be provided at a relatively early date
for implementing the proposed system.
Disadvantages
1. A significant increase in Federal funds would be
required to implement this alternative.
2. A significant number of additional Federal employees
would be required.
3. This alternative would offer no encouragement to
involvement of private sector resources in the area
of hazardous waste management. In fact, it might
drive out those now involved.
4. Lack of availability of Federal funds supporting
construction grants could stifle program's initiative.
Degree of Federal Involvement
This alternative represents a significant increase in the
Federal government's involvement in management of the nation's
hazardous wastes. Such increased involvement has precedence,
however, in the similar Federal program in water pollution
control.
Implementation Strategy
The strategy for implementing this alternative would be basic-
ally identical to that of Alternative Three, with the added
difficulty of lack of support from State agencies. Similar
delays would be experienced.
317
-------
Summary
While this would be the most effective of the alternatives dis-
cussed so far, the high Federal cost and deterrent effect on
the involvement of private enterprise would offset this advant-
age. Also, complete control through a national management
system is lacking, and thus maximum effectiveness would still
not occur despite high Federal costs.
Alternative Seven; Federal Responsibility and
Standards with No Management System
This alternative would entail Federal legislation delegating
responsibility for the satisfactory management of hazardous
wastes to the Federal Government through promulgation and
regulation of standards. Lacking, however, is any system for
accomplishing these goals.
Advantages
1. A small increase in Federal funding or payroll would
be required to implement this alternative.
2. Only moderate legislative change would be necessary.
Disadvantages
1. Without an effective management system, this alterna-
tive would be largely ineffective in coping with
hazardous wastes problems.
Degree of Federal Involvement
This alternative represents a major increase in Federal Govern-
ment involvement in the management of hazardous wastes, princi-
pally because responsibilities formerly held by State
governments would fall to the Federal establishment. Similar
responsibilities have already been delegated to the Federal
Government in the area of handling low level radioactive material.
Implementation Strategy
New legislation, which would have to be drafted and submitted
for implementation, might initiate debate on the philosophical
issue of State versus Federal responsibility. Once adopted,
this alternative could be implemented fairly quickly.
Summary
This alternative represents a compromise between Federal regu-
lation and no Federal expenditure or involvement in the actual
318
-------
solution of the problem. While it offers promise for less
than a completely satisfactory approach, it is unlikely to be
a total failure.
Alternative Eight: Federal Responsibility and Standards
With Federal Subsidy to Finance State
or Locally Operated Systems'
This alternative has the basic elements of Alternative Seven
with the addition of Federal subsidies or construction grants
to State or local agencies for the purpose of constructing
and operating hazardous waste management facilities. Pre-
requisite to receiving a grant would be compliance with
Federal standards.
Advantage
1. This alternative offers a reasonable prospect for
an effective program due to coupling of Federal
responsibility with funds to finance systems.
Disadvantages
1. This alternative would demand large increases in
Federal funds and employees. High costs would
continue until user fees could sustain the system.
2. Adoption of this alternative would virtually preclude
involvement of private sector resources.
3. Delays in construction grant funds would seriously
impair the effectiveness of this approach.
Degree of Federal Involvement
This alternative represents a major increase in Federal involve-
ment, principally in delegating responsibility for hazardous
waste management to the Federal Government and authorizing
construction grants to construct and operate necessary
facilities.
Implementation Strategy
This alternative would require strategy similar to that of
Alternative Seven with the additional difficulty of authorizing
a construction grant program and the attendant delays in
implementing such a program after enactment. Time required to
develop regulations and employ necessary staff might cause
considerable delay in the implementation of the programs
envisioned under this alternative.
319
-------
Summary
This alternative offers a good chance for an effective program;
however, high Federal cost would be entailed. In achieving
effectiveness, involvement of the private sector would be
further precluded and it would probably be forced out of the
current market.
Alternative Nine: Federal Responsibility and Standards
with No Management System but with Federal Tax Incentives
~ to Encourage Satisfactory Waste Management
This alternative contains the basic elements of Alternative
Eight with the substitution of a Federal tax incentive to
encourage satisfactory waste management instead of a direct
Federal subsidy for the construction of waste management
facilities. The tax incentive could be positive or negative
(i.e., a tax benefit for a job well done or a penalty if
responsibilities were not being met).
Advantages
1. This alternative is slightly more effective than
Alternative Seven because of the tax incentive.
2. Only moderate increases in Federal cost and number
of Federal employees would be required to implement
this alternative.
Disadvantages
1. Positive or negative tax incentives are of doubtful
value in assuring an effective program of hazardous
waste management.
2. This alternative would do nothing to encourage parti-
cipation of private sector waste managers, although
it might encourage private waste producers to invest
capital and operational funds.
3. Complex legislation would be required, probably
involving the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Treasury Department.
Degree of Federal Involvement
This alternative represents a major increase in Federal Govern-
ment involvement in management of the nation's hazardous wastes,
in this case, the involvement is not operational but regulatory.
320
-------
Implementation Strategy
This alternative would require strategy similar to that of
Alternative Seven, with the additional complication of author-
izing a tax incentive program. The legislation could be
further complicated by the involvement of two or more
government agencies, thus requiring significant coordination
to implement the law after enactment.
Summary
This alternative represents minimal increase in Federal cost
in return for doubtful effectiveness and no stimulation of
private sector involvement. In addition, it would be admin-
istratively cumbersome.
Alternative Ten; Federal Responsibility and Standards with
Private Facility Ownership Operating
Under State Licensing and Enforcement
In addition to the basic elements of Alternative Seven, this
alternative includes Federal operational responsibility through
a specified management system. The system would require
operation of facilities by private operators under Federal
standards with States involved in standard enforcement.
Private sector capital and operating costs would be reimbursed
by user fees from industries or governmental units contrib-
uting the hazardous wastes.
Advantages
1. This alternative offers the maximum leVel of
effectiveness through a specified national
system.
2. Maximum stimulation for involvement of private
sector resources would be provided.
3. Minimal increases in Federal funding and employment
would be required.
4. Meaningful participation by State authorities is
included.
Disadvantages
1. This alternative depends upon the participation
(including financing) of the private sector for success.
2. Active State participation must be promoted.
321
-------
Degree of Federal Involvement
This alternative represents the most significant Federal involve-
ment in the management of the nation's hazardous wastes of any
of the alternatives so far presented. The handling of radio-
active materials by the Atomic Energy Commission serves, to a
degree, as a precedent for this type of involvement.
Implementation Strategy
This alternative would require strategy as indicated for
Alternative Seven with the added difficulty of setting up a
mechanism for initiating and'operating the system under license.
Those favoring involvement of State governments might strongly
oppose the legislation unless implementation of State involve-
ment is clearly recognized as a Federal responsibility.
Following enactment, delays might be encountered if private
enterprise could not be attracted to this business opportunity.
Summary
This alternative offers a highly effective program with minimal
Federal cost and maximum participation of private sector capital
and resources.
Alternative Eleven: Federal Responsibility, Standards,
and Facility Ownership, with Operation by
Private Enterprise Under Federal Contract
This alternative contains the basic elements of Alternative
Seven with the addition of Federal operational responsibility
through a specified management system. The Federal Government
would own the processing and disposal facilities which would,
in turn, be operated by private enterprise under contract to
the Federal Government.
Advantages
1. This alternative offers the maximum level of effect-
iveness through a specified national system.
2. Maximum stimulation for involvement of private sector
resources would be provided.
Disadvantages
1. This alternative would have a high Federal cost
until user fees made the system self-sustaining.
322
-------
2. The success of this alternative would depend upon
the availability of both qualified private firms
to operate the systems and to appropriate funds
to finance them.
3. Meaningful participation by State solid waste
management agencies would be precluded.
Degree of Federal Involvement
This alternative represents an even greater Federal involve-
ment in management of the nation's hazardous wastes than that
of Alternative Ten.
Implementation Strategy
Strategy similar to that of Alternative Seven and Ten would
be required, with the added difficulty of specifying Federal
ownership of processing and disposal facilities. One could
expect opposition from those concerned with State involvement
and, after enactment, implementation could be significantly
delayed until funds for capitalization were made available.
Summary
This alternative offers a highly effective program and maximum
involvement of the private sector with a high Federal cost.
Alternative Twelve: Federal Responsibility,
Facility Ownership, and Operation
This alternative would require legislation delegating to the
Federal Government the responsibilities of satisfactorily
managing hazardous wastes through promulgation and regulation
of standards and directing the Federal Government to own and
operate a system designed to meet these standards.
Advantages
1. This alternative offers the maximum level of effect-
iveness through a completely controlled national
system.
2. Operation of the system would not be dependent upon
the availability of private firms since actual
financing of construction as well as operation would
be conducted by Federal personnel.
323
-------
Disadvantages
1. To implement this alternative would require a sub-
stantial increase in Federal cost.
2. Significant increases in Federal personnel would
be required.
3. This alternative would preclude any involvement of
the private sector in the management of hazardous
wastes.
4. Meaningful participation by State solid waste manage-
ment agencies would be precluded.
Degree of Federal Involvement
This alternative represents the maximum Federal involvement in
the management of the nation's hazardous wastes.
Implementation Strategy
This alternative would require an extensive legislative package
which would probably incur resistance from those favoring State
participation and from those opposed to the Federal Government's
role in waste management operations. Following enactment,
significant delays could be expected in obtaining the necessary
funds and in hiring and training new employees for operational
responsibility.
Summary
The advantage of high effectiveness due to a totally internally
controlled program would probably be offset by the high cost
and significant increase in Federal employment typified by this
alternative. This alternative also would preclude the involve-
ment of private sector resources.
Institutional Alternatives Matrix
Some degree of overall net value quantification of the altern-
atives considered above is desirable. Table 39 illustrates a
matrix analysis of the twelve alternatives weighted against
six selected measurement criteria. These criteria are:
324
-------
TABLE 39
INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVE MATRIX
Measurement
Alternative
Effectiveness
Equity
Federal Cost
Legislative
Requirement
Increase in No.
of Federal
Employees
Incentive for
Private Sector
Involvement
Total
No Change in
Existing Situation
10
3
1
1
1
5
21
State Responsibility
and Standards
8
3
2
2
1
4
20
State Responsibility
3 and Standards, Federal
Subsidy
3
4
5
3
3
5
23
State Responsibility
4 and Standards, Federal
Tax Incentive
5
4
2
3
2
4
20
State Responsibility
5 and Standards, Federal
Guidelines
4
2
2
3
2
4
17
State Responsibility
6 and Standards, Federal
Guidelines, Subsidy
2
4
5
3
4
5
23
Federal Responsibility
7 and Standards - No
Management System
3
2
3
3
3
3
17
Federal Responsibility
8 and Standards, Federal
Subsidy
2
4
5
3
4
5
23
Federal Responsibility
9 and Standards, Federal
Tax Incentive
3
3
3
4
3
4
20
Federal Responsibility
and Standards, Private
Facility Operation,
State Regulation
1
1
3
3
3
1
12
Federal Responsibility,
H Ownership, Contractor
Operated
1
3
4
4
3
1
16
12 Total Federal
1
5
5
4
5
5
24
325
-------
Weight and Scale*
• Effectiveness 1
Alternative offers greatest
promise of protecting public
and environment from hazardous
wastes
10 Alternative offers minimum
promise of protecting public
or environment from hazardous
wastes
• Equity 1
5
• Federal Cost 1
5
• Legislative 1
Requirements
5
• Increase in Federal 1
Employment
5
Alternative distributes the
financial burden directly to
those who receive the greatest
benefit from the wastes-
producing operations
Alternative distributes the
financial burden to parties
not directly benefiting from
the hazardous wastes-producing
operations
No additional funds required
to implement alternative
Significant additional Federal
funds required to implement
alternative
No additional Federal legisla-
tion required to implement
alternative
Major Federal legislative
changes required to implement
alternative
No new Federal employees re-
quired to implement alternative
Significant increase in number
of Federal employees required
to implement alternative
*Note that effectiveness is rated on a scale of 1-10, giving
this criterion twice the weight of the other criteria, which
are judged on a scale of 1 to 5.
326
-------
Incentive for 1
Private Sector
Involvement
Alternative assures major
involvement of private sector
resources
5 Alternative offers no incen-
tive to involvement of
private sector resources
Summary and Conclusions
Taking all things into consideration, the most effective insti-
tutional alternative would appear to be Alternative Ten, which
combines Federal responsibilities and standards for hazardous
waste management with the operation of privately owned waste
processing, storage, and disposal facilities licensed and
controlled by State governments. The overall advantage of
this system is illustrated in the previous matrix.
The second most desirable approach is Alternative Eleven,
which combines Federal responsibility and standard promulgation
with Federal ownership of facilities and operation by the
private sector under contract to the Federal Government.
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW - STATE LEGISLATION/REGULATIONS
To assist in developing perspectives on the "implementability"
of a hazardous waste management system, a review of relevant
legislation in sixteen States was conducted. The objectives
of this effort were:
• To identify any legislative/regulatory situation at
the State level that would constrain or facilitate
a system.
• To determine whether any innovative legislative/
regulatory mechanisms at the State level merit
consideration at the Federal level.
Detailed law library searches and interviews with key officials
were conducted in the following States:
Alabama New Jersey
California New York
Colorado Oregon
Illinois South Carolina
Kansas Texas
Maine Vermont
Michigan Virginia
Nevada Washington
327
-------
These States were selected to provide a balance of:
• geographic distribution;
• proximity to sources of hazardous wastes;
• legislative posture regarding hazardous wastes; and
• environmental/conservation forces in the States.
Results of these interviews and law library searches are sumjnar-
ized in this section. Detailed findings on a State-by-State
basis are given in Appendix N. Interview summaries were
developed in a form highlighting the results obtained and the
respective information sources, so that contacts can be re-
established in the future if necessary.
A matrix was prepared for each State, summarizing the following
on an agency-by-agency basis: State agency responsibilities
for hazardous wastes transportation; processing; disposal/
storage; and miscellaneous functions. For each of the above
functions, the matrix was completed (to the extent information
was available) to indicate:
• what is being regulated, and how;
• how well it is being enforced, and by whom;
• potential constraints on a national system; and
• innovative legislative/regulatory approaches.
In conducting the research summarized in this section, particular
emphasis was given to constraints that might cause delays in
implementing a system for hazardous waste management. The
various constraints considered include physical (geographical/
geological) factors; existing or nonexisting facilities;
existing or nonexisting regulations; the philosophy of the
State government regarding control of the environment (local
or regional groups as in California, or a more remote and centra-
lized agency); safety requirements; the degree of interagency
cooperation within the State and the extent of lateral commun-
ication among them; land use, including ownership patterns,
size of property parcels, type of economy, type of population
and its political philosophy and educational level; transpor-
tation factors; differing standards of adjoining States;
diversity among agencies within a State; political hierarchy
involved in administering existing regulations; and the status
of Federal guidelines within the framework of the State (Have
they been or are they boing to be adopted? Do State standards
exceed Federal standards?).
328
-------
As an overview, Table 40 summarizes the State-by-State research
results. Key points include the following:
• Disposal of radioactive materials is regulated in all
sixteen States surveyed. Transportation, processing,
and storage is regulated in twelve States.
• One-half of the States surveyed have radioactive
waste treatment/disposal facilities; less than
half have facilities for other hazardous materials.
• Of the States surveyed, only six have industrial
safety regulations.
• Fifteen States have adopted relevant DOT trans-
portation regulations (Michigan has not).
• Land use regulations are predominantly under local
control. Less than half of the States surveyed have
State zoning.
• Air and water ambient quality standards are set in
most States and are generally more stringent than
Federal standards.
• Air and water emission standards are not as widely
established as are ambient standards.
• Solid waste disposal and licensing is regulated in
twelve of the sixteen States surveyed.
• Explosives regulation is spotty in comparison to
other hazardous waste materials problem areas.
• Pesticides are the least regulated of any hazardous
wastes. One-third of the States surveyed control
their transportation or processing; one-half regu-
late their storage; most regulate their disposal.
• Existing highly regulated activities such as ambient
air and water standards and radioactive disposal
which are controlled by strict local standards pro-
bably provide the greatest potential for conflict in
the establishment of a national disposal site system.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION/REGULATIONS
The purpose of the review of Federal legislative and regulatory
mechanisms has been:
329
-------
TABLE 40
SUMMARY OF STATE LEGISLATION SURVEY
TRANSPORTATION
DOT REGULATIONS OTHERS'
INDUSTRIAL SAFETY
REGULATIONS FOR
HANDLING HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
PRESENCE Of
EXISTING FACILITIES
RADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS
bi
ALABAMA
YES
...
YES
YES
NO
CALIFORNIA
YES
YES
YES
...
YES
COLORADO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
ILLINOIS
YES
YES
...
YES
NO
KANSAS
YES
YES
...
YES
...
MAINE
YES
...
YES
NO
NO
MICHIGAN
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NEVADA
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NEW JERSE>
YES
....
DEV
YES
YES
NEW YORK
YES
...
YES
YES
YES
OREGON
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
SOUTH CAROLINA
YES
YES
...
YES
DEV
TEXAS
YES
YES
...
YES
YES
VERMONT
YES
...
DEV
NO
NO
VIRGINIA
YES
...
DEV
NO
DEV
WASHINGTON
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
la)INCLUDES HAULING PERMITS, VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS, MATER IAL REGISTRATIONS, BILLS OF LADING,
PLACARD ATTACHMENT, AND VEHICLE STANDARDS.
INCLUDES PESTICIDES, TOXIC SUBSTANCES, AND OTHER CHEMICALS
EXPLOSIVES
LAND USE
REGULATIONS ON
DISPOSAL TRANSPORTATION PROCESSING STORAGE
SHORELINE
REGULATION
CITY
ZONING
COUNTY
ZONING
STATE
ZONING
ALABAMA
—
...
—
...
...
...
...
CALIFORNIA
NO
YES
NO YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
COLORADO
NO
NO
NO NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
ILLINOIS
...
YES
—
YES
YES
YES
YES
KANSAS
YES
YES
YES YES
...
...
...
...
MAINE
YES
YES
—
YES
YES
YES
de;
MICHIGAN
YES
YES
...
YES
YES .
YES
YES
NEVADA
YES
NO
NO YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NEW JERSEY
YES
YES
YES YES
YES
YES
YES
DEV
NEW YORK
YES
YES
YES YES
NO
YES
YES
DEV
OREGON
YES
YES
NO YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
SOUTH CAROLINA
NO
YES
NO NO
YES
YES
YES
DEV
TEXAS
...
...
...
...
YES
YES
YES
VERMONT
YES
YES
YES YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
VIRGINIA
YES
YES
YES YES
OEV
YES
YES
NO
WASHINGTON
YES
YES
NO YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
330
-------
TABLE 40 (Continued)
RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL
PESTICIDES
REGULATIONS ON
REGULATIONS ON
31SPOSAL
TRANSPORTATION
PROCESSING
STORAGE
DISPOSAL
TRANSPORTATION PROCESS NG
;TOfiAGE
ALBANIA
VES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
CALIFORNIA
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
COLORADO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ILL INOIS
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
KANSAS
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
MAINE
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
W.i^hiGAN
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NEVADA
YES
YES
YES
YES
¦YES
NO
NO
YES
NEW JERSEY
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NEW YORK
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
OREGON
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
iOulM CAROLINA
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
TEXAS
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
...
YES
YES
VERMONi
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
VIRGINIA
YES
YES
YES
YES
YfS
NO
NO
NO
WASHINGTON
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
SOLID WASTE
AIR QUALITY
WATER QUALITY
DISPOSAL
REGULATIONS
LICENSING OF
DISPOSAL SITES
EMISSION
STANDARDS
AMBIENT
STANDARDS
DISCHARGE
PERMITS
EMISSION
STANDARDS
AMBIENT
STANDARDS
discharge
permits
ALABAMA
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
CALIFORNIA
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
COLORADO
YES
YES
...
—
...
...
...
...
ILLINOIS
DEV
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
KANSAS
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
MAINE
DEV
NO
—
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
MICHIGAN
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
...
...
NO
NEVADA
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NEW jtKStY
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NEW YORK
YES
YES
—
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
OREGON
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
SOUTH CAROLINA
YES
YES
(YES)
(YES)
...
YES
YES
OEV
TEXAS
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
VERMONT
NO
NO
—
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
VIRGINIA
YES
NO
...
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
WASHINGTON
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
331
-------
• to determine if any existing Federal legislation/
regulations will need to be changed to permit
implementation of a hazardous wastes management
system and
• to identify those areas where new legislation will
be needed to implement a national system.
For purposes of information collection, review, and analysis the
study was broken down into two primary elements. The first
dealt with the substantive aspects (identification, treatment,
disposal) and the second with the transportation aspects of
hazardous waste management. The findings from each of these
activities are described below.
Substantive Aspects
Federal legislation, executive orders, and regulations, as well
as selected legislative proposals in the 92nd Congress, have
been collected and reviewed with respect to possible relation-
ships to the overall task of devising a national system for
hazardous waste management. This phase of the legislative task
was confined primarily to the areas of air, water and solid
waste pollution control measures, legislation restricting the
use and development of toxic substances, and Federal legislative
proposals in the field of land use planning. Legislation and
regulatory activities in the area of radioactive waste manage-
ment were included in Chapter V.
No Federal legislation is in effect which directly bears upon
the problems of collecting and disposing of nonradioactive
hazardous wastes or the operation of a national system. Rather,
existing legislation in many environmental areas would have an
indirect effect upon the generation, identification, collection,
transportation, storage and disposal of wastes which in various
contexts might be defined as hazardous. Serious legislative
proposals in the 92nd Congress, which are being renewed in the
current Congress, would have the same potential effects. All
such legislation is significant only to the extent that it
calls attention to the need for comprehensive legislation
designed to implement a system for hazardous waste management.
Existing Federal laws have been examined in the context of broad
categories in the spectrum of the hazardous waste problem:
• identification/monitoring of waste streams;
• treatment; and
• storage and disposal.
332
-------
The following is a summary of the tentative analysis of this
material. No attempt has been made to summarize the voluminous
and detailed material examined, but the most important
Federal legislation is discussed. A more complete listing
of the legislation reviewed will be found in Appendix N of
this report.
Water
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500):
• Federal effluent standards for categories of
industrial wastes
• National standards for control of new and existing
point sources of pollution (Sec. 306)
• Preparation of list of toxic pollutants by EPA
and development of effluent standards providing
"an ample margin of safety" and pretreatment
standards
• Authorized inspections, monitoring, reports by
operators of point sources
• Federal enforcement by order, court action, civil
and criminal penalties, citizen suits
• Oil and hazardous substance liability (Sec. 311),
defining hazardous substances, penalties for dis-
charge from onshore or offshore facilities
• Regulation, by permit procedure, of disposal to
wells and ground water
• Pollutant permit program
• Exemption from NEPA requirements
Implications of the Act:
(1) Enforcement of effluent standards, periodically
upgraded, may have the effect of forcing industries
to turn to other means of treatment and disposal for
hazardous wastes which would otherwise be discharged
into conventional wastewater treatment systems.
(2) Inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements,
coupled with identification of toxic pollutants, will
facilitate identification of sources of hazardous
wastes, prediction of volume and content, and overall
333
-------
planning development and location of disposal sites
and treatment facilities.
(3) More stringent regulation of penalties for hazardous
waste discharges, particularly from onshore facilities,
may force use of nationally designated facilities.
(4) Research and development may carry over to the problems
of hazardous waste disposal.
(5) Operation of hazardous waste systems would be sub-
ject to effluent standards imposed under this act.
(6) Enforcement provisions may provide useful experience
for implementing hazardous wastes legislation.
(7) Federal efforts aimed at defining hazardous wastes,
designating toxic substances, and setting standards
for hazardous materials need to be integrated to
avoid public confusion and to facilitate adminis-
tration of regulations.
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (P. L.
92-532) :
• Ocean dumping of radiological, chemical, or biological
warfare agents or high-level radioactive wastes* are
prohibited
• Permit procedure regulates ocean dumping of other
material damaging to the environment; criteria estab-
lished include feasibility of alternative land-based
locations and methods of disposal
• Enforcement by court action, criminal penalties
• Comprehensive program of monitoring and research
authorized
Implications of the Act:
(1) May force use of alternative means of disposal of
hazardous wastes.
(2) Will provide experience in applying criteria for
identifying hazardous material.
(3) Monitoring and research data may be useful in identi-
fying hazardous wastes, sources, volume, etc.
*Note that the definition of high level wastes in this law is
different from that used in Chapter V of this report.
334
-------
Air
Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq;*
• Air quality standards, State implementation plans
• Standards of performance by new stationary sources
• National emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants
• Record keeping, inspections, and monitoring
• Research and development program
Implications of the Act:
(1) Enforcement of strict air quality standards may
force industries to dispose of hazardous materials
through alternative means, possibly by a nationally
designated system.
(2) Record keeping, inspections, and monitoring may
produce useful data in identifying sources and
volumes of hazardous wastes produced.
(3) Research and development programs may produce
carryover data.
(4) Operation of system would be subject to air quality
standards established under this Act.
Pesticides
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C.
135 et seq., as amended by the Federal Environmental Pesticide
Control Act of 1972, (P. L. 92-516):
• Registration of pesticides, with supporting data as
to formula, proposed use
• Classification as to use, labeling, and warnings
~Processing and disposal sites for hazardous wastes would
also be required to comply with future new source performance
standards (Section 111 of the Clean Air Act Amendments) and
future hazardous pollutant standards (Section 112). As an
example, the promulgated national emission standard for
beryllium is already applicable to special waste disposal
incinerators.
335
-------
• Registration of producers, disclosure of types, and
amounts of pesticides produced
• Record keeping and inspections
• Stop sale, use or removal orders, seizure, and disposal
• Disposal and transportation
• Research and monitoring
• Concurrent State authority so long as State standards
at least meet Federal standards
Implications of the Act:
(1) Regulation of the production and use of pesticides
could have a direct effect on the volume of hazardous
wastes to be handled by a national hazardous waste
system.
(2) Registration and disclosure, as well as requirements,
inspection, and record keeping, will facilitate
identification of hazardous wastes, source locations
and volumes.
(3) Procedures and regulations for the disposal or
storage of pesticides under Section 19 of the Act
may be directly related to the need for hazardous
waste disposal sites.
(4) Research and monitoring programs may produce carry-
over data.
Toxic Substances
Toxic Substances Control Act of 1972, S. 1478 (No final action
by Congress in 1972)
• Definitions and EPA test standards relating to protec-
tion of health and environment
• Premarket screening of new chemical substances
• Restrictions on use or distribution of chemical substan-
ces
• Criteria to include effects of substances on health,
environment, benefits for various uses, magnitude of
exposure, and availability of less hazardous substitutes
336
-------
• Seizure of offending substances in case of "imminent
hazard"
• Administrative inspections and reports required from
manufacturers and processors, containing estimates of
quantities, description of byproducts resulting from
production, processing, use of disposal
• Research and monitoring
Implications of the Act:
(1) Use and distribution regulations could take into
account problems of disposing of hazardous sub-
stances or byproducts and thus directly affect the
nature and volume of hazardous wastes requiring
disposal.
(23 Definitions, test standards, and criteria would
provide useful experience and carry-over to
regulation of hazardous wastes in general.
(3} Prervarket screening, inspections, and reports from
manufacturers and processors would provide useful
data to facilitate identification, source location,
and volume of hazardous wastes,
(4) Exemptions of substances subject to other Federal
acts (Sec. 110) and provisions for coordination
with other Federal agencies may prove to be in-
structive .
(5) Research and monitoring may provide carry-over
data.
(6) Section 122 provides for Federal pre-emption of
State regulation "other than a total ban."
Land Use
Federal Lands: The possibility that Federally-owned land might
be used as site locations for all or part of a hazardous waste
disposal system has been considered, and the numerous Federal
laws pertaining to Federally-owned lands under the jurisdic-
tion of a wide variety of Governmental agencies, principally
the Bureau of Land Management in the Department of the
Interior, were initially reviewed, including proposed S.
2401, the National Resource Lands Management Act of 1972, and
H.R. 7211. It was concluded, however, that to the extent
such sites are to be considered, new legislation implementing
337
-------
a hazardous waste disposal system would need to specifically
provide for the use of such lands, establish standards of land
use, etc., presumably overriding any existing land use restric-
tions or Federal agency jurisdictional conflicts. (See, how-
ever, discussion of NEPA below).
State and Local Land Use Restrictions: It was also tentatively
concluded that new Federal implementing legislation would over-
ride conflicting State and local land use regulations. However,
recent Federal legislative activity in the field of land use and
land management is worth noting.
Land Use Policy Planning Assistance Act of 1972, (S. 632 passed
Senate September 19, 1972, no action in the House, reintroduced
as S. 268 on January 9, 1973):
• Grants to States for development of comprehensive
land use planning programs
• Federal projects to be consistent with State plans
"except in cases of overriding national interest"
• Disclaimer of any intent to alter existing Federal-
State-local relationships as to use or control of
lands
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583):
• Grants to coastal States for developing management
program for coastal land and water resources
• Administrative grants
• Coordination and cooperation between Federal agencies
• Emphasis on comprehensive area-wide land planning
and land management programs at the State level
• Section 307, paragraphs (e), (f) and (g), in effect
provide that requirements of Federal water and air
pollution legislation and any Federally supported
national land use program will override a State's
coastal zone management program
Environmental Impact
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190):
Operation of a national disposal sites system pursuant to Fed-
eral implementing legislation would be subject to NEPA, and in
particular, the environmental impact statement requirements,
338
-------
although under CEQ guidelines published April 23, 1971,
"environmentally protective regulatory activities concurred
in or taken by" EPA would not require impact statements.
Worth noting, however, is the limited exemption from the
requirements of NEPA contained in Section 511(c) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
discussed above.
Legislative References
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321-4347}.
Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (42 USC 4371-
4374) .
Environmental Pollution Study Act (42 USC 4391-4395} .
Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environ-
mental Quality, March 5, 1970, 35 F.R. 4247, 42 USC 4321 note.
Executive Order 11507, Prevention, Control and Abatement of
Air and Water Pollution at Federal Facilities. (Feb. 4, 1970,
35 F.R. 2573, 42 USC 4331 note).
Executive Order 11523, National Industrial Pollution Control
Council, April 9, 1970, 35 F.R. 5993, 42 USC 4321 note.
Guidelines for Federal Agencies under NEPA—Issued by CEQ,
April 23, 1971.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1971
(7 USC 121, 135, 135a-k).
Studies of Effects (on fish and wildlife) in Use of Chemicals
(16 USC 742d-l).
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 301-392, [particu-
larly 342, 343, 346]).
Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act, as amended (15 USC
1261-1274).
Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 (7 USC 135; 15 USC
12161, 1471-1476; 21 USC 343, 352, 353, 362).
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 USC 1151-
1175) .
Executive Order 11548, Delegation of Presidential Functions,
July 20, 1970 (35 F.R. 11677, 33 USC 1151 note).
339
-------
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (Refuse Act) (33 USC 401, 403-4,
409-9, 411-15).
Executive Order 11574, Refuse Act Permits, December 23, 1970.
Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (42 USC 1961-1961c-7).
Water Resources Planning Act (42 USC 1962-1962d).
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (15 USC 713c-3, 742a-5).
Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 (33 USC 431-437, 466a,
466c-l to 466e, 466g, 466j, 4661-466n).
The Clean Air Act (42 USC 1857-1857-1).
Executive Order 11602, June 29, 1971 (36 F.R. 12475, 42 USC
1857h-4 note).
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (42 USC 3251-3259).
(Includes National Materials Policy Act and Resource Recovery
Act of 1970).
Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 USC 21a).
Land Conservation and Land Utilization (7 USC 1010).
Recent Legislation
Rural Development Act of 1972 (H.R. 12931 - P.L. 92-41).
Signed into law, August 30, 1972.
Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act of 1972 (S. 632).
Passed Senate, September 19. No further action.
National Land Policy, Planning & Management Act of 1972 (H.R.
7211 and S. 2401). S. 2401 reported, S. Rpt. 92-1163, Septem-
ber 18, 1972. No action in the House.
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1972 (S. 3994). Passed Senate,
September 28. No further action.
Water Pollution Act Amendments of 1972 (S. 2770). Passed over
Presidential veto, October 18, 1972. Conference Report H.
92-1465.
Coastal Zones Management Act of 1972 (S. 3507; H.R. 14146), P.L.
92-583. Passed House and Senate, October 12, 1972.
340
-------
Marine Protection Research & Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Ocean
Dumping). (H.R. 9727) (P.L. 92-532). Conference Reports
adopted October 13, 1972.
Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (H.R. 10729)
(P.L. 92-516). Conference Report adopted October 5 (Senate)
and October 12 (House).
Environmental Data System (H.R. 56). Final passage, October
6, 1972. Vetoed.
Toxic Substance Control Act (S. 1478). Passed with House
amendments, October 14, 1972. No final action.
Oil Pollution Act Amendments of 1972 (H.R. 1562). Passed
House, October 11 (H. Rpt. 92-1486). No further action.
Rivers & Harbors - Flood Control (S. 4018). Conference
Report adopted August 12 (Senate) and October 13 (House)
Vetoed.
Transportation Aspects
Federal legislative/regulatory activities relating to the
transportation of hazardous wastes are summarized according to
relevant administrative structures and the inadequacies that
exist within these structures.
Administrative Structure
Originally, Congress vested in the Interstate Commerce Commi-
ssion the authority to formulate regulations for the safe
transport of dangerous articles in interstate and foreign
commerce [18 USC 831-835 (1940)]. The heart of the Act was
Section 834 (a), which was binding upon all carriers and
shippers engaging in interstate commerce.
With the creation of the Department of Transportation (DOT)
the functions of the ICC under this section were specifically
transferred to the Secretary of Transportation in 1966. To
administer these provisions, the Coast Guard, Federal Highway
Administration, and the Federal Railway Administration were
drawn together, as semi-autonomous bodies, within DOT. These
"modal" administrations have jurisdiction to make and enforce
regulations concerning transportation of hazardous materials.
To promote uniform regulations and provide general policy-
making machinery to serve these administrations, the DOT
created in 1971 the Office of Hazardous Material (OHM) and
the Hazardous Materials Regulation Board (HMRB or "the Board"),
which reports directly to the Secretary.
341
-------
The OHM is charged with research in formulating regulations,
coordinating their scope and applicability to the various modes
of transport, and advising the HMRB; it has no enforcement power
of its own, however, and in effect serves as an "input" organ
to rule-making. OHM also acts for DOT in carrying out Section
302 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Control Act (P.L.
91-458, 1970), which calls for evaluation of dangers involved in
shipping hazardous materials and establishment of a central
reporting system to aid in meeting emergencies which arise.
Acting as a deliberative body at the policy-making level, the
HMRB likewise has no enforcement jurisdiction. It is composed
of a representative designee from each modal administration
and a representative of OHM sitting as secretary and chairman.
The rule-making procedures of HMRB are found in 49 CFS 170.1
and summarized below.
The rule-making procedure is initiated at the motion of any
one of the members of the Board, although the Board will con-
sider recommendations of other government agencies or other
interested persons.
Once the procedure is initiated, any person can participate in
the proceedings by submitting written information or views to
the Board. Further, the Board may allow any person to partici-
pate in additional rule-making procedures such as informal
meetings or hearings.
At any time, any person (e.g., EPA) may petition the Board to
initiate the rule-making procedure to issue, amend, or repeal a
rule. Each petition must include the text or substance of
the proposed rule or change, the interest of the petitioner in
the action, and information to support the requested action.
Petitions are submitted to the Secretary of the Board.
Once a petition is submitted it is considered by the Board along
with the information submitted by the petitioner and any other
available pertinent information. Unless the Board directs
otherwise, there is no public hearing or argument on the peti-
tion prior to its disposition. If the Board finds that the
proposal provides for adequate safety and is otherwise justi-
fiable, it will initiate the rule-making procedure. If the
Board finds that the rule does not provide for adequate safety
or is not justifiable otherwise, the petition will be denied
and the petitioner informed of the reasons for denial. This
procedure for processing covers petitions for special permits,
waivers, and special exemptions for any regulations.
342
-------
Once the rule-making procedure has been initiated a notice of
proposed rule-making will be issued and interested persons
will be invited to participate. If the Board finds that for
good cause notice is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to public interest and so states in the preamble of the rule,
no notice will be issued. Normally, the Board will allow
at least thirty days for comment on each notice. Unless the
Board determines otherwise, interpretive rules, general policy
statements, and organizational, procedural, or practice rules
will become final without notice or other rule-making pro-
ceedings. Where notice has been issued, all timely comments
(including late-filed ones as practicable) will be considered
before final action is taken on a proposal.
After notice has been issued, the Board may initiate any other
rule-making procedures it finds necessary; the hearing is a
fact-finding proceeding and not an adversary one.
Final rules are published in the Federal Register; all parties
subject to them will be named and served with a copy. Further-
more, a regulation is applicable to a mode of transportation
only if the Board member representing that mode signs it.
The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent
government agency housed within DOT. Statutes, functions,
duties, and responsibilities relating to the determination of
the causes of transportation accidents are assigned to NTSB.
The Bureau of Surface Transportation Safety, the key office
within NTSB, investigates rail, highway, marine, and pipeline
accidents. It has no field force but draws chiefly upon the
Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety and Bureau of Railroad Safety
for investigations.
The independence of the NTSB is part of a long standing
Federal policy to separate rule-making from accident inves-
tigation. This in theory allows the NTSB to be a critic on
transportation safety and gives it a freer hand to initiate
accident investigations, request accident information from
other agencies, and undertake special studies relating to
transportation safety. However, no action taken by NTSB is
binding; its function is to be a "feedback loop" to the
entire Federal transportation system, not a formulator of
policy.
All other modes (e.g., the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety
and the Bureau of Railroad Safety) have accident reporting
and investigation which complement the rule-making pro-
cedures with the mode. Such operation is unlike the
multi-modal, freewheeling critical function of the NTSB.
343
-------
The NTSB is supreme in the field of accident investigation
and in cases where it has delegated its authority, as to the
Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety and the Bureau of Railroad Safety,
under 14 CFR 4 00.43 it can preempt investigation of accidents
which are catastrophic in magnitude, of general public interest,
or which involve questions of broad national interest or
unique technical problems.
NTSB has long been a critic of hazardous materials regulation
and has investigated many hazardous materials accidents. It
is an important watchdog in the present system.
Viewed as a whole, the regulation of hazardous materials
transportation by DOT has three phases: rule-making by the HMRB
and OHM; investigation; and enforcement by the several modal
adminstrations. All three phases are, of course, carried out
within the scope of DOT's general jurisdiction. However, other
agencies control various aspects of hazardous materials, as
mentioned below.
Regulations
Each of the four modal administrations has power to adopt and
enforce the regulations promulgated under the rule-making
procedures of HMRB. At present, they are not uniform across
the spectrum of transport modes owing to the obviously differ-
ing dangers, standards of care, and requirements of each.
Implementation of a national hazardous waste management system
would make standardization of regulations almost imperative;
in fact, this is one priority of the OHM currently under
consideration.
There presently exists a proposal to combine existing regula-
tions within one title to eliminate duplication and superfluous
material and to better coordinate with international standards
for hazardous materials transportation.
While the regulations themselves are relatively diffuse, the
problem of enforcement is larger still. The FAA and USCG may
directly enforce their regulations, while FRA and FHWA must
work through the Department of Justice. It appears that en-
forcement of highway and rail regulations is more difficult
due to the absence of specifically defined terminal points in
shipment. The enforcement problem is aggravated further by the
general lack of funds and personnel to carry out investigations,
with the result that agency clientele are largely self-policing.
However, since the potential for economic loss and civil liabil-
ity resulting from negligent transportation of hazardous wastes
is great, carriers generally obey regulations to the general
satisfaction of DOT.
344
-------
Interested Agencies; Jurisdiction
The DOT Act vests DOT with the power to regulate shippers and
carriers in interstate commerce. Any materials in the inter-
state "patterns" of transportation are within the jurisdiction
of DOT (each mode administering its own regulations). Because
the subject of the hazardous materials regulation is "shippers
and carriers", jurisdiction has been defined according to the
nature of the carrier rather than on the basis of the move-
ment of hazardous materials. If the carrier generally engages
in interstate transportation, even intrastate shipments by
that carrier are within DOT regulatory jurisdiction. How-
ever, DOT lacks jurisdiction if the shipment is made within
a State by a carrier which is not licensed interstate.
Within the interstate pattern of transportation, DOT has
authority to regulate storage of hazardous materials. This
is true regardless.of whether the materials remain in the
transportation vehicles (tank cars) or are removed and stored
in a facility of the carrier. During storage, other agencies
often have an interest in the safety of the materials and
the individuals near them. The Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
(AT&F) Division of the Department of the Treasury regulates
the storage of explosives, deriving its authority from the
Organized Crime Control Act of 1970.
If a carrier regulated by DOT is carrying explosives, Section
181.141 of the Organized Crime Control Act disallows AT&F
from regulating. Generally, AT&F has no jurisdiction over
explosives in the hands of a U. S. agency or a State. AT&F
has published a list of the explosive materials with which
it is concerned. Some of the same materials are regulated by
DOT; DOT regulations are transportation-oriented, however,
and AT&F regulations are storage-oriented. For this reason
DOT has often relied on the AT&F regulations in the storage
area.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
concerned with regulations to protect the health and safety
of workers in the storage area (Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970). While OSHA regulations are aimed solely at
worker protection, they have often been the only regulations
with jurisdiction at a particular instance in the transporta-
tion process.
The policy of OSHA and the limit of its authority is to
regulate only when no other agency has done so. Such inaction
by the other agencies may be due to either lack of resources
or lack of jurisdiction. OSHA, therefore, must first determine
whether another agency is regulating in the area in question.
345
-------
In doing so, it often relies on the work of individuals in the
other agencies. OSHA regulations are sometimes referred to by
DOT in its regulatory processes and, on some occasions, inter-
agency meetings have been organized to coordinate the regula-
tions and to fill in any gaps. OSHA, AT&F and DOT regulations
are often used in conjunction through these coordination
agreements.
Inspection of Containers Before Transit
There is little question that DOT has authority to inspect
containers being stored by the carrier in its facilities prior
to transit. More uncertainity exists concerning inspection of
materials awaiting shipment at the manufacturing plant where
they are produced. Attorneys for DOT feel that the Department
possesses such authority, but it is rarely used. Inspection is
done on a very limited basis by OHM field inspectors and in-
spectors from each mode of transportation. No challenge has
been made to DOT authority in this area.
To clear up uncertainties, however, the Office of Management
and Budget is currently reviewing proposed legislation granting
DOT power to inspect all carrier and manufacturer (of hazardous
materials) facilities. If the legislation is passed, much of
this "gray area" will be clarified. Presently, in case of a
lack of regulation and inspection both OSHA and AT&F have
authority to regulate and inspect all facilities of manufactur-
ers of hazardous materials within their jurisdiction.
Container leaks constitute the major cause of hazardous material
spills. DOT's regulatory power only covers interstate shippers
and carriers and does not presently extend to regulating
container manufacturers.
The Federal Government is empowered, via 49 CFR, Section 388, to
enter into cooperative agreements with the States providing for
the adoption of hazardous materials regulations by the HMRB.
Most States have adopted the regulations of the Federal Highway
Administration as they pertain to transporting hazardous mater-
ials. Consequently, local intrastate carriers are regulated
by State law which specifically incorporates the Federal
legislation.
Inadequacies of the Present Federal System of Controlling
Transportation of Hazardous Wastes in' Interstate1 Commerce
As constituted, the control network outlined above presents a
fairly typical portrait of bureaucratic response to a compli-
cated problem. It follows quite naturally that the conventional
shortcomings of Federal agencies are built into this system as
346
-------
well. A general synopsis could continue indefinitely; how-
ever, below are several particular items, learned from this
investigation, which should be considered when constituting
transportation management in the context of a system of
national disposal sites.
Lack of Resources
Currently one of the major inadequacies is resources. Almost
every aspect of the transportation of hazardous materials
reflects this lack both at the State and Federal levels, in
terms of money, manpower, expertise, and research and develop-
ment .
At the Federal level, HMRB, which has the authority to prom-
ulgate regulations regarding transportation of hazardous
materials, does not have the resources to conduct its own
research and development programs (to determine, for example,
the adequacy of a container). Industry and carriers are
the motivating forces behind the introduction of new regu-
lations and new technical means for transportation. If a
container or carrying method is inadequate, HMRB can only
move to prevent future "incidents" once an inadequacy in the
field (i.e., an accident) has been reported. The staff is
hopelessly inadequate to determine whether or not shippers
are in fact enforcing regulations concerning containers and
methods of handling. The manpower shortage in HMRB is impeding
reformation of its current set of substantive regulations.
OHM is currently three years behind in rule-making due to
this general lack of technical staff and resources.
Within each modal office a similar lack of manpower exists.
For instance, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety with its
field staff of just over one hundred cannot hope to enforce
its compliance standards.
Within the investigative field, similar lacks show up in the
small number of accident investigations conducted each year.
The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety with its staff performs
about 275 such studies; the independent NTSB with its lack of
field staff managed 42 in 1971. Neither of these groups
suffers from lack of expertise, however.
Lack of Coordination Between DOT and Other Agencies
While a careful search of the statute books brings to light
few, if any, statutory gaps, it is apparent that numerous
regulatory gaps exist in the present structure. Many accident
reports prepared by NTSB have revealed a lack of control at
such points as the transportation/receiving interfaces. No
347
-------
careful coordination nor effective communication has been found,
in this case, between OSHA (and its employee safety role) and
DOT. Presently, because of this lack of consultation OSHA
cannot determine with accuracy when another agency is regulating
a particular situation. In addition, agencies which set their
own employee safety standards are often unaware of more stringent
and better-researched OSHA standards. There is no effort by
the agencies to spell out clearly the specific areas to be
covered by their regulations and administration.
Inadequacies in Substance of Present Standards
The substance of the present hazardous materials transportation
regulations is inadequate, both in terms of a standard risk
level and of environmental losses (including human lives).
The principal difficulties with current regulations are:
• there is no clear, uniform policy objective among
DOT's modal regulations;
• there are discrepancies in apparent levels of risk
permitted by regulation among the modes and among
different commodities; a shipment of a certain
chemical under current standards may involve a
different level of risk according to whether it is
shipped by rail or truck, or different chemicals
may be implicitly allowed different risk levels;
• inadequate methods or criteria exist for determining
and comparing the merits of proposed changes in
regulations, both before and after promulgation.
For example, present regulations are structured
around preventing the escape of a commodity from
its container, ignoring other factors which affect
the risk, such as changes in the probability of
an incident and the severity of the consequences
should an escape occur;
• the lack of input by affected parties means that
regulations are prompted by actions of shippers
and carriers; there is no consultation with the
parties-at-risk (such as a bystanding population)
and environmental input into the system.
Lack of Uniform Investigatory Processes
At present there are investigative branches within each mode
which concentrate on accidents of a general nature but not on
hazardous materials involved in accidents. Also, each modal
investigative process is hampered by a small staff, so that only
a fraction of the accidents the agencies would like to handle
are reviewed.
348
-------
The only intermodal investigatory agency is the NTSB. The
NTSB has serious deficiencies also.
• It lacks the resources to investigate in depth a
reasonable number of accidents. For example, in
1971 there were 1,877 marine fatalities, 45 pipeline
fatalities, 615 railroad fatalities, and 1,360
rail-highway grade crossing fatalities, but NTSB
reported on a total of 42 accidents.
• Efforts to make the accident investigations con-
ducted and reported by the States uniform have
been unsuccessful.
• Suggestions have been made that the recommendation
power is not enough, that some kind of binding
effect should be given the NTSB reports. The NTSB
feels that industry and government have been
cooperative. Further, it cites figures that indicate
a majority of its recommendations were acted upon
favorably; for example, of 176 recommendations in
the surface field, 130 were adopted in whole or in
part. Finally, they feel that the competence
level of their reporting is raised by the need to
write reports that will stand up under fire from
antagonistic parties; the reports stand or fall
on their own merits and do not lean on statutory
force. However, there is evidence that many of
their suggestions have not been acted upon, since
their reports frequently cite the fact that some
aspect of the accident need not have occurred if
a previous NTSB recommendation had been imple-
mented.
• The fact that NTSB must "borrow" investigators
from DOT leads some to the conclusion that these
investigators will not produce a report critical
of the home agency.
In short, there is no pressure concerted against the problem
of accidents involving hazardous materials in the whole
Federal sphere. The only intermodal agency, NTSB, has
serious manpower and enforcement deficiencies.
Lack of Information to the States and Municipalities
Information is not being dispersed to State and municipal
bodies and to many companies which work with hazardous
substances. Many State and local emergency personnel
(firemen, policemen, rescue workers, etc.) are not qualified
349
-------
to safely and efficiently control hazardous material accidents.
This is especially true in areas removed from metropolitan
areas where waterways, highways and rail lines carry large
amounts of hazardous substances.
Lack of Information to Industry
Many companies which use hazardous substances or which transport
hazardous materials in their manufacturing processes are not
aware of the properties of the materials with which they work.
These conditions pose safety problems, especially evident in
the mixing of incompatible hazardous chemicals.
There is, in short, inadequate manpower, funds and expertise
to administer hazardous material regulatory programs in the
United States. Many States do not have control and implementa-
tion offices with trained hazardous material specialists
continuously monitoring the flow of hazardous materials within
the State.
Enforcement Problems
Two separate enforcement mechanisms currently exist: FAA and
the Coast Guard have direct jurisdiction while FRA and FHWA
must work through the Department of Justice. These do not
accurately reflect the distinct problems of enforcement
particular to each modal adminstration.
SUMMARY
Policy-Making
Since a national system for hazardous waste management is con-
cerned with protecting the environment as well as the health
and safety of individuals, environmental policy concerns must
be considered in dealing with transportation incident to the
operation of such a system. Currently, regulations developed
by OHM and rule-making procedures of HMRB are aimed primarily—
perhaps exclusively—at ameliorating the so-called "acute"
problems which may arise from mishaps during shipment of hazard-
ous materials, namely, the immediate impact on persons and
their property. This approach, of course, is consistent with
the general purpose of DOT's exercise of authority in the
promotion of safety; however, it falls short of compliance with
the mandate of Section 103 of the National Environmental Policy
Act that all agencies review their regulations and procedures
to determine inadequacies and deficiencies which may prohibit
full compliance with the policy and purpose of protecting the
environment. Thus, a comprehensive reevaluation of the prob-
lems involved in transportation of hazardous wastes and extensive
350
-------
research into environmental impact is needed. A specific
example will illustrate the result of such an approach: in
formulating regulations for containers used to ship a parti-
cular hazardous substance, regard must be paid to the adequacy
of such containers as disposal units.
Lack of Resources
DOT has the greatest amount of resources and expertise at
present to regulate the hazardous waste transportation
system. Costs would be too great for another agency to take
over regulation. However, for this purpose, DOT needs more
financial resources devoted to testing labs, research, and
development of regulations and more qualified personnel,
educational grants, and training scholarships. Personnel
increases are especially needed in the areas of enforcement,
investigation, and inspection. States should also be pro-
vided with funds sufficient for compliance, as well as aided
in developing training programs for their personnel.
Coordination
Establishment of a commission within DOT or EPA to monitor
the ordinances of all the different agencies wnich regulate
hazardous materials should be considered. The commission
would promote the free exchange of information on a contin-
uing basis and would oversee the entire hazardous materials
regulatory scheme. Initial implementation should include a
detailed description of each agency's jurisdiction, so that
any regulatory gaps could be discovered. One particular
area in need of coordination is employee safety, as OSHA
will regulate only where EPA does not.
At present no one person oversees the work of OHM and the
HMRB. While one might question adding another layer of
administration to a rule-making authority, the separation of
rule-making from investigating authority has worked well in
the limited role with NTSB, since that agency is free to
criticize where needed without fear of intra-agency reprimand.
An overseer of independent status could also aid in coordina-
ting, by making recommendations as to project definition,
transfers of power and information between modes, and
implementation processes.
Substantive
Change in present regulations dealing with hazardous material
transportation to reflect explicit risk level concepts should
be considered. OHM recognizes these lacks, as seen in the DOT
Second Annual Report. Focus should also be placed upon
351
-------
prospective spill possibilities; the present system based on
accident reporting should not be the main motivating device to
change inadequate regulations. Legislation must also deal
with final disposal of containers used to transport hazardous
materials.
A means must be created for EPA to provide effective and
essential input into DOT rule-making hearings and to generally
keep current on the adequacy of DOT regulations. This role of
EPA is especially vital when one considers that under the
present system none of the parties providing input is concerned
with safety at the disposal sites.
FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS
At the initiation of this program, a requirement existed to
develop a financing plan for national disposal sites for
hazardous wastes. This portion of the work was to:
develop equitable financing plans for land acquisition,
final design, construction, and operation of a system
of national disposal sites. Incentives such as tax
credits, subsidies, loans, etc., will be evaluated to
encourage use of the sites. The costs involved with
establishing and operating these sites may be dis-
tributed among any combination of Federal, State, and
local governments, industry, and users of the disposal
sites.7
As the program evolved, it became apparent that implementation
of a hazardous waste management system would not necessarily
involve a system of Federal sites. Thus, the need for exten-
sive effort in development of financing plans was markedly
diminished. It was apparent that with private sector ownerships
and operation, normal financial systems would be brought into
play.
Since the amount of effort in this program devoted to financing
considerations was limited, no firm conclusions were reached.
The findings, to the extent they were developed, are given in
Appendix V.
352
-------
CHAPTER VIII
REFERENCES
1. United States Senate. Resource Recovery Act of 19 70.
Report of the Committee on Public Works accompanying
52005 Report No. 91-1034, Calendar No. 1041.
2. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
Public Law 92-500, Section 311.
3. Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972,
Public Law 92-516, October 21, 1972.
4. Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
Public Law 92-532.
5. Environmental Protection Agency. Request for Proposal
Neg. 68-03-0032, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1971.
6. Alternatives to the management of hazardous wastes at
national disposal sites. Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
prepared for the EPA under contract Mo. 68-01-0556,
January 19, 1972.
7. Sax, N. I. Dangerous properties of industrial materials.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1969.
8. Meidl, J. H. Explosive and toxic hazardous materials.
Glencoe Press, Beverly Hills, California, 1972.
9. Selected problems of hazardous waste management in Cali-
fornia. Governors' Task Force on Solid Waste Management,
January 1970.
10. A study of hazardous waste materials, hazardous effects
and disposal methods. Volume I. Booz-Allen Applied
Research, Inc., June 30, 1972.
11. Abstract of proceedings; hazardous polluting substances
symposium. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast
Guard, Jung Hotel, New Orleans, Louisiana, September
14-16, 1970.
12. Dawson, G. W., A. J. Shuckrow, and W. H. Swift. Control of
hazardous polluting substances. Department of the Interior,
Federal Water Quality Administration, October 1970.
13. National Fire Protection Association. Fire protection guide
on hazardous materials. Boston, Massachusetts, 1972.
353
-------
14. Los Angeles Fire Department. Dangerous chemicals code.
15. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Toxic
substances list. Rockville, Maryland, June 1972.
16. Threshold limit values of airborne contaminants. American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1970.
17. National Academy of Sciences. Evaluation of the hazard of
bulk water transportation of industrial chemicals, a
tentative guide. Report to U.S. Coast Guard, Washington,
D.C., 1970.
18. Smyth, H. F., C. P. Carpenter, and C. S. Weil. Range-finding
toxicity data: List IV. AMA Archives of Industrial
Hygiene and Occupational Medicine, 4:119-122, 1951.
19. Ottinger, R. S., et al. Recommended methods of reduction,
neutralization, recovery or disposal of hazardous waste
(draft). TRW Systems, Inc., February 1, 1973.
20. Kneip, T. J. and G. J. Lauer. Progress in analytical chem-
istry. Galen Ewing Ed., Plenum Press, New York, 1973.
21. Polikarpov. G. G. Radioecology of aquatic organisms.
Reinhold Book Division, New York, 1966.
22. National electrical code—NFPA No. 70. National Fire Pro-
tection Association, Boston, 1972.
23. Toxic substances. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
welfare, Rockville, Maryland, 1971.
24. Smyth, H. F., C. P. Carpenter, C. S. Weil, U. C. Pozzani,
J. A. Striegel, and J. S. Nycum. Range-finding toxicity
data: List IV. American Industrial Hygiene Association
Journal, 30:470-476, 1969.
25. Smyth, H. F., C. P. Carpenter, C. S. Weil, U. C. Pozzani,
and J. A. Striegel. Range-finding toxicity data: List VI.
American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 23:95-107,
1962.
26. Smyth, H. F., C. P. Carpenter, C. S. Weil, and U. C. Pozzani.
Range-finding toxicity data: List V. A.M.A. Archives of
Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Medicine, 10:61-68, 1954.
27. Smyth, H. F., C. P. Carpenter, and C. S. Weil. Range-finding
toxicity data: List III. Journal of Industrial Hygiene
and Toxicology, 31:60-62, 1949.
354
-------
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Smyth, H. F., J. Seaton, and L. Fischer. The single dose
toxicity of some glycols and derivatives. Journal of
Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 23(6) :259-268,
1941.
Smyth, H. F. and C. P. Carpenter. Further experience with
the range-finding test in the industrial toxicology lab-
oratory. Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology,
30:63-68, 1948.
Smyth, H. F. and C. P. Carpenter. The place of the range-
finding test in the industrial toxicology laboratory.
Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 26:269-
273, 1944.
Standard methods for the examination of water and waste-
water. 13th edition. American Public Health Associa-
tion, Washington, D. C., 19 71.
McKee, J. E. and H. W. Wolf. Water quality criteria.
California State Water Quality Control Board, Second
Edition, April 1971.
Water quality criteria data book. Volume III. Battelle
Columbus Research Laboratories, May 1971.
Oil and hazardous materials technical assistance data
system. Division of Oil and Hazardous Materials, Office
of Water Programs, EPA.
Personal communication. Ralph Wands, Director of Advisory
Center on Toxicology, National Academy of Science, 1973.
Epstein, Si S. and M. S. Legator. The mutagenicity of
pesticides: concepts and evaluations. The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971.
Water quality criteria data book. Volume 1, Arthur D.
Little, Inc., December 1970.
Water quality criteria data book. Volume 2, Arthur D.
Little, Inc., July 1971.
Census of manufacturing statistics. U.S. Tariff Commission,
1967.
1972 directory of chemical producers. Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park, California, 1972.
355
-------
41. Personal communication. Mr. Brower, Explosive Engineering
Corporation, Ontario, California, September 1972.
42. Personal communication. Mrs. Brandon, American Type Culture
Association, 1969. Based on 21,000 shipments of 1-3
milliliter quantities and appropriate growth estimates.
43. Personal communication. Mr. Herman Nack, Battelle Memorial
Institute, Columbus Laboratories, February 1973.
44. Report on technical evaluation studies to develop pollution
abatement facilities at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Pine Bluff,
Arkansas. Envirotech Systems, Inc., Brisbane, California,
December 1971.
45. Letter to Dr. Greenfield, EPA. From Joint Committee on
Disposal Assured, November 21, 1972.
46. Ferguson, J. F. and J. Gavis. A review of the arsenic cycle
in natural waters. Volume VI. Water Research, Pergamon
Press, 1972.
47. Personal communication. Analytical Quality Control Labora-
tory, National Environmental Research Centor, Cincinnati,
Ohio, February 1971.
48. Personal communication. Mr. Herman Nack, Review of waste
disposal practices. Chem-Trol Pollution Services, Inc.,
Buffalo, New York, October 19, 1972.
49. Schink, C. A. Plating wastes: A simplified approach to
treatment. Plating, 1302-1305, December 1968.
50. Snowden, F. C. Metal-finishing wastes can become potable
effluent. Water and Sewage Works IW-9-IW-11, May 1969.
51. Stone, E. H. F. Treatment of non-ferrous metal process waste
at kynoch works, Birmingham, England. Purdue Industrial
Waste Conference, 1967.
52. Sknipach, T., et al. Removal of fluorine and arsenic from
wastewater of the rare-earth industry. Proceedings of
the 5th International Water Pollution Research Conference,
July-August 1970, Pergamon Press, Ltd., 1971, pp. III-
34/1 - III-34/7.
53. Fisco, R. A. Plating and industrial waste treatment at the
expanded plant of Fisher Body, Elyria, Ohio. Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, 1967, pp. 306-313.
356
-------
54. Nemerow, N. L. Liquid waste of industry, theories, prac-
tices, and treatment. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
Reading, Massachusetts, 1971, pp. 8 3-102.
55. Emmett, R. C., et. al. Liquid-solids separation in waste
treatment in the mining industry—conventional techniques
and new concepts. Paper presented at fall meeting,
Soc. Mining Eng., Seattle, Washington, September 22-24,
1971.
56. Lund, H. F. Industrial pollution control handbook. McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 1971, pp. 6-17-6-18
and 24-7 to 24-9.
57. Burns and Roe, Inc. Process design manual for suspended
solids removal. Environmental Protection Agency, Tech-
nology Transfer, October 1971.
58. Culp, R. L. and G. L. Culp. Advanced wastewater treatment.
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New York, 1971, pp. 17-
50 and pp. 87-132.
59. Weber, W. J., Jr. Physicochemical processes for water
quality control. Wiley-Interscience, New York, New York,
1972, pp. 61-198.
60. Anonymous. A new German method of destroying cyanide
wastes. Chemical Week, December 20, 1972, p. 32.
61. Allen, R. The disposal of waste materials in the electro-
plating industry. Conference on Disposal of Industrial
Waste Materials at Sheffield University, April 17-19,
1956, pp. 81-88, Society of Chemical Industry, The Mac-
Mil lan Company, New York, 1957.
62. Battelle Memorial Institute. A state of the art review of
metal finishing waste treatment. Environmental Protection
Agency, 12010 EIE 11/68.
63. Anonymous. New chemical destroys cyanide in zinc plate
rinses. Products Finishing, December 1970, pp. 130-133.
64. Easton, J. K. Electrolytic decomposition of concentrated
cyanide plating wastes. Journal of Water Pollution Con-
trol Federation, 1967, pp. 1621-1625.
65. Howe, R. H. Recent advance in cyanide waste reduction
practice. Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, 1963,
pp. 690-705.
357
-------
66. Battelle Memorial Institute. An investigation of techniques
for removal of cyanide from electroplating wastes. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, 12010 EIE 11/71.
67. Anonymous. CN and CR: packaged destruction. Products
Finishing, October 1970, pp. 101-105.
68. Anonymous. Plating waste treatment at Proctor-Silee. Pro-
ducts Finishing, January 1971, pp. 43-49.
69. Haviland, J. M. Effluent treatment: cutting cost of com-
pliance. Products Finishing, February 1971, pp. 46-55.
70. D'Grazio, A. J. Pretreatment of cyanide and chromium wastes
plus treatment of oily wastes. Purdue Industrial Waste
Treatment Conference, 1959, pp. 7-15.
71. Griever, R. B. and D. Bhattacharyya. Precipitate flota-
tion of complexed cyanide. Purdue Industrial Waste
Conference, 1969, pp. 989-997.
72. Silman, H. Treatment of rinse water from electrochemical
processes. June 1971, pp. 62-66.
73. Schneur, N. The Laucy integrated system for treatment of
cyanide and chromium wastes in electroplating plants.
Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, 1967, pp. 310-316.
74. Shreve, R. N. Chemical process industries. McGraw-Hill,
Inc., New York, New York, 3rd edition, 1967, p. 73.
75. Gurnham, C. F. (Ed.), Industrial wastewater control.
Academic Press, New York, New York, 1965, pp. 225-226.
76. Burleson, N. K., w. W. Eckenfelder, Jr., and J. F. Malina,
Jr. Tertiary treatment of secondary industrial effluents
by activated carbon. Purdue Industiral Waste Conference,
1968, pp. 474-483.
77. Henshaw, T. B. Adsorption/filtration plant cuts phenols
from effluent. Chemical Engineering, May 31, 1971,
pp. 47-49.
78. Fox, R. D., et al. Purification of waste brine by carbon
adsorption with emphasis on wastewater reuse. Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, 1970, pp. 322-330.
79. Van Stone, G. R. A solution to industrial wastewater
treatment: granular activated carbon. 31st Annual
Meeting, International Water Conference, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, October 27-29, 1973, pp. 45-48, Engineers'
Society of Western Pennsylvania.
358
-------
80. Hassler, J. W. Activated carbon. Chemical Publishing
Company, Inc., New York, New York, 1963.
81. Gould, M. and J. Taylor. Makeshift granular carbon system
resolves phenol lagoon pollution threat. Chemical Engi-
neering Progress Symposium, American Society of Chemical
Engineers, Series No. 97, Volume 65, 1969, pp. 196-199.
82. Weber, W. J., Jr. Direct physicochemical treatment. Pro-
cess Design in Water Quality Engineering: New Concepts
and Developments, Symposium sponsored by Vanderbilt
University, November 1-5, 1971.
83. Kincannon, D. P. and A. F. Gandy, Jr. Some effects of
high salt concentrations on activated sludge. Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, 1965, pp. 316-328.
84. Barnhart, E. L. Aerated lagoon design. Process Design in
Water Quality Engineering: New Concepts and Developments,
Symposium sponsored by Vanderbilt University, November 1-5,
1971.
85. Dean, R. B. Ultimate disposal of waste water: a philo-
sophical view. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series No. 97, Volume 65, 1969.
86. Gunderloy, F. C., Jr., et al. Dilute solution reactions
of nitrate ion as applied to water reclamation. Report
TWRC-1, U. S. Dept. of Interior, FWPCA, 1968.
87. Truax-Traced Coal Company. Control of mine drainage from
coal mine mineral wastes. Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series, 14010
DDH 8/71.
88. Blanco, R. E., H. W. Godbee, and E. J. Fredrick. Incorpor-
ating industrial wastes in insoluble media. Chemical
Engineering Progress, No. 2, 1970, p. 51.
89. Bear, J., D. Zaslavsky, and S. Irmay. Physical principles
of water percolation and seepage. UNESCO, Paris, France,
1968, p. 48.
90. Personal communication. J. P. Flynn, Dow Chemical Company,
to B. W. Mercer, Battelle-Northwest.
91. Anonymous. Effluent limitation guidance for the refuse act
program—Metal Finishing Industry, 1972.
359
-------
92. Powell, H. E., L. L. Smith, and A. A. Cochran. Recovery
of phosphates and metals from phosphate sludge by solvent
extractions. Bureau of Mines, RI 7662, 1972.
93. Waters, R. F., H. E. Powell, and A. A. Cochran. Recovery
of metasl and phosphates from waste phosphate sludge metal
finishing. August 1971, pp. 35-42.
94. Anonymous. Chemical Week, November 1972, p. 36.
95. Bureau of Census, Current Industrial Reports. Sales of
lubricating and industrial oils and greases. 1965.
96. Maizua, S. and K. Urquhart. Conversion of crankcase waste
oil into useful products. Water Pollution Control Research
Series, 15080DB, 3/71.
97. Anonymous. Final report of the task force on used oil dis-
posal. American Petroleum Institute, Publication No. 4036
(undated).
98. Personal communication. J. S. Talbot, Dow Chemical Com-
pany, Houston, Texas, to J. P. Flynn, Dow Chemical Com-
pany, Midland, Michigan, January 22, 1973,
99. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, CFR 20. Atomic
Energy, standards for protection against radiation.
Revised January 1, 1972.
100. Rodgers, L. Discussion of proposed amendments to AEC regu-
lations on radioactive effluents from light water cooled
nuclear power reactors. Atomic Industrial Forum Workshop
on Radioation Standards, Buck Hill Falls, Pennyslvania
(CONF-700408-4), April 20, 1970.
101. ICAE Hearings. Radioation protection criteria and stan-
dards: their bases and uses. May-June 1960.
102. Anonymous. Nuclear legislation analytical study, organi-
zation for economic cooperation and development. Nuclear
Energy Agency, 1972.
103. National Bureau of Standards Handbook 69. Maximum permis-
sible amounts of radioisotopes in the human body and
maximum permissible concentrations in air and in water
for occupational exposure. March 20, 1953.
104. National Bureau of Standards Handbook 52. Maximum permis-
sible amounts of radioisotopes in the human body and
maximum permissible concentrations in air and in water
for occupational exposure. March 20, 1953.
360
-------
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, CFR 20. Atomic
energy, standards for protection against radiation.
Revised January 29, 1957.
U.S. Federal Register, Proposed Appendix I to 10CFR50.
Licensing of production and utilization facilities.
Volume 36, No. Ill, June 9, 1971, pp. 11113-11117.
Anonymous. A scientific committee (NAS-NRC) supports the
Gofman-Tamplin theories. Nucleonics Week, November 30,
1972, pp. 5-6.
Lennemann, W. L. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission interim
radioactive waste burial program paper. Presented at
Symposium on the Disposal of Radioactive Wastes into
the Ground, Vienna, May 29-June 2, 1967 (CONF-670512).
Peckham, A. E. and W. G. Belter. Considerations for
selection and operation of radioactive waste burial sites.
Proceedings of Second Ground Disposal of Radioactive
Wastes Conference, Chalk River, September 26-29, 1961,
TID-7628, pp. 428-436.
Richardson, R. M. Northeastern burial yround studies.
Proceedings of Second Ground Disposal of Radioactive
Wastes Conference, Chalk River, September 26-29, 1961,
TID-7628, pp. 460-61.
Division of Materials Licensing, USAEC. Licensing require-
ments for establishment of a land burial facility for
burial of radioactive wastes.
Morton, R. J. Land burial of solid radioactive wastes:
study of commercial operations and facilities. WASH-
1143, 1968.
U.S. Federal Register, Volume 33, #194, Part II. October 4,
1968.
Rogers, L. R. Management of waste from the use of radio-
isotopes. Proceedings of Disposal of Radioactive Wastes
Conference sponsored by IAEA and others. Monaco, Novem-
ber 16-21, 1959, p. 51.
Division of Industrial Participation, USAEC, Washington, D.C.
The nuclear industry—1971. pp. 153-157 and 179-185.
Committee on Licensing of the Atomic Energy Coordinating
Council in Cooperation with the New York Office of
Atomic and Space Development. Radiation control in
the state of New York, 1963.
361
-------
117. New York Department of Health Regulations, Chapter XVI.
118. New York Department of Labor, Rule #38.
119. Kentucky State Department of Health. Radiological Health
Regulations, 1962, 1964.
120. Washington State Department of Health. Rules and regula-
tions pertainint to radiation control. State of Wash-
ington, 1966.
121. Washington State Department of Health. Program for the
regulation of use of ionizing radiation. State of
Washington, 1966.
12 2. State of Washington Rules and Regulations for Radiation
Protection, Title 402, WAC.
123. State of Washington, Water Pollution Control Laws,
Chapter 90.48, RCW.
124. State of Washington, Surface and Ground Water Codes,
Chapters 90.03-90.44, RCW.
125. Solid Waste Management, Chapter 70.95, TCW.
126. State of Connecticut Public Act #46, 1955.
127. State of Florida Senate Bill #34, 1955.
128. State of Illinois Senate Bill #577, 1955.
129. New Hampshire Chapter 281, 19 55.
130. State of Oklahoma Radiation Protection Regulations, 1969.
131. State of Texas, Department of Health. Regulations on radi-
ation exposure.
132. Personal communication. G. Jansen, Battelle-Northwest, to
D. E. Larson, Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company.
July 26, 1972.
133. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Environmental survey of
the nuclear fuel cycle. Directorate of Licensing, Fuels,
and Materials, November 1972.
134. Nichols, J. P., et al. Projection of fuel reprocessing
requirements and high-level solidified wastes from the
U.S. nuclear industry. USAEC Report, ORNT-TM-3965 (Draft),
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, September 1972.
362
-------
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
Soldat, J. K. Modeling of environmental pathways and
radiation doses from nuclear facilities. USAEC Report
ORNL-TM-3964, pp. 35-39, 79-84, December 1972.
Claiborne, H. C. Neutron induction transmutation of
high-level radioactive wastes. USAEC Report ORNL-TM-
3964, pp. 35-39, 79-84, December 1972.
Staff of Battelle-Northwest. Data for preliminary dem-
onstration phase of an environmental quality informa-
tion and planning system. Battelle-Northwest Report
BNWL-B-141, December 1971.
Rubi, J. H. Evolving U.S. policies in radioactive waste
management. Presented at the AIF/ANL International
Conference, November 15, 1972, Washington, D.C., p. 1.
Schneider, K. J. Radioactive wastes from nuclear power in
the U.S.A. AIME Environmental Quality Conference,
Washington D.C., June 7-9, 1971.
Staff of Battelle-Northwest Laboratories. Data for pre-
liminary demonstration phase of the environmental
quality information and planning systems (EQUIPS).
BNWL-B-141, December 1971.
Curl, R. List of radioisotope customers with summary of
shipments FY 1971. USAEC Report, ORNL-LIC-38, February
1972.
Personal communication. B. I. Griffin and C. A. Rohrmann,
Battelle-Northwest Laboratory, to J. D. Kaser, Battelle-
Northwest, October 1972.
Anonymous. Basic factors for the treatment and disposal
of radioactive wastes. IAEA, Vienna, STI/PUB/170, 1967,
p. 19.
USAEC Division of INdustrial Participation. The nuclear
industry—1971. USAEC Report, WASH-1174-71, p. 5.
Booz-Allen Applied Research. Final report—a study of
hazardous waste materials, hazardous effects, and
disposal methods. Volume III. June 30, 1972.
Godbee, H. W. and J. P. Nichols. Sources of transuranium
solid waste and their influence on the proposed national
radioactivity waste repository. USAEC Report, ORNL-TM-
3277, Official Use Only, January 1971.
363
-------
147. Personal communication. A. F. Perge, Deputy Director,
Division of Waste Management and Transportation, USAEC,
to W. H. Swift, Battelle-Northwest, December 1, 1972.
148. See Note (2) in Reference 147.
149. Burial Grounds. NMIS Report 1-213, June 30, 1972.
150. Anonymous. Hanford radioactive waste management plans.
USAEC Report, PWM-530, August 1972.
151. Anonymous. Management of radioactive wastes at the Savan-
nah river plant. Presentation to Committee on Radio-
active Waste Management of the National Academy of
Sciences, January 20-21, 1969.
152. See Note (6) in Reference 147.
153. Anonymous. Savannah river plant radioactive waste manage-
ment plan. USAEC Report, DPST-72-383, September 1972.
154. Personal communication. F. P. Baranowski to M. B. Biles.
Draft staff paper regarding disposition of licensee
generated plutonium-contaminated waste materials.
July 8, 1971.
155. Anonymous. Idaho operations office waste management plan.
USAEC Report, IDO-10050, pp. IX-36-IX-40, August 1972.
156. USAEC Report, CF 72-9-1, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
September 1972, p. 56.
157. Anonymous. Radioactive waste management plans. ORNL
Report, UCC-ND-215, August 15, 1972.
158. See Note (19) in Reference 147.
159. See Note (14) in Reference 147.
160. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Second Conference on Ground
Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, Chalk River. Report
TID-7628, September 26, 1961.
161. Plutonium in stream channel alluvium in the Los Alamos area.
New Mexico. LA-4561, November 1970.
162. See Note (2) in Reference 147.
163. Personal communication. D. E. Larson, Atlantic Richfield
Hanford Company, to G. Janson, Battelle-Northwest, July
1972.
364
-------
164
165
166
167
168
169,
170,
171,
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
Warren, J. H., C. M. Unruh, P. W. Smith, A. E. Smith and
R. E. Isaacson. Management of high-level radioactive
wastes at the Hanford site. USAEC Report September 1972.
Jacobs, M. C. and J. D. Anderson. Radioactivity in gaseous
waste discharged from the separation facilities during
1971. USAEC Report ARH-2353, pt. 1, April 25, 1972.
Jacobs, M. C. and J. D. Anderson. Summary of radioactive
solid waste burials in the 200-areas during 1971. USAEC
Report ARH-2353, pt. 2, February 8, 1972.
Jacobs, M. C. and J. D. Anderson. Radioactive liquid wastes
discharged to ground in the 200-areas during 1971. USAEC
Report ARH-2352, March 13, 1972.
Szulinski, M. J. Preliminary problem definition decommission-
ing the Hanford site. USAEC Report ARH-2164, April 1972.
Larson, D. E. High-level liquid radioactive waste management
plan. USAEC Report ARH-2400, April 1972.
See Reference 169 for reference citation.
Miles, M. E., J. J. Mangeno and R. D. Burke. Environmental
monitoring and disposal of radioactive wastes from U.S.
naval nuclear-powered ships and their support facilities.
U.S. Dept. of the Navy Report NT-71-1, February 1971.
49 CFR 170-189. Hazardous Materials Regulations Board.
10 CFR 71. Packaging of radioactive material for transport.
14 CFR 103. Transportation of dangerous articles and mag-
netized materials.
46 CFR 146. Transportation or storage of explosives or
other dangerous articles or substances and combustible
liquids on board vessels.
49 CFR 397. Transportation of explosives and other danger-
ous articles by motor vehicles.
39 CFR 14-15. Matter mailable under special rules.
Conlon, F. B. and G. L. Pettigrew. Summary of federal
regulations for packaging and transportation of radio-
active materials. BRH/DMRE 71-1, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D. C., 1971.
365
-------
179. International Atomic Energy Agency. Regulations for the
safe transport of radioactive materials, 1967 Edition.
Safety Series No. 6, STI/PUB/148, IAEA, Vienna, 1967.
180. Barker, R. F. How changes in the IAEA regulations may
affect 10 CFR Part 71. Proceedings of the Third Inter-
national Symposium on Packaging and Transportation of
Radioactive Materials, p. 62, CONF-710801, Volume 1,
1971.
181. Gibson, R. , Editor. The safe transport of radioactive
materials. Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, 1967.
18 2. McCluggage, W. C. The AEC accident record and recent
changes in AEC manual chapter 0 529. Proceedings of the
Third International Symposium on Packaging and Trans-
portation of Radioactive Materials, p. 108, BNWL-SA-3906,
1971.
183. Loy, H. L. and D. C. Saxena. Processing and packaging
wastes from BWR's. Proceedings of the Third International
Symposium on Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive
Materials.
184. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Division of Waste Management
and Transportation. Directory of shipping containers
for radioactive materials.
185. Brobst, W. A. Transportation of radioactive waste: worth
its salt. Proceedings of the Third International Sym-
posium on Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive
Materials, p. 356, CONF-710801, Volume 1, 1971.
186. Gablin, K. Design considerations for high volume IAEA
type B protective overpack shipping containers in use
with current transportation systems. Proceedings of the
Third International Symposium on Packaging and Transpor-
tation of Radioactive Materials, p. 490, CONF-710801,
Volume 1, 1971.
187. Bechthold, W., J. Heil, M. C. Schuchardt and R. Wolf.
Shielded transport containers for intermediate and high-
level radioactive wastes. Proceedings of the Third Inter-
national Symposium on Packaging and Transportation of
Radioactive Materials, p. 195, CONF-710801, Volume 1,
1971.
188. Szulinski, et al. Waste management special studies,
progress report 5, ARH-2437E, p. 2-1, Atlantic Richfield
Hanford Company, November 1972.
366
-------
189.
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Division of Industrial
Participation. The nuclear industry. U.S. AEC Report
WASH-1175-71, Washington, D. C. , 1971.
Bureau of Explosives, Association of American Railroads.
Handling collisions and derailments involving explosives,
gasoline and other dangerous articles. Pamphlet No. 22,
Washington, D. C. , Revised September 1969.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Radiological emergency
procedures for the non-specialist. U.S.G.P.O., Washington,
D. C., January 1969.
Ayres, J. A., Editor. Decontamination of nuclear reactors
and equipment. Ronald Press, New York, 1970.
10 CPR 30. Rules of general applicability to licensing
of byproduct material.
10 CFR 70. Special nuclear material.
Fairey, J. Development of documentation for the transport
of radioactive materials. Proceedings of the Third Inter-
national Symposium on Packaging and Transportation of
Radioactive Materials, p. 182, Battelle-Northwest Report
BNWL-SA-3906, 1971.
10 CFR 73. Physical protection of special nuclear material.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Physical protection of
unclassified special nuclear material. Immediate Action
Directive No. 2405-19, February 14, 1973.
Pittman, F. K. Plan for the management of AEC-generated
radioactive wastes. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Report
WASH-1202, January 1972.
Godbee, H. W. Spontaneous combustion, oxidation, and pyrol-
ysis of combustible containers. U.S. Atomic Energy Com-
mission Report ORNL-4768, p. 3, Oak Ridge National Lab-
oratory, May 1972.
Lerch, R. E., C.' R. Cooley and R. C. Smith. Treatment of
alpha-contaminated solid waste by acid digestion. Trans-
actions American Nuclear Society, 15, 665, 1972.
20 CFR 303.
367
-------
202. Kentucky Radioactive Waste Disposal Site Inventory Report
for the Environmental Protection Agency under Requisition
No. 62-TIRB-TAD-054. 1972.
203. 20 CFR 103-106.
204. 10 CFR. Atomic Energy Commission, Appendix F, Policy
relating to the siting of fuel reprocessing plants and
related waste management facilities.
205. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Chapter 1,
Transportation, Part 173, Sections 173.393 and 173.398.
206. Anonymous. Management and ultimate disposal of high-level
radioactive wastes from the commercial nuclear fuel cycle.
Draft Report to EPA's Energy Policy Committee, Division
of Technology Assessment, Office of Radiation Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, October 19 72.
207. Wolkenhauer, W. C. The controlled thermonuclear reactor
as a fission product burner. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Report, BNWL-SA-4232, Battelle Pacific Northwest Labora-
tories, Richland, Washington, June 19 72.
208. Szulinski, M. J., et al. Waste management special studies
progress report no. 4. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Report ARH-2437D, p. 4-3, Atlantic Richfield Hanford
Company, September 1972.
209. Szulinski, M. J., et al. Waste management special studies
progress report no. 3. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Report, ARH-2437C, Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company,
July 1972.
210. Kennedy, R. A. High-level engineered storage facility,
concept selection. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Report
ARH-2598, p. 3, Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company,
October 1972.
211. Perona, J. J. and J. 0. Blomeke. A parametric study of
shipping casks for solid radioactive wastes. U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission Report ORNL-TM-3651, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, February 1972.
212. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Parts 173.389
through 173.399; Title 10, Part 71? AEC Manual Chapter
0529 .
213. Szulinski, M. J., et al. op. cit., p. 6-1 and p. 6-5.
214. Szulinski, M. J., et al. op. cit., p. 6-3.
368
-------
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
Szulinski, M. J., et al. op. cit., p. 6-4.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Reactor fuel cycle costs
for nuclear power evaluation. WASH-1099, Washington, D. C.,
1971.
Kennedy, R. A. Alpha engineered storage facility, close
out report. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Report ARH-
2447-RD, June 1972.
Fowler, E. B. Transuranic waste repository studies. Informal
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Report LA5127-MS, Volume 1,
December 1972.
U.S. AEC Division of Industrial Participation. The nuclear
industry 1971. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Report WASH-
1175-71.
I.enneman, W. L., Editor. Incineration of solid wastes.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Report WASH-1168, August
1970.
Kuhn, K., W. Diefenbacher, H. Drause and H. Schmidt.
Disposal of solidified high level wastes in the Asse
salt mine. Paper No. 35, OECD-IAEA Symposium on the
Management of Radioactive Wastes from Fuel Reprocessing,
Paris, France, November 27-December 1, 1972.
Blythe, H. j. Editor. Proceedings of the first international
symposium on the decontamination of nuclear installations,
Harwell, England. Cambridge University Press, 1967.
Ayres, J. A. Equipment decontamination with special atten-
tion to solid waste treatment—survey report. Battelle-
Northwest Report BNWL-B-90, June 1971.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Working Group on Compaction.
Compaction of radioactive solid waste. U.S. Atomic Energy
Report WASH-1167, June 1970.
Hammond, V. L., et al. Energy from solid wastes by pyrol-
ysis-incineration. Battelle-Northwest Report BNWL-SA-4471
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution
Control Association, Pacific Northwest International
Section, Eugene, Oregon, November 1972.
Kulichenko, V. v., et al. Potentials of the method of
bitumenization for treating high-level wastes. Symposium
on Management of Radioactive Wastes from Fuel Reprocessing,
Paris, France, December 1972.
369
-------
227,
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
Rutland, L. Economics, compositions and process equipment
for radioactive waste solidification. Proceedings of the
Third International Symposium on Packaging and Transpor-
tation of Radioactive Materials, p. 785, CONF-710801,
Volume 2, 1971.
U. S. Department of Interior. The National Atlas, 1970.
U. S. Geological Survey. Subsurface waste disposal by
means of wells - selective annotated bibliography.
Water Supply Paper 2020, U. S. Government Printing
Office.
Geological Survey of Alabama. Environmental geology and
hydrology, Madison County, Alabama. Atlas Series 1,
1971.
National Research Council of Canada. Physical environment
of Saskatoon, Canada. Publication #11378, Ottawa,
Canada, 1970.
D. P. Krynine and W. R. Judd. Principles of engineering
geology and geotechnics. McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York, 1957.
Office of Emergency Preparedness. Geologic hazards and
public problems. Conference Proceedings, Santa Rosa,
California, May, 1969.
Landes, K. K. Petroleum geology of the United States.
Wiley Interscience Series, 1970.
Anonymous. Proceedings of Engineering Geology and Soils
Symposium, Volumes 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Sponsored by Idaho
State Dept. of Highways, Idaho State University, Uni-
versity of Idaho, 1968 - 1972.
Fennemann, N. M. Physiography of the United States.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19 38.
Arndt, B. M. Geology for planning at Langdon, North
Dakota. Report of Investigation No. 50, North Dakota
Geological Survey, 1972.
370
-------
238. Colton, C. W. Geologic summary of the Appalchian Basin,
with reference to the subsurface disposal of radio-
active waste solutions. Report TEI-791, United States
Department of the Interior Geological Survey, prepared
on behalf of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission,
Washington, D. C., June 1961.
239. deWitt, Jr., W. Geology of the Michigan basin with re-
ference to subsurface disposal of radioactive wastes.
Report TEI-771, United States Department of the Interior
Geological Survey, prepared on behalf of the U. S. Atomic
Energy Commission, Washington, D. C., July 1960.
240. Sandberg, C. A. Geology of the Williston Basin, North
Dakota, Montana, and South Dakota, with reference to
subsurface disposal of radioactive wastes. Report
TEI-801, United States Department of the Interior Geo-
logical Survey, prepared on behalf of the U. S. Atomic
Energy Commission, Washington, D. C., June 1962.
241. Beikman, H. M. Geology of the Powder River Basin, Wyoming
and Montana, with reference to subsurface disposal of
radioactive wastes. Report TEI-823, United States Depart-
ment of the Interior Geological Survey, prepared on be-
half of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington,
D. C.f February 1962.
242. Love, J. D. and L. Hoover, A Summary of the geology of sedi-
mentary basins of the United States, with reference to
the disposal of radioactive wastes. Report TEI-768,
United States Department of the Interior Geological Sur-
vey, prepared on behalf of the U. S. Atomic Energy
Commission, Washington, D. C., May 1960.
24 3. Repenning, C. A. Geologic summary of the Central Valley of
California with reference to the disposal of liquid
radioactive waste. Report TEI-769, United States Depart-
ment of the Interior Geological Survey, prepared on be-
half of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington
D. C., June 1960.
244. Kiel, G. R. Engineered storage facility site recommenda-
tion. Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company Report ARH-
2674, Richland, Wa., December 1962.
371
-------
2 45. LeGrand, H. E. Geology and ground-water hydrology of the
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain as related to disposal
of radioactive wastes. Report TEI-805, United States
Department of the Interior Geological Survey, prepared
on behalf of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Wash-
ington D. C., January 1962.
2 46. MacLachlan, M. E. The Anadarko Basin of parts of Oklahoma,
Texas, Kansas, and Colorado. Report TEI-831, United
States Department of the Interior Geological Survey,
prepared on behalf of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission,
Washington, D. C., March 1964.
2 47. Anonymous. Destruction and disposal of inactivated ant-
crop biological agent at Fort Detrick, Maryland.
U. S. Army Munitions Command, July 17, 1972.
248. Warner, D. L. Survey of industrial waste injection wells;
final technical report to U. S. Geological Survey.
Department of Geological Engineering, University of
Missouri, Rolla, MO, June 1972.
2 49. Anonymous. Sanitary disposal projects, title XXV, Iowa
State Department of Health, Iowa City, IA, 1971.
250. Hughes, G. M. and K. Cartwright. Scientific and administra-
tive criteria for shallow waste disposal. Civil Engi-
neering - American Society of Civil Engineers, March
1972.
251. Bailey, B. L. and A. M. Malatine. Contamination of ground
water in a limestone aquifer in Stevenson area, Alabama.
Circular 76, Geological Survey of Alabama, University
of Alabama, 1971.
252. Hughes, C. M., R. A. Landon and R. N. Farvolden. Hydro-
geology of solid waste disposal sites in northeastern
Illinois; a final report on a solid waste demonstration
grant project. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C., 1971
253. Hall, C. W. Subsurface water pollution, a selective
annotated bibliography, parts I, II, and III. Office
of Water Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C., May 1972.
372
-------
254. Ballentine, R. K. , S. R. Reznek, and C. W. Hall. Subsur-
face pollution problems in the United States. Techni-
cal Studies Report TS-00-72-02, Office of Water Programs
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D. C., May 1972
255. Anonymous. Water resources investigations in Colorado -
1968. Conducted by the United States Geological Sur-
vey Water Resources Division in cooperation with the
Colorado Water Conservation Board, United States Depart-
ment of the Interior Geological Survey, Washington,
D. C., 1968.
256. u. S. Atomic Energy Commission. Manual. Real estate man-
agement, Chapter 5301, Appendix 5301 and Annexes A, B,
C, D & E. U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington,
D. C., June 17, 1960.
257. U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. Site selections, Chapter
6202. U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington D. C.,
June 16, 1972
258. U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. Manual. Site development
planning Chapter 6203 and Appendix 6203, U. S. Atomic
Energy Commission, Washington, D. C., June 16, 1972.
259. Walker, W. H. Illinois ground water pollution. Journal
American Water Works Association, Vol. 61, No. 1, Jan-
uary 1969.
260. Van Everdingen, R. 0. and R. A. Freeze. Subsurface dis-
posal of waste in Canada; injection of liquid indus-
trial waste in deep wells, a preliminary appraisal.
Technical Bulletin No. 49, Inland Waters Branch, Depart-
ment of the Environment, Ottawa, Canada, 1971.
261. Lessing, P. and R. S. Reppert. Geological considerations
of sanitary landfill site evaluations. Environmental
Geology Bulletin No. 1, West Virginia Geological and
Economic Survey, 1972.
262. Geraghty and Miller, Inc. Ground-water contamination:
an explanation of its causes and effects. Port Wash-
ington, New York, May 1972.
373
-------
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
Anonymous. Recycling sludge and sewage effluent by land
disposal. Outlook, Vol. 6, No. 10, October 1972.
Pavoli, J. L., D. Hagerty, and E. Lee. Environmental im-
pact evaluation of hazardous waste disposal on land.
Water Resources Bulletin, American Water Resources
Association, Vol. 8, No. 6, December 1972.
Kuo, C. H. Pressure behavior in subsurface disposal of
liquid industrial wastes. Journal Water Pollution Con-
trol Federation, Vol. 44, No. 12, p. 2325-2333, Decem-
ber 19 72.
Winton, J. M. C. W. report. Chemical Week, October 11,
1972.
Kreplick, R., W. Litsky, and H. B. Gunner, Editors. Pro-
ceedings of regionalized solid waste management. Tech-
nical Guidance Center for Environmental Quality, Uni-
versity of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, October 1972.
Anonymous. Subsurface water pollution; a selective anno-
tated bibliography; part I, subsurface waste injection.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D. C.,
March 1972.
Anonymous. Subsurface water pollution; a selective anno-
tated bibliography; part II, saline water intrusion.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D. C.,
March 1972
Anonymous. Subsurface water pollution; a selective anno-
tated bibliography; part III, percolation from surface
sources. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wash-
ington, D. C., March 19 72.
Anonymous. Disposal of solid toxic wastes; the report of
the technical committee on the disposal of toxic solid
wastes. Ministry of Housing and Local Government,
Scottish Development Department, London, 1970.
Westerhoff, G. P., et al. Central New York regional com-
prehensive solid wastes management plan, volume II.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Appendices, Albany, New York, October 27, 1971.
374
-------
273. Fungaroli, A. A. Pollution of subsurface water by sani-
tary landfills; volume III, EPA-SW-12RG. 2-71, Drexel
University, Philadelphia, Pa, 1971.
274. Ham, R. K. Large elevation landfilling for refuse disposal.
Public Works, January 1970.
275. Anonymous. Proceedings - urban rainfall management prob-
lems (runoff, sediment, sanitary landfill). Technical
Report UKY 51-72-CE 16, University of Kentucky, Lex-
ington, Ky, June 1972.
276. Otton, E. G. Solid waste disposal in the geohydrologic
environment of Maryland, report of investigations No. 18,
Maryland Geological Survey, 1972.
277. Cook, T. D., Editor. Underground waste management and
environmental implications. Memoir 18, Proceedings of
1st Symposium on Underground Waste Management and
Environmental Implications (1971), AAPG and the U.S.
Geological Survey, 1972.
278. Planners Associates, Inc. New Jersey State solid waste
management plan. For Bureau of Waste Management, State
of New Jersey. Newark, NJ, July 31, 1970.
279. Institute of Industrial Research, University of Louisville.
Louisville, Ky—Ind. metropolitan region solid waste
disposal study; interim report on a solid waste demon-
stration project, volume I: Jefferson County, Kentucky.
For the U.S. Bureau of Solid Waste Management, 1970.
280. Otton, E. G. Geologic and Hydrologic Factors Bearing on
Subsurface Storage of Liquid Wastes in Maryland.
Maryland Geological Survey, Report of Investigations
No. 14, United States Department of the Interior, 1970.
281. California State Department of Public Health. Tentative
guidelines for hazardous waste land disposal facilities;
supplement to the report, hazardous waste disposal
survey - 1971. California Solid Waste Planning Study,
January 1972.
282. California Department of Public Health. Hazardous waste
disposal survey - 1971, California solid waste planning
study. January 1972.
375
-------
283,
284,
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
Kentucky State Department of Health. Kentucky solid waste
management plan; status report 1970. For the Federal
SolicS Waste Management Program, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. , 1971.
Boston College Law School. Recent developments in environ-
mental law. Boston College Industrial and Commercial
Law Review, Vol. 13, No. 4, Brighton, Ma, March 1972.
Bosselman, F. and D. Callies. The quiet revolution in
land use control. Prepared for Council on Environmental
Quality, Washington, D. C., 1971.
Department of Defense. Environmental quality program
status, 1 January 1972. pp. 6, 11, 52, 67 and 68,
January 1, 1972.
Swenson, G. A., S. R. Bacon, R, S. Farnham and J. E. Paseur.
Soil survey of DeKalb County, Alabama. U.S.D.A., Wash-
ington, D. C., 108 pp, 1958.
Harper, VJ. G. , E. N. Poulson and J. C. Foulger. Soil
survey of the Yuma Desert area, Arizona. U.S.D.A.,
Washington, D. C., 35 p, 1941.
Larance, F. C. Soil survey of Bradley County, Arkansas.
U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 66 p, 1961,
Retzer, J. L., R. A. Gardner, L. F. Koehler and R. C. Cole.
Soil survey of Kings County, California. U.S.D.A.,
Washington, D. C., 102 p, 1946.
Isgrig, D. Soil survey of San Benito County, California.
U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., Ill p, 1969.
Larsen, L. S. and J. B. Brown. Soil survey of Arapahoe
County, Colorado. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 78 p,
1971.
Cline, A. J., C. Spears, F. Mehaffey, E. Kubin,
R. Franklin and C. Pochek. Soil survey of Delta-Montrose
area, Colorado. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 73 pp, 1967.
Larsen, L. S., T. G. Baber, E. L. Wesswick, D. E. McCoy
and J. B. Harman. Soil survey of Elbert County, Colorado,
Eastern Part. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 79 pp, 1966.
Shearin, A, E. and D. E. Hill. Soil survey of Hartford
County, Connecticut. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 126 pp,
1962.
376
-------
296. Long, D. L., M. E. Carr and W. E. Hearn. Soil survey of
Jasper County, Georgia. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C.,
38 pp, 1916.
297. Miller, J. T., A. E. Taylor, J. C. Mercer, 0. L. Dodd
and J. L. Robison. Soil survey of Union County, Georgia.
U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 144 pp, 1950.
298. Phillips, S. W., E. W. Knobel, G. L. Fuller and J. W. Moon.
Soil survey of Dooly County, Georgia. U.S.D.A., Wash-
ington, D. C., 34 pp, 1926.
299. Downey, C. E. and R. T. Odell. Soil survey of Montgomery
County, Illinois. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 94 pp,
1969.
300. Tharp, W. E. and S. R. Bacon. Soil survey of Blackford
County, Indiana. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 41 pp,
1928.
301. Jones, G. B. and J. B. Brill. Soil survey of Benton County,
Indiana. Bureau of Soils, Washington, D. C., 20 pp,
1917.
302. Smith, L. R., W. J. Leighty, D. R. Kunkel and A. T. Waincko.
Soil survey of Cass County, Indiana. U.S.D.A., Wash-
ington, D. C., 129 pp, 1955.
303. Pilgrim, S. Soil survey of Pulaski County, Indiana.
U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 84 pp, 1968.
304. Dideriksen, R. I. Soil survey of Adams County, Iowa.
U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 97 pp, 1963.
305. Buckner, R. L. Soil survey of Bremer County, Iowa. U.S.D.A.,
Washington, D. C., 118 pp, 1967.
306. Sallee, K. H., V. L. Hamilton, C. W. McBee and E. L. Fleming.
Soil survey of Kearny County, Kansas. U.S.D.A., Wash-
ington, D. C., 70 pp, 1963.
307. Dickey, H. P., W. R. Swafford and Q. L. Markley. Soil
survey of Morton County, Kansas. U.S.D.A., Washington,
D. C., 81 pp, 1963.
308. Arms, F. S., D. S. Henry, A. S. Johnson, W. R. Partin,
T. G. Sparks and 0. Whitaker. Soil survey of Adair
County, Kentucky. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 127 pp,
1964.
377
-------
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320.
321.
Weisenberger, B. C., R. L. Blevins and D. M. Hersh. Soil
survey of Bath County, Kentucky. U.S.D.A., Washington,
D. C., 126 pp, 1963.
Matthews, E. D. Soil survey of Carroll County, Maryland.
U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 92 pp, 1969.
Otton , E. G. Solid waste disposal in the geohydrologic
environment of Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey
Report of Investigations No. 18, Baltimore, Md, 59 pp,
1972.
Mott, J. R. and D. C. Fuller. Soil survey of Franklin
County, Massachusetts. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C.,
204 pp, 1967.
Pregitzer, K. E. Soil survey of Muskegon County, Michigan.
U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 89 pp, 1968.
Arneman, H. F. Soils of Minnesota. Minnesota Extension
Bulletin 278, Grand Rapid, Minnesota, 8 pp, 1963.
Edwards, R. J. Soil survey of Wright County, Minnesota.
U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 140 pp, 1966.
Milbrandt, A. C. and L. B. Hale. Soil survey of Pike
County, Mississippi. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C.,
62 pp, 1968.
Chugg, J. c., G. W. Anderson, D. L. King and L. H. Jones.
Soil survey of Eddy area, New Mexico. U.S.D.A., Washing-
ton, D. C., 82 pp, 1971.
Cline, M. G. Soils and soil associations of New York.
New York Extension Bulletin 930, Ithaca, New York,
64 pp, 1970.
Sweet, A. T. and W. Secor. Soil survey of Ulster County,
New York. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 52 pp, 1940.
Pearson, C. S., D. G. Greenleaf, H. R. Adams and W. Neely.
Soil survey of Wyoming County, New York. U.S.D.A.,
Washington, D. C., 45 pp, 1938.
Latimer, W. J., M. Howard, G. Gibbs, W. Huff and C. S. Pearson.
Soil survey of Onondago County, New York. U.S.D.A., Wash-
ington, D. C., 78 pp, 1938.
378
-------
322. Jurney, R. C. and W. A. Davis. Soil survey of Montgomery
County, North Carolina. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C.,
34 pp, 1930.
323. Seago, J. B., M. R. Wright, C. H. Wiesner and R. S. E. Smith.
Soil survey of Wells County, North Dakota. U.S.D.A.,
Washington, D. C., 84 pp, 1970.
324. Matanzo, F., K. L. Stone, R. D. Thompson and K. H. Wenner.
Soil survey of Delaware County, Ohio. U.S.D.A., Washing-
ton, D. C., 71 pp, 1969.
325. Baker, F. J., R. L. Meeker and N. Holowaychuk. Soil survey
of Paulding County, Ohio. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C.,
95 pp, 1960.
326. Culver, J. R. Soil survey of Kay County, Oklahoma. U.S.D.A.,
Washington, D. C., 86 pp, 1967.
327. Leighty, W. J. Soil survey of the Deschutes area, Oregon.
U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 103 pp, 1958.
328. Higbee, H. W., S. R. Bacon, R. T. A. Burke, A. L. Patrick,
L. A. Brown, N. P. Tedrow, R. S. Long and C. H. Atkinson.
Soil survey of Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. U.S.D.A.,
Washington, D. C., 146 pp, 1944.
329. Simmons, C. S., C. H. Atkinson and L. A. Brown. Soil survey
of Wayne County, Pennsylvania. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C.,
31 pp, 1938.
330. Rogers, V. A., E. C. Herren and W. J. Camp. Soil survey of
Spartanburg County, South Carolina. U.S.D.A., Washington,
D. C., 80 pp, 1968.
331. True, J. C., J. F. Campbell, E. P. Davis and D. L. Montgomery.
Soil survey of Giles County, Tennessee. U.S.D.A., Wash-
ington, D. C., 69 pp, 1968.
332. Elder, J. A., E. K. Yates, I. P. Epley and L. E. Odom.
Soil survey of Marion County, Tennessee. U.S.D.A., Wash-
ington, D. C., 88 pp, 1958.
333. Mowery, I. C. and H. Oakes. Soil survey of Cherokee County,
Texas. Washington, D. C., 65 pp, 1959.
334. Geib, H. V. , T. M. Bushnell and A. H. Bauer. Soil survey
of Harris County, Texas. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C.,
50 pp, 1928.
379
-------
335. Beck, M. W., H. W. Higbee and P. M. Marshall. Soil survey
of Cass County, Texas. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C.,
30 pp, 1937.
336. Porter, H. C., J. H. Petro, C. S. Coleman, E. F. Henry,
C. I. Rich and H. H. Bailey. Soil survey of Fluvanna
County, Virginia. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 178 pp,
1958.
337. Petro, J. H., C. S. Coleman, E. F. Henry, H. C. Porter,
T. R. Watkins, W. J. Meyer and A. J. Vessel. Soil survey
of Fauquier County, Virginia. U.S.D.A., Washington D. C.,
231 pp, 1956.
338. Fowler, R. C. and A. o. Ness. Soil survey of Lewis County,
Washington. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 130 pp, 1954.
339. Strahorn, A. T., E. J. Carpenter, W. W. Weir, S. Ewing,
H. H. Krusekopf, A. F. Heck and A. A. Hunt. Soil survey
(Reconnaissance) of the Columbia Basin area, Washington.
U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 55 pp, 1929.
340. Haszel, 0. L. Soil survey of Walworth County, Wisconsin.
U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 107 pp, 1971.
341. Klingelhoets, A. J. Soil survey of Iowa County, Wisconsin.
U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., 101 pp, 1962.
342. Agricultural Experiment Stations of the Western Land Grant
Universities and Colleges Staff. Soils of the Western
United States. Washington State University, Pullman,
Washington, 69 pp, 1964.
34 3. U.S. Department of Commerce. Climatic Atlas for the United
States. Environmental Science Services Administration,
June 1968.
344. Holzworth, G. C. Mixing heights, wind speeds and potential
for urban air pollution throughout the contiguous United
States. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs, Research Triangle Park, N. C., January, 1972.
345. Thom, H. C. S. Tornado probabilities. Monthly Weather
Review, pp 730-736, Oct.-Dec. 1963.
346. U.S.D.C. Climatological data, national summary. N.O.A.A.,
Annual, Vol. 21, #13, 1970.
347. U.S.D.C. Local climatological data—annual summary.
N.O.A.A., for various stations.
380
-------
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
United Nations. Transport of dangerous goods. Volumes I-IV,
New York, 1970.
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Toxic sub-
stances control act. May 1972, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Serial No. 92-73.
Booz-Allen Applied Research, Inc. Escape and spillage of
hazardous materials and vapors from motor carriers.
November 1967.
Winter, J. W. Plant sites. Chemical Week, October 11, 1972.
National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council.
A study of transportation of hazardous materials.
May 1969.
National Transportation Safety Board. Special study of
risk concepts in dangerous goods transportation regula-
tions. January 1971.
Booz-Allen Applied Research, Inc. A study of hazardous
waste materials, hazardous effects and disposal methods.
Volume I-III, June 1972.
TRW Systems Group. Hazardous waste disposal program.
Monthly Reports, 1972.
National Academy of Sciences. Evaluation of the hazard of
bulk water transportation of industrial chemicals:
a tentative guide. 1970.
Leimkuhler, F. F. Trucking of radioactive materials.
Johns Hopkins Press, 1963.
Austin, M. E. Land resource regions and major land resource
areas of the United States. Agriculture Handbook 296,
Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Washington, D. C., 82 p, 1972.
Dee, N, J. K. Baker, N. L. Drobny, K. M. Duke and
D. C. Fahringer. Environmental evaluation system for
water resource planning. National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB-208-822. 188 p, 1972.
Odum. E. P. Fundamentals of ecology. W. B. Saunders
Company, Philadelphia, 574 p, 1971.
Shelford, V. E. The ecology of North America. University
of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois. 610 p, 1963.
381
-------
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372,
373,
374.
375.
Blood, M. R. and C. L. Hulin. Alienation, environmental
characteristics, and worker responses. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 1967.
Fishbein, M. A behavior theory approach to the relations
between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward
the object. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude
theory and measurement. John Wiley, New York, 1967.
Herzberg, F., B. Mausner, R. Peterson and D. Capwell.
Job attitudes: review of research and opinion. Psycho-
logical Service of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa, 1957.
Herzberg, F., B. Mausner and B. Snyderman. The motivation
to work. N.Y., Wiley, 1959.
Hulin, C. L. and M. R. Blood. Job enlargement, individual
differences, and worker responses. Phychological Bulletin,
1968.
Lawler, E. E., III. Pay and organizational effectiveness.
N.Y., McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Lawler, E. E. and J. L. Suttle. A causal correlational test
of the need hierarchy concept. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 1972.
Maier, N. R. F. Phychology in industry. Boston, Houghton-
Mifflin, 1955.
Maslow, A. Motivation and personality. Harper, New York,
1954.
Porter, L. W. and E. E. Lawler, III. Managerial attitudes
and performance. Homewood, Illinois, Irwin, 1968.
Sheldon, E. B. and K. C. Land. Social reporting for the
1970's: a review and programmatic statement. Policy
Sciences, 1972.
Smith, P. C., L. M. Kendall and C. L. Hulin. Measurement
of satisfaction in work and retirement. Rand-McNally,
Chicago, 1969.
Turner, A. N. and P. R. Lawrence. Industrial jobs and the
worker; an investigation of response to task attributes.
Boston, Harvard University, Graduate School of Business
Administration, 1965.
Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. Wiley, New York, 1964.
382
-------
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
Webb, E. J., D. T. Campbell, R. D. Schwartz and L. Sechrest.
Unobtrusive measures. Rand-McNally, Chicago, 1966.
Wood, M. T. Some determinants and consequences of power
distribution in decision-making groups. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Illinois). Ann Arbor,
Michigan. University Microfilms, No. 71-15-002, 1971.
National Industrial Pollution Control Council. Waste dis-
posal in deep wells. Government Publication 55-95, 34 p.
February 1971.
Heckard, J. Deep well injection of liquid wastes. Engineer-
ing Bulletin No. 35. Los Angeles, Dames & Moore, 6 p.
1970.
Personal communication. G. Melickian, Dames & Moore, to
A. Lee, TRW Systems, April 19, 1972.
Bradshaw, R. L., et al. Evaluation of ultimate disposal
methods for liquids and solid radioactive wastes VI -
disposal of solid wastes in salt formations. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, ORNL-3358, March 1969.
Staff of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Siting of fuel
reprocessing plants and waste management facilities.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL-4451, July 1970.
Bendixsen, C. L. Storage facilities for radioactive cal-
cined waste solids at the Idaho Chemical Processing
Plant. Idaho Nuclear Corp., Idaho Falls, IN-1155,
July 1968.
Proceedings of the Symposium on the Solidification and
Long-Term Storage of Highly Radioactive Wastes, sponsored
by Atomic Energy Commission, Richland, Washington.
CONF-660208, Feb. 14-18, 1966.
Dunn, C. S., et al. Feasibility of permanent storage of
solid chemical waste in subsurface salt deposits.
Fenix and Scission, Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma. F&S-196,
Oct. 1971.
Morton, R. J. Land burial of solid radioactive wastes:
study of commercial operations and facilities. Atomic
Energy Commission, Washington, WASH-1143, 1968.
Pavoni, J. L., D. J. Hagerty and R. E. Lee. State of the
art of land disposal of hazardous wastes. Paper presented
at the Seventh American Water Resources Conference,
Washington, D. C., Oct. 24-28, 1971.
383
-------
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398,
Sorg, T. J. and H. L. Hickman, Jr. Sanitary landfill facts.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Washington, D. C., 30 p, 1970.
California State Department of Public Health. Tentative
guidelines for hazardous waste land disposal facilities.
42 p, Jan. 1972.
Gunnerson, C. G., D. D. Smith and R. P. Brown. An appraisal
of marine disposal of solid wastes off the West Coast: a
preliminary review and results of a survey. 15th Annual
Meeting, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Anaheim,
California. April 23, 1969.
Smith, D. D. and R. P. Brown. Ocean disposal of barge-
deiivered liquid and solid wastes from U.S. coastal cities.
(Dillingham Corporation, LaJolla, California). Contract
No. PH 86-68-203, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Solid Waste Management Office, 1971.
Smith, D. D. and R. P. Brown. Deep sea disposal of liquid
and solid wastes. Industrial Water Engineering, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Sept. 1970.
Subcommittee on Oceanography, Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries. Ocean disposal of unserviceable chemical
munitions. Hearings, Serial No. 91-31. House of Representa-
tives, 91st Congress, Aug. 1970.
Council on Environmental Quality. Ocean dumping; a national
policy. Report to the President, 4 5 p, Oct. 1970.
Reed, Jr., W. F. Assessment of the environmental effects
of past deep water dumping operations. Thirteenth Annual
Explosives Safety Seminar Minutes, Armed Forces Explosives
Safety Board, San Diego, California. 257 p, Sept. 1971.
Witt, Jr., P. A. Disposal of solid wastes. Chemical Engineer-
ing, 78 (22):62078, Oct. 4, 1971.
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation. Dumping
of waste material. Hearings, Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, Serial No. 91-39, House of Representatives,
91st Congress, July 27, 28, Sept. 30, 1970.
Hood, D. W., B. Stevenson and L. M. Jeffrey. Deep sea dis-
posal of industrial wastes. Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry, 50(6): 885-888, June 1958.
384
-------
399.
400.
401.
385
National Research Council Committee on Oceanography. Radio-
active waste disposal into Atlantic and Gulf Coastal
waters. Report from a working group of the Committee
on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences -
National Research Council. National Research Council
Publication No. 655, Washington, National Academy of
Sciences, 1959.
National Academy of Sciences Committee on Effects of Atomic
Radiation on Oceanography and Fisheries. Considerations
of the disposal of radioactive wastes from nuclear-
powered ships into the marine environment. National
Research Council Publication 568, Washington, National
Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, 52 p,
1959.
National Research Council Committee on Oceanography. Dis-
posal of low-level radioactive waste into Pacific coastal
waters. National Research Council Publication 985, Wash-
ington, National Academy of Sciences - National Research
Council, 87 p, 1962.
------- |