FINAL REPORT
PROFILE OF 1987 HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT
IN NEW MEXICO AND THE STATES OF EPA REGIONS 8 AND 9
prepared for
Western Governors' Association
prepared by
ROSS & ASSOCIATES
Rob Greenwood, Senior Associate
Jocelyn Mathiasen, Junior Associate
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In producing this report, we solicited the help of states and EPA in compiling data and in
reviewing text. This project would not have been possible without the cooperation of those
people with whom we worked. We appreciate their efforts, and would like to acknowledge
the following people: Donna Perla and Bob Becker of EPA Region 8; Don Rash, formerly
of EPA Region 8; Jill Mason, a contractor for EPA Region 8; Brian Thornton, Troy Harper
and Christie Camp of EPA Region 9; Kelly Allen, formerly of EPA Region 9; Stephanie
Wilson and Andy Soesilo of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; Jan
Radimski, Lawrence Jackson and A1 Storm of the California Department of Health
Services, James Kiefer and Mira Neumiller of the Colorado Hazardous Materials and
Waste Management Division; Arlene Kabei and Bill Wilson of the Hawaii Department of
Health; William Potts of the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Services;
Jeff Denison of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and Brent Bowman of
the University of Nevada, Reno; Gordon Dirlam and James Mullany of the New Mexico
Health and Environment Department; Wally Hapip of the North Dakota Department of
Health and Consolidated Laboratories; Vonnie Kallemeyn of the South Dakota Department
of Water and Natural Resources; Rusty Lundberg and Kurt Nelson of the Utah Bureau of
Solid and Hazardous Waste; and Dave Finley of the Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality. In addition, we would like to thank Mike Taimi and Mike Burns
at EPA headquarters for their help and support, and Bill Jones and Mark Jorritsma of
Apogee Research, Inc. for their assistance with assembling and operating data systems.
-------
022^
PROFILE OF 1987 HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT
IN NEW MEXICO AND THE STATES OF EPA REGIONS 8 AND 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1
A. Overview
B. Data
II. INTRODUCTION .. page4
III. DATA SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY Page 5
A. Data Sources
B. Methodology
C Notes on and Limitations of the Data
IV. DISCUSSION OF DATA
Page 9
A. Generation of Hazardous Waste in 1987
B. Management of Hazardous Waste in 1987
C. Import and Export of Hazardous Waste in 1987
D. New Mexico's Waste Stream
E. Potential Future Supply and Demand for
Management Capacity
F. Summary and Conclusion
APPENDICES Page 18
Appendix A-Definitions
Appendix B-Charts
Appendix C~Tables fj
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Overview
This report presents data on the generation and management of Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste1 by New Mexico and the states of EPA regions
8 and 9. The Western Governors' Association (WGA) compiled these data as part of an
effort to improve understanding of hazardous waste generation and management in the
West, to help states comply with section 104(k) of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA),3 and to provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
with a regional perspective on the generation and management of hazardous waste. SARA
104(k) requires states to demonstrate, by 1989, that disposal capacity will be available for
all hazardous wastes expected to be generated in the following 20 years.
B. Data
The data used in this report to estimate hazardous waste generation and management
came from hazardous waste transportation manifests for the state of California and from
Biennial Reports for all other sutes. Information was aggregated into SARA waste types
and management categories4 according to the methodology set forth in EPA's "Assurance
of Hazardous Waste Capacity: Guidance to State Officials" and EPA's Technical
Reference Manual for Reporting the Current Status of Generation and Management
Capacity, Imports, and Exports." Data on management capacity were obtained from EPA's
1986 TSDR survey and were updated by individual states.
Hazardous wastewaters discharged to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) and
under National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits were inconsistent-
ly reported by generators in different states. Because these wastes typically are very high
volume, this distorted comparisons of generation volumes among states. To avoid such
distortions, wastewater volumes have been deleted from the data. In addition, mixed
radioactive/ hazardous wastes arc excluded due to unique management requirements (not
addressed by the SARA management categories) for such wastes. Management capacity
for these wastes also is excluded
All references to waste in this report refer to RCRA hazardous waste unless explicitly stated
otherwise.
2 . AH references to "regions" or "the states" refer to EPA region 8 and 9 states. The states are the
following: Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and
Wyoming. The waste stream of New Mexico, an EPA region 6 stale, is addressed separately.
* SARA Section 104(k) has been incorporated into the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as section 104(c)(9).
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Generation and management data from 1987 indicate that the states of EPA Regions 8
and 9 generated 1,217,791 tons of RCRA hazardous waste in 1987.5 California, the primary
generator, was responsible for 73.09 percent of overall generation. Utah, Colorado, and
Arizona were the next largest generators with 18.70 percent, 3.73 percent, and 2.40 percent,
respectively. North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Hawaii, and Nevada
contributed a relatively small amount to overall generation with .99 percent, .45 percent,
.23 percent, .20 percent, .12 percent, and .08 percent, respectively.
The primary types of waste generated in the region were inorganic liquids, contaminated
soil, inorganic sludges and solids, solvents, and organic sludges and solids. These
constituted 32 percent, 21 percent, 14 percent, 11 percent, and 10 percent of the waste
stream, respectively. Mixed organic/inorganic sludges and solids, other wastes (not
elsewhere classified), mixed organic/inorganic liquids and organic liquids (not elsewhere
classified) contributed 4 percent, 4 percent, 3 percent, and 1 percent to the waste stream,
respectively.
The states reported that 33,854.443 tons of hazardous waste management capacity existed
in EPA regions 8 and 9 in 1987." Of this, 2.5 percent was provided by captive management
facilities, 78.1 percent was provided by commercial management facilities, and 19.4 percent
was provided by on-site facilities. That year, 1,219,963 tons of waste received management.
Of this, 12 percent received captive management, 79.0 received commercial management,
and 19.8 percent received on-site management.
Although there was a surplus of overall hazardous waste management capacity, shortfalls
did exist. Shortfalls in commercial capacity existed for six SARA management categories.
The largest deficits, of 15,455 tons, 12,149 tons, 10,392 tons, and 9,054 tons were for
Generation data include only wastes generated by Large Quantity Generators (LQGs), which
accumulated during the year or generated during one or more months of the year over 2^00 pounds of
hazardous waste, 22 pounds of acute hazardous waste, or 220 pounds of acute hazardous spill debris. Small
Quantity Generators (SQGs), which accumulated or generated smaller quantities of these wastes, are not
included.
6 Because California used manifest data to provide estimates of hazardous waste generation, wastes
generated in California and managed at the facility where they were generated are not included in this
number. As such, this generation figure is understated. In its 1985 National Biennial Report, EPA estimated
that 9.6 million tons of hazardous waste were generated in California. This quantity includes wastewaters
and waste defined by the state (but not by EPA) as hazardous.
7 This capacity estimate does not include on-site hazardous waste management in California.
P
A captive facility is a facility which only manages off-site wastes, generated by the same firm; for
instance, if a firm has several facilities generating hazardous waste, only one facility may have the required
treatment processes and the wastes for the firm are managed there. A commercial facility is a facility whose
business is the management of wastes generated by other firms. An on-site facility is a facility that manages
waste at the same place where the waste is generated.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Incineration (Liquids), Aqueous Organic Treatment, Energy Recovery, and Other Recovery,
respectively. Smaller deficits, of 3,955 tons, 2,026 tons, and 1,132 tons, existed for
Incineration (Sludges/Solids), Deepwell Injection, and Land Treatment, respectively. In
addition, there was a shortfall in captive capacity of 163 tons and a shortfall in on-site
capacity of 2,053 tons.
States report that they exported a total of 76,699 tons to other Region 8 or 9 states and that
they imported 108,774 tons of waste from other Region 8 or 9 states.9 Data show that
states also exported 80,000 tons of waste out of the region and imported 33,511 tons of
waste from outside of the region. The region as a whole was a net exporter of 46,489 tons
of waste.
In 1987, 4,571 tons of waste generated in New Mexico received management under all
SARA management categories except Sludge Treatment and Deepwell Injection. Of this,
2,488 tons required commercial management, which did not exist in the state. New
Mexico's generation records indicate that the state exported 1,465 tons of waste to states
in EPA regions 8 and 9 and imported 4,892 tons of waste from states in the region.
Although a shortfall of 54,163 tons for commercial capacity existed in 1987 in EPA regions
8 and 9, the vast majority of waste generated in the region was managed in the region. Of
waste requiring management, 87 percent was managed in the state in which it was
generated and 93 percent was managed within the region.
The quantities reported as imported may be greater than those reported as Mportfrf for several
reasons, including the following. Data regarding imports include waste generated by Small Quantity
Generators (SQGs) and data regarding exports do not. In addition, import data may include waste defined
as hazardous by a state but not by EPA, and waste reported as exported is one year may not be repotted as
imported until the next year.
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
When it reauthorized the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) in 1986, the United States Congress included a
provision requiring each state to provide "adequate assurance" that treatment and disposal
capacity will be available for the hazardous wastes generated within the state during the
twenty year period following the date of the assurance. Congress also stipulated that, after
October 17,1989, no Superfund remedial action monies could be provided to a state unless
it had provided such an assurance. CERCLA Section 104(c)(9) contains this legislative
language.
To assist 14 of its menibers in meeting the requirements of CERCLA Section 104(c)(9),
the Western Governors' Association (WGA) obtained a grant from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to support states in preparing capacity assurance
plans. Under Phase I of this effort, WGA provided two forms of assistance to participating
states: technical assistance and direct financial assistance. In addition to efforts directly
involving states, WGA also undertook efforts to help states better understand generation,
management, and flow among states of hazardous waste. To do this, WGA prepared this
regional profile, which addresses 1987 hazardous waste generation and management in New
Mexico and in the states of EPA regions 8 and 9.
This profile brings together information on the types and quantities of RCRA hazardous
waste generated and managed by New Mexico and by the states of EPA regions 8 and 9;
these states are participating in the WGA capacity assurance project. The profile describes
the pattern of waste flows among the states of EPA regions 8 and 9 and between these
regions and the rest of the countiy. In addition, the waste stream of New Mexico, also a
participant in the WGA Capacity Assurance Project, is discussed. The remaining text is
divided into two sections: Section m, Data Sources and Methodology, and Section IV,
Discussion of the Data. Appendix A presents definitions of SARA waste types and
management categories; Appendix B presents charts based on the data; Appendix C
presents tables based on the data.
-------
III. DATA SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY
A. Data Sources
This profile is based on RCRA hazardous waste generation and management data for
1987. The data came from each state in one of three forms described below.
California provided summary data in the form of the tables the state submitted with
its capacity assurance plan. The state's source for the data was hazardous waste
transportation manifests for 1987.
Arizona and Nevada provided data derived from 1987 Biennial Reports. Both of
these states used the 1985 EPA Biennial Report format for obtaining 1987 data.
Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and
Wyoming also provided data from 1987 Biennial Reports. These states used the
1987 EPA Biennial Report forms for collecting information.
Data regarding the hazardous waste treatment and disposal capacity available in each state
came primarily from EPA's 1986 TSDR survey. Each state reviewed these data and made
corrections, as appropriate. The survey was also used to determine whether management
facilities were captive, commercial, or on-site.10
B. Methodology
For states using Biennial Report forms, the SARA analytic methodology outlined in EPA's
"Assurance of Hazardous Waste Capacity: Guidance to State Officials" and the "Technical
Reference Manual for Reporting the Current Status of Generation and Management
Capacity, Imports, and Exports" were used to convert Biennial Report generation and
management data, reported by EPA hazardous waste code and EPA management code, to
SARA waste types and management categories. Hie SARA analytic methodology also was
used to aggregate data regarding the import and export of wastes.
For states using 1987 Biennial Report forms, the source for generation and export data
was the "Generation and Management" form; the source for import data was th6 "Waste
Received from Off Site" form. For states using 1985 Biennial Report forms, the sources
for generation and export data were the "Generator Report" and the Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facility Report" The source for import data was also the "Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facility Report."
^ See footnote 7 for a definition of captive, commercial, and on-site facilities.
-------
DATA SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY
To the extent possible, data from states using 1987 report forms were converted using the
"high option" SARA analytic methodology outlined in the Technical Reference Manual.
The high option methodology involves using information regarding each waste's EPA waste
code and waste form code (as well as other information regarding properties of the waste)
to classify the waste under one of seventeen SARA waste types. Information regarding
management of the waste and the managing facility is then used to determine where the
waste was managed, under which SARA management category, and whether management
takes place at captive, commercial, or on-site facilities. If key pieces of information were
unavailable (for example, waste form code or method of management) the "low option"
methodology, described below, was used.
Data from Arizona and Nevada were converted using the "low option" SARA analytic
methodology. This involves using information regarding each waste's EPA waste code and
a "national default" matrix to translate this waste code into a SARA waste type. The
default matrix used is printed on page C-l of the Technical Reference Manual. Information
regarding the managing facility and a national profile for RCRA hazardous waste
management in 1987 (printed on page 76 of the Technical Reference Manual) were used
to determine where the waste was managed, under which SARA management category, and
whether the managing facility is a captive, commercial, or on-site operation.
As stated above, California provided summary data regarding generation and management
of hazardous waste in the state in 1987. The state uUd hazardous waste transportation
manifests with University of California, Davis (UCD) waste type and management codes
as its source of data. The codes were translated to SARA waste types and management
categories by applying the definitions of SARA waste types and management categories (as
described in the Technical Reference Manual) to the UCD codes on the manifests.
Once individual states' data were translated into common SARA waste types and
management categories they were aggregated into the tables provided in Appendix C.
C. Notes nn and Umitetirms of the Data
The following is a list of notes and limitations relating to the data provided in this report.
Information in this report is limited to RCRA hazardous waste generated or
managed in 1987 and primarily focuses on waste generated by Large Quantity
Generators as defined by EPA.
Managing facilities report every shipment of wast received on "Waste Recer ?"
forms, including waste received from Small Quantity Generators (SQGs) r
management Therefore, information regarding imports includes waste generated
by SQGs.
Mixed radioactive/hazardous wastes must be managed in accordance with regulations
separate from RCRA; the forms of management required for these wastes are not
-------
DATA SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY
included under any of the SARA management categories. These wastes are not
included in this report*
Wastewaters discharged to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) and under
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are not included
in this report. Although the Biennial Reporting System is structured to gather data
on all waste defined as hazardous, including wastewaters, few generators reported
these wastes. To maintain consistency among states, wastewaters were removed from
the data in those few instances where they were reported.
Data regarding wastes being managed through RCRA-exempt processes (including
exempt recycling) and the capacity to manage these wastes are not available through
the Biennial Reporting system. Therefore, these wastes and the capacity to manage
these wastes are not addressed in this report.
The state of California used its hazardous waste manifest data tracking system to
provide hazardous waste generation and management estimates for this report. As
a result, the volumes of waste generated in California and managed on-site are not
included in these estimates. In its 1985 National Biennial Report, EPA estimated
that 9.6 million tons of hazardous waste were generated in California. The 1985
estimates have not been incorporated into the data used in this report. These
estimates do indicate that the 1987 data underestimate hazardous waste generation
in California by not including waste managed on site. The 1985 estimate, however,
may substantially overestimate hazardous waste generation in relation to the type of
hazardous waste generation addressed in this report because it includes waste
defined by the state (but not by EPA) as hazardous and because it includes
wastewaters, which are typically veiy high-volume wastes.
The data presented for Hawaii include 619 tons of waste generated by SQGs. The
state believed that these wastes comprise a significant portion of the state's overall
waste generation and so made efforts to include estimates of their volume.
Landfill capacity is based on available permitted capacity in 1987. Capacity for all
other management categories was estimated based on annual throughput For
example, a landfill with 1,000 tons of total capacity in 1987, which is expected to
operate for an additional ten years at the rate of 100 tons per year, is shown to have
1,000 tons of capacity. An incinerator that can incinerate 100 tons per year of waste
is shown to have 100 tons of capacity.
Waste streams with two or more EPA waste codes associated with them are treated
by the SARA conversion methodology as pure waste streams. Quantities of mixed
waste are equally divided among the respective waste codes and considered separate
waste streams. For example, 20 tons of mixed F001 and D001 were treated as two
wastes: 10 tons of F001 and 10 tons of D001.
-------
DATA SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY
States reviewed generation, management, and capacity data to the extent possible
given limited time and resources. They were not able, however, to confirm all of
the data with generators or TSDs. As a result, some of the data upon which this
report relies may be incomplete or misreported.
States were given an opportunity to review this report in draft form and to provide
comment during the January 24-25, 1990 meeting of the Western Governors'
Association Hazardous Waste Advisory Group in San Pedro, California.
-------
IV. DISCUSSION OF DATA
Using the methodologies described in Section m, 1987 hazardous waste generation and
management data were converted to SARA types and management categories and
information regarding the imports and exports of waste was derived. The result of these
efforts is depicted in Appendix B as Charts 1-12 and Appendix C as Tables Ml. A
discussion of the data follows.
A. Generation of Hazardous Waste in 1987
As indicated in Table 1, the states of EPA regions 8 and 9 generated 1,217,791 tons of
RCRA hazardous waste in 1987. The primary types of waste generated were inorganic
liquids, contaminated soil, inorganic sludges and solids, solvents, and organic sludges and
solids. These constituted 32 percent, 21 percent, 14 percent, 11 percent, and 10 percent
of the waste stream, respectively. Mixed organic/inorganic sludges and solids, other wastes
(not elsewhere classified), mixed organic/inorganic liquids, and organic liquids (not
elsewhere classified) contributed 4 percent, 4 percent, 3 percent, and 1 percent to the waste
stream, respectively. Chart 2 provides a bar graph detailing this breakout among SARA
waste types.
California was the primary generator of wastes, accounting for 73.09 percent (890,100 tons)
of total generation. The next largest generator of wastes was Utah, accounting for 18.70
percent (227,776 tons) of total generation. Colorado generated 3.73 percent (45,415 tons)
of the waste, and Arizona generated 2.4 percent (29,276 tons) of the waste. The other
states, each responsible for less than 1 percent of overall generation, contributed the
following: North Dakota, 12,092 tons; Montana, 5,458 tons; Wyoming, 2,742 tons; South
Dakota, 2,460 tons; Hawaii, 1,456 tons; and Nevada, 1,016 tons. Chart 1 provides a bar
graph detailing this breakout of generation among states.
As well as being broken out by SARA waste type, hazardous waste can be categorized as
recurrent or non-recurrent Recurrent wastes, in general, are generated as a result of on-
going production activities and are expected, in the absence of waste reduction measures,
to recur as long as those activities continue. Non-recurrent wastes are generally wastes
resulting from the clean up of a spill or similar event Wastes resulting from periodic
maintenance activities (for example, wastes from the cleaning of chemical reactor vessels),
although associated with production processes, are considered non-recurrent wastes, as they
tend to be generated on an irregular basis.
^ See footnote 4.
-------
DISCUSSION OF DATA
States other than California12 generated a total of 327,691 tons of waste in 1987. Of this
waste, 4.4 percent (14,386 tons) resulted from non-recurrent generation. Chart 3 provides
a bar graph depicting non-recurrent waste generation by states other than California. Of
particular note is the quantity of non-recurrent waste generated in North Dakota. In 1987,
non-recurrent wastes comprised 72 percent of North Dakota's overall generation (8,728 of
a total 12,092 tons generated). These wastes were clean up wastes and, thus, will not occur
in future years (although other clean up wastes may be generated).
In producing a breakout between recurrent and non-recurrent wastes, the state of California
focused on in-state waste management The breakout between recurrent and non-recurrent
waste, therefore, is based on the total quantity of hazardous wastes managed in the state
and not the total generation of waste in the state. Wastes generated in California but
exported to other states for management are not included in these estimates and wastes
imported to California from other states for management are included in the estimates. In
1987, California estimates that 822,100 tons of wastes were managed in-state (excluding
those wastes managed on site by generators). Of this total, 33 percent (272,100 tons) was
non-recurrent waste. Contaminated soil comprised 93 percent of non-recurrent wastes
managed in California during 1987. Chart 4 provides a bar graph depicting the breakout
of recurrent and non-recurrent hazardous wastes managed in California by waste type.
B. Management of Hazardous Waste in 1987
Total hazardous waste management capacity for EPA regions 8 and 9 in 1987 was reported
as 33,854,443 tons. Table 2(a) provides a breakout of total capacity for individual states
and SARA management categories. Tables 2(b)-2(d) further divide this among captive,
commercial, and on-site capacity. Table 2(b) indicates that 862,478 tons of captive
hazardous waste management capacity existed in 1987 in three states: California (753,649
tons), Hawaii (65,158 tons), and Arizona, (43,671 tons). Table 2(c) indicates that 26,447,855
tons of commercial hazardous waste management capaciiy existed in six states: California
(24,036,713 tons), Nevada (1,812,205 tons), Utah (573,056 tons), Colorado (20,730 tons),
Hawaii (2,624 tons), and Arizona (2^27 tons). Table 2(d) indicates that 6,544,110 tons of
on-site capacity existed in eight states: Colorado (2,909,383 tons), Utah (2,563,128 tons),
Arizona (925,658 tons), Hawaii (77,977 tons), Nevada (40,080 tons), Montana (26,504 tons),
Wyoming (1,600 tons), and North Dakota (12380 tons). Chart 5 illustrates this distribution
of management capacity among states in the region.
The bulk of the management capacity in EPA regions 8 and 9 in 1987 (57.1 percent) was
commercial capacity for Other Disposal in the state of California. As indicated in Appendix
A, Other Disposal is a catchall category for disposal operations such as depositing of wastes
California reported generation of recurrent and non-recurrent wastes in a manner different from
other states in EPA regions 8 and 9. As a result, California's generation of these wastes has been treated
separately in this discussion.
-------
DISCUSSION OF DATA
in salt mines, caves, and domes. A total of 19,345,136 tons of capacity existed for Other
Disposal, while only 129,544 tons of waste received this form of management.
When California's "Other Disposal" capacity is not considered, total management capacity
for 1987 is 14,509,307 tons. California, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona supplied the
bulk of this capacity, contributing 37 percent, 21 percent, 20 percent, 13 percent, and 7
percent, respectively. In addition, Hawaii supplied 1 percent and Montana, North Dakota,
and Wyoming together supplied the final 1 percent of this capacity. South Dakota had no
capacity.
Chart 6, which illustrates 1987 capacity in the region by SARA management category, does
not include California's "Other Disposal" capacity to present a clearer picture of
management supply in the region in SARA management categories 1 through 14. As
indicated by the chart, capacity existed in twelve SARA management categories other than
Other Disposal. Chart 6 provides a breakout of this capacity by management categories.
In addition, the chart divides capacity among captive, commercial, and on-site. Of the
14,509,307 tons of 1987 capacity other than Other Disposal, 7,102,719 tons is commercial
capacity. Landfill capacity accounts for 3,685,687 tons (52 percent) of the total. Other
management categories that contribute substantially to overall commercial capacity are
Stabilization (1,592^45 tons) and Aqueous Inorganic Treatment (1,409,585 tons).
Commercial capacity also existed for Solvents Recovery (145,467 tons), Metals Recovery
(118,037 tons), Other Treatment (98,338 tons), Energy Recovery (20,043 tons), Aqueous
Organic Treatment (16,000 tons), Sludge Treatment (13,000 tons), and Land Treatment
(3,887 tons). Minor amounts of capacity, 65 tons each, existed for Incineration (Liquids)
and Incineration (Sludges/Solids) and no capacity existed for Other Recovery or Deepwell
Injection.
Notable quantities of non-commercial management capacity include 3,053,455 tons of on-
site Aqueous Inorganic Treatment, 2,099,818 tons of on-site Other Treatment, and 1,092,017
tons of on-site Aqueous Organic Treatment, as well as 566,390 tons of captive Aqueous
Inorganic Treatment and 252,417 tons of captive Land Treatment
As depicted in Table 3(a), 1,219,963 tons of waste generated by states in EPA regions 8
and 9 received management in 1987. (This quantity includes waste generated in-state and
exported for management and does not include waste generated out-of-state and imported
for management) The quantity of waste requiring management may also be referred to
as management demand.
Tables 3(b)-3(d) divide 1987 management demand among captive, commercial, and on-site
facilities. The tables indicate that 15,159 tons of waste received captive management
964,246 tons of waste received commercial management and 240,557 tons of waste received
on-site management Patterns of overall demand for waste management among states are
similar to patterns of hazardous waste generation. California placed the highest demand
on waste management 890,100 tons. In Utah, 227,850 tons of waste received management
most of which (209,765 tons) was for on-site management that existed in the state.
-------
DISCUSSION OF DATA
Colorado, Arizona, and North Dakota generated waste requiring 46,747 tons, 27,890 tons,
and 12,117 tons of management, respectively. The remaining states placed demand on
waste management as follows: Montana, 5,458 tons, Wyoming, 4,438 tons, South Dakota,
2,415 tons, Hawaii, 1,931 tons, and Nevada, 1,017 tons. This breakout of waste requiring
management by state is depicted in Chart 7.
As indicated in Table 3(c), of the 1,219,963 tons of waste requiring management in 1987,
964,246 tons received commercial management Of this, 528,626 tons (55 percent) is waste
requiring landfill. Other management categories for which there was a high demand are
Other Disposal (129,544 tons) and Solvents Recovery (85,423 tons). Demand also existed
for the remaining twelve management categories as follows: Aqueous Inorganic Treatment,
53,577 tons, Metals Recovery, 32^93 tons, Energy Recovery, 30,435 tons, Aqueous Organic
Treatment, 28,149 tons, Stabilization 22,497 tons, Incineration (liquids), 15,520 tons, Other
Treatment, 14,279 "tons, Other Recovery, 9,054 tons, Land Treatment, 5,019 tons,
Incineration (Sludges/Solids), 4,020 tons, Sludge Treatment, 3,784 tons, and Deepwell
Injection, 2,026 tons. A breakout of management demand by SARA management category
is depicted in Chart 8.
Notable quantities of non-commercial demand include 197,599 tons of on-site Aqueous
Organic Treatment demand and 21,267 tons of on-site Incineration (Sludges/Solids)
demand, as well as 9,403 tons of captive Land Treatment demand and 4,379 tons of captive
Aqueous Inorganic Treatment demand.
A comparison between available hazardous waste management capacity in 1987 and
capacity demand in 1987 is provided in Table 4. It demonstrates that shortfalls in
commercial management capacity existed in seven SARA management categories:
Incineration (Liquids), 15,455 tons, Aqueous Organic Treatment, 12,149 tons, Energy
Recovery, 10,392 tons, Other Recovery, 9,054 tons, Incineration (Sludge/Solid), 3,955 tons,
Deepwell Injection, 2,026 tons, and Land Treatment, 1,132 tons. The region, then, had
sufficient capacity to manage all but 54,163 tons of waste requiring commercial manage-
ment This is 5.6 percent of the overall quantity of waste requiring commercial manage-
ment A surplus in commercial capacity totaling 25,483,609 tons existed in the other eight
SARA management categories.
The data, presented in Table 4 show that certain shortfalls in captive and on-site
management existed also. It is unlikely that these are actual shortfalls. Rather, the
shortfalls probably result from misreporting by generators or from an incomplete record
of captive or on-site capacity in the region. There is an overall shortfall of 163 tons for
captive capacity in ten management categories and of 2,053 tons for on-site capacity in
three management categories.
C. Import and Exnort of Hazardous Wast* in 1Q87
Information regarding the movement of waste among states within the region varies based
on whether data from exporting or frojn importing states are used. This occurs for several
-------
DISCUSSION OF DATA
reasons. Export data only include wg;te generated by LQGs, whereas import data include
waste received by TSDs from SQGs. Additional discrepancies may exist due to reporting
errors. For example, non-hazardous or state-only hazardous wastes1 may be reported by
receiving facilities as RCRA hazardous waste. Also, waste reported as exported in one year
may not be reported as imported until the following year. These discrepancies become
clear when comparing Table 5 and Table 6.
Table 5 presents an import/export matrix detailing waste flows from state to state within
the region. It is based upon export records (or generation forms) from states According
to this table, 76,699 tons of waste were exported from generating states to other region 8
or 9 states in 1987. California is the major exporter, with 36,723 tons of waste going from
that state to Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. Arizona exported 13,015 tons of waste
to California, Nevada, and Utah; Colorado exported 11,351 tons of waste to Arizona,
California, Nevada, and Utah. North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, Nevada,
Montana, and Hawaii exported 7,917 tons, 2,754 tons, 1,999 tons, 1,114 tons, 766 tons, 552
tons, and 511 tons, respectively, to other states in EPA regions 8 and 9.
According to Table 5, Utah received the most exported waste, 47,215 tons. The bulk of
this waste, 24,042 tons, was received from California, although Utah received waste from
every other state in the region except Hawaii. California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and
Wyoming received 13,312 tons, 9,317 tons, 5,959 tons, 894 tons, and 2 tons of waste,
respectively. Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota received no waste from
states within EPA regions 8 and 9, according to export records.
Table 6 presents the same matrix detailing waste flows from state to state within the region
but is based upon import records (or waste received forms). According to this table,
108,774 tons of waste were received from EPA region 8 or 9 states by EPA region 8 or 9
states.
Table 6 also shows California as the major exporter, with 58,078 tons of waste going to
Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. Arizona exported 26,678 tons to California,
Colorado, Nevada, and Utah; Colorado exported 9,278 tons to California, Nevada, and
Utah. North Dakota, Utah, South Dakota, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, and Hawaii
exported 7,701 tons, 3,795 tons, 1,112 tons, 1,068 tons, 503 tons, 298 tons, and 263 tons of
waste, respectively, to other states in the region, according to Table 6.
The major discrepancy between Table 6 and Table 5 appears to be with data regarding
waste imported to Nevada. According to Table 5 (the export table), four states within the
region exported 5,959 tons of waste to Nevada. According to Table 6 (the import table),
Nevada imported 47,330 tons of waste from those same four states. As stated above, import
13
14
See footnote 5 for a definition of Large Quantity Generators and Small Quantity Generators.
State-only hazardous wastes are wastes defined by a state (but not by EPA) as being hazardous.
-------
DISCUSSION OF DATA
records may include wastes generated by small quantity generators. In addition, non-
hazardous or state-only hazardous wastes may have been reported by receiving facilities as
RCRA hazardous waste, accounting for these differences.
Table 6 indicates that Nevada imported the most waste, 47,330 tons, of which 28,883 tons
were imported from California. Utah imported 46,261 tons of waste. The bulk of this
waste, 29,079 tons, was received from California, although this table indicates, as does Table
5, that Utah received waste from every state in EPA regions 8 and 9 except Hawaii.
California, Colorado, and Arizona imported 14,334 tons, 758 tons, and 91 tons, respectively.
Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming imported no waste from
states within EPA regions 8 and 9, according to import records.
Thus, export records indicate that six percent of waste generated in the region and requiring
management is exported to another state in EPA regions 8 and 9, while import records
indicate that the amount is closer to nine percent
As depicted in Table 7, states exported 80,000 tons of RCRA hazardous waste to states
outside of EPA regions 8 and 9 for all IS forms of SARA management. California was
the largest exporter, responsible for 51,755 tons (65 percent) of the waste that moved
outside of the region. Colorado, Arizona, and Utah exported 9,479 tons, 8,564 tons, and
5,125 tons, respectively, to states outside of the region. North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nevada, Hawaii, Montana, and Wyoming exported 1,682 tons, 1,346 tons, 1,290 tons, 406
tons, 318 tons, and 35 tons, respectively, to states outside of the region. In total, seven
percent of the waste generated in EPA regions 8 and 9 and requiring management was
exported out of the region.
According to export records, then, six percent of waste requiring management in the region
is exported from the generating state to another EPA region 8 or 9 state and seven percent
is exported outside of the region. Chart 9 illustrates the export of hazardous waste, both
to other states in the region and outside of the region, by state.
As depicted in Table 8, states in EPA regions^ and 9 also imported 33,511 tons of waste
from outside of the region for management undtr 14 SARA management categories. Utah
was the largest importer, receiving 24,317 tons of waste from outside of the region.
California, Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona received 5,864 tons, 2,587 tons, 742 tons, and
1 ton, respectively/ from outside of the region.
In total, data show that states imported 142£85 tons of waste. Seventy-six percent of this
was imported from another state in the region; twenty-four percent was imported from
. ^ This issue will be the subject of furtber analysis, as the states of EPA regions 8 and 9 are addressing
f.c?sons ^or movement of waste among Western states as part of the Capacity Assurance Plan follow-
up dialogue.
-------
outside of the region. Chart 10 illustrates this imn«r* tu
states in the region and from outside of the rJS? i- bazar<*ous waste, both from other
& region, t»y state.
The determination of whether a state is a net im
subtracting that state's total exports from its total °~u net exPort.er is made by
as a net exporter or net importer. It shows CaiifnrnfaV. hart 11 describes each state
for management and exported 88,478 tons as . ^P011^19,198 tons of waste
69,280 tons more than it imported. AriSnj J^ r!!.M7Xp0rt<:r otwaste' "P0"**
exporting approximately 20,000 tons more waste thanT^0- WCre °et exporters,
Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, and Hawaii we«?«if« 7 ^P0^- North Dakota,
were both net importers. Utah was the largest net cxP°?ers- Utah and Nevada
and exporting 7,124 tons of waste, and Nevada was J!^H^p0rtalF 70,578 tons of waste
aaa was a net importer of 47,861 tons of waste.
D. New Mexico's Waste str*m
New Mexico is a member of EPA reoinn * j • . , ,
taking a regional approach to capacity assurance Th^ta^h*1" in that region "
involved m the Western Governors' Association ekna!?£ however, was originally
helpful to examine that state's waste stream in relationassurance project. Thus, it is
8 and 9. m relatl0n t0 ** **«e streams of EPA regions
In 1987, New Mexico generated 3,136 tons of RPR a ho, j
«»«-¦-
New Mexico had 883,563 tons of hazardous wast#
capacity, V39 tons was captive capacity Cap?Clty m 1987' 01 •"»
percent of the on-site capacity was 'TJ™ °n"?,e "P"** ^ 99
rapacity. uiner Treatment. New Mexico had no commercial
In 1987, 4,571 tons of waste generated in New Mexico received management under all
SARA management categories except Sludge Treatment and Deepwell Injection. Of this,
236 tons received captive management, 2,448 tons received commercial management, and
1,846 tons received on-site management
New Mexico's generation records indicate that the state exported 1,465 tons of waste to
states in EPA regions 8 and 9. Utah received the bulk of this waste, importing 1,076 tons
of waste from the state. In addition, New Mexico exported 330 tons to Colorado and 59
tons to California. The state also exported 1,024 tons of waste to states outside of EPA
regions 8 and 9.
According to the state's CAP, New Mexico imported 4,892 tons of waste for commercial
management under Metals Recovery, 4,873 tons from Arizona and 19 tons from Oregon.
Capacity data, however, do not indicate the availability of commercial capacity in the state
-------
DISCUSSION OF DATA
to manage this waste. According to the state, this capacity exists but there is disagreement
over whether the importing facility is an exempt facility. According to the state's data,
New Mexico was a net importer of 2,403 tons.
E. Potential Future Supply and Demand for Management Capacity
Projections of hazardous waste management demand made for states' Capacity Assurance
Plans indicate that the states in EPA regions 8 and 9 may experience increases in demand
for most forms of hazardous waste management capacity over the next 20 years. In
particular, the Land Disposal Restrictions are expected to place increasing reliance on
solvents recovery, incineration, aqueous inorganic treatment, other treatment, stabilization,
and landfill capacity. Waste minimization efforts, however, may lower management demand
and hence the need for management capacity.
To date, 200 facilities representing all SARA management categories except Deepwell
Injection have been permitted in the region. These facilities are listed on Table 9 by state
and SARA management category. As illustrated in Table 10, the states currently are
reviewing permits for facilities that could provide additional capacity for management if this
capacity is indeed needed.17
F. Summary and Conclusion
The amount of waste generated by states in EPA regions 8 and 9 varies greatly among
states. California is the major generator, accounting for 73 percent of overall generation.
The second major generator, Utah, accounts for 19 percent The six smallest generators,
Nevada, Hawaii, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota, combined, are
responsible for slightly over two percent of overall generation.
California had the highest amount of management capacity followed by Utah, Colorado,
Nevada, and Arizona. These states accounted for 99.5 percent of overall capacity.
California was the major exporter of hazardous waste, exporting 88,478 tons of waste, or
10 percent of its waste stream. The state senr^T percent of its waste to other in-region
states and 6 percent of its waste out-of-regioH. South Dakota, which has no management
capacity, exported the largest percentage of its waste stream (100 percent) for management.
Utah was the major importer of hazardous waste, receiving 46,261 tons from states within
the region and 24317 tons from states outside of the region. Nevada was also a major
16 See footnote 13.
17
Region 8 and 9 states are not making a to permit any specific individual farftfrfrij Final
permit decisions must continue to be made in ffccordance with each state's legislative process.
-------
DISCUSSION OF DATA
importer, receiving most of its imports. 47_3in ~ . -
the region. ^ 7,33010115 out °f»total of 49,917 tons, from within
The region as a whole exported 80,000 tons of wast* •
exporter of 46,489 tons, or 3.8 percent of its waste sfr^m IrnAported 33'5n' making it a net
from and imports to the region by SARA manao^«. comparison between exports
As noted abSve, the region had^paSv J8 presented in Cha«12-
percent of its waste stream) in 1987. Oerall R7 ?*r exc®Pl 56,379 tons of waste (4.6
region 8 or 9 state was managed in'that state and^^Jl Wafe generated 111 311 EpA
region was managed in the region. percent of waste generated in the
-------
APPENDIX A - Definitions18
SARA Wast? Types
Waste Type 1:
Waste Type 2:
Waste Type 3:
Waste Type 4:
Waste Type 5:
Waste Type 6:
Waste Type 7:
Waste Type 8:
Waste Type 9:
Contaminated sand, soil, and clay (not to include spent filter media)
- waste that is primarily soil contaminated with hazardous waste.
Halogenated solvents - any liquid waste (a liquid contains less than 5
percent suspended solids) that contains an organic constituent listed
in the F001-F005 definitions, with greater than 90 percent organic
content and with greater than .1 percent halogen content (halogen
content refers to organic halogen content as opposed to inorganic
halogen salts such as sodium chloride). Solvents whose halogen content
has not been determined are also included in this category.
Nonhalogenated solvents - any liquid waste that contains an organic
constituent listed in the F001-F005 definitions, with greater than 90
percent organic content and with less than .1 percent halogen content.
Halogenated organic liquids - any liquid waste that does not contain
a constituent listed in the F001-F005 definition, with greater than 90
percent organic content and with less than .1 percent halogen content.
Nonhalogenated organic liquids - any liquid waste that does not contain
a constituent listed in the F001-F005 definitions, with greater than 90
percent organic content and with less than .1 percent halogen content..
Organic liquids, Not Elsewhere Classified - any liquid waste for which
nothing is known except that its organic content is thought to be
greater than 90 percent.
Mixed organic/inorganic liquids - any liquid waste with organic content
between 1 and 90 percent (regardless of halogen or solvent
concentration).
Inorganic liquids with organics - any liquids waste with an organic
content less than 1 percent, but no metals exceeding 1 ppm.
Inorganic liquids with metals - any inorganic liquid waste that contains
RCRA-regulated metals in excess of 1 ppm, and not thought to contain
organics beyond trace amounts (less than 1 ppm organic content).
^ The definitions of SARA waste types and management categories in this appendix are taken directly
from EPA's Technical Reference Manual for Reporting the Current Status of Generation and Management
-------
Waste Type 10:
Inorganic liquids, Not Elsewhere Gassified - any inorganic liquid with
either unknown constituents, reactive constituents such as cyanide or
sulfide, or both metals in excess of 1 ppm and organics up to 1 percent.
Waste Type 11:
Waste Type 12:
Waste Type 13:
Waste Type 14:
Waste Type 15:
Waste Type 16:
Waste Type 17:
Halogenated organic sludges/solids - any waste that has greater than
5 percent suspended solids, with greater than 90 percent organic
content and with greater than .1 percent halogen content.
Nonhalogenated organic sludges/solids - any waste that has greater
than 5 percent suspended solids, with greater than 90 percent organic
content and with less than .1 percent halogen content.
Organic sludges/solids, Not Elsewhere Classified - any waste for which
nothing is known except that it is believed to have greater than 5
percent suspended solids and 90 percent or greater organic content.
Mixed organic/inorganic sludges/solids - any waste with at least 5
percent suspended solids and with an organic content of between 1
and 90 percent.
Inorganic sludges/solids with metals - any waste with at least 5 percent
suspended solids, with at least 10 ppm of RCRA-regulated metals, and
not though to contain organics above trace amounts (less than 1 ppm
organic content).
Inorganic sludges/solids, Not Elsewhere Classified - any waste with
suspended solids 5 percent or greater, and either unknown constituents,
reactive constituents such as cyanide or sulfide, or both metals in excess
of 10 ppm and organics up to 1 percent.
Other Wastes - any waste that is explosive or highly reactive, waste
contaminated with dionns, RCRA waste mixed with PCBs or
radioactive waste, lab packs, or containerized gases. Also, any waste
where not enough characteristics are known to place it in any of the
-------
SARA Management Categories
Management
Category 1: Metals Recovery - any system used to recover metals from a hazardous waste
stream for reuse. Systems found under this category include: secondary
smelting, retorting, electrolytic metals recovery, solvent extraction, ion
exchange, reverse osmosis, acid leaching, and other metals recoveiy.
Management
Category 2: Solvents Recoveiy - any system used to recover solvents from a hazardous
waste stream for reuse. Systems found under this category include:
fractionation/distillation, thin film evaporation, solvent extraction, phase
separation, and other solvent recovery.
Management
Category 3: Other Recovery - any system used to reclaim constituents from a waste stream
for reuse that does not fall under the above-mentioned categories. This is the
catchall recovery category. Systems found under this category include:
nonsolvent organics recovery and acid regeneration.
Management
Category 4: Incineration (liquids) - any system used to destroy liquid hazardous waste
streams by combustion. Systems found under this categoiy include: liquid
injection incinerators, rotary kilns with liquid injection, two-stage incinerators,
fixed hearth incinerators, multiple hearth incinerators, fluidized bed
incinerators, pyrolytic destructors, and other liquids incineration.
Management
Category 5: Incineration (sludges/solids) - any system used to destroy sludges and/or
solid hazardous wastes by combustion. Systems found under this category
include: rotary kilns, two-stage incinerators, fixed hearth incinerators, multiple
hearth incinerators, fluidized bed incinerators, infrared incinerators, pyrolytic
destructors, and other sludges/solids incineration.
Management
Category 6: Energy Recovery - any system that burns hazardous waste for its fuel value.
Note that this categoiy does not distinguish between liquids and sludges/sol-
ids, as does incineration. Capacity to burn liquids dominates this category at
the national level because sludges/solids are not often burned for energy
recovery. Systems found under this categoiy include: cement, aggregate, and
asphalt kilns, blast furnaces, coke ovens, sulfur recoveiy furnaces, smelting
furnaces, other industrial furnaces, industrial broilers, and other reuse-as-fuel
units.
Management . , ^
Category 7: Aqueous Inorganic Treatment - any system used to remove or destroy
-------
this category does not include neutralization (ph control). Neutralization is
categorized under "other treatment" to prevent such a large capacity from
dominating the capacity of other systems such as chemical precipitation.
Systems found under this category include: chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation, cyanide oxidation, general oxidation, ion exchange, reverse
osmosis, and other aqueous inorganic treatment.
Management
Category 8: Aqueous Organic Treatment - any system used to remove or destroy organic
constituents from an aqueous waste stream. Systems found under this
category include: biological treatment, carbon adsorption, air stripping, steam
stripping, wet air oxidation, and other aqueous organic treatment.
Management
Category 9: Other Treatment - any system used to treat hazardous waste streams that
does not fall under categories 1 through 8, 10, or 11. This is the catchall
treatment category. Note that when "other treatment" processes (with the
exception of neutralization) are part of a hazardous treatment system of
more than one process, they do not fall under this category. Such other
treatment capacity is included in the treatment system capacity reported
under categories 1 through 8, 10 or 11. Neutralization capacity is expected
to dominate this category. Neutralization capacity is considered treatment
for other than the sake of pH adjustment as a pretreatment step. Systems
composed of only other treatment processes are included in this category.
Systems found under this category include: neutralization, settling/clarifica-
tion, equalization, denitrification, and gas incineration.
Management
Category 10: Sludge Treatment - any system other than stabilization used to treat hazardous
waste sludges. Note that when sludge treatment processes are part of a
hazardous wastewater treatment system, they do not fall under this category.
Such sludge treatment capacity is included in the aqueous treatment system
capacity reported under categories 7 and 8. Only systems that treat sludges
generated from nonhazardous waste treatment and "stand-alone" processes are
included in this category. Systems found under this category include: sludge
dewatering, addition of excess lime or caustic to increase alkalinity, and
absorption/adsorption to render nonliquid.
Management
Category 11: Stabilization - any system that chemically or physically reduces the mobility
of hazardous constituents into a solid mass with low permeability that resists
leaching. This does not include addition of absorbants to render a waste
stream nonliquid of lime/caustic addition to increase alkalinity (refer to
Category 10). Systems found under this category include: cement-based
stabilization, pozzolanic-based stabilization, asphaltic stabilization, thermo-
-------
Management
Category 12: Land treatment - also called land application or land farming. This
management practice is considered to be land disposal under the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
Management
Category 13: Landfill - also includes surface impoundments to be closed as landfills (i.e.,
disposal impoundments). Such practices are considered to be land disposal
under HSWA.
Management
Category 14: Deepwell Injection - also called underground injection. This management
practice is considered to be land disposal under HSWA.
Management
Category IS: Other Disposal - Used as a catchall category for disposal operations such as
-------
APPENDIX B»Charts
Generation of RCRA Hazardous Waste in EPA Regions 8 and 9 in 1987 by
State
Generation of RCRA Hazardous Waste in EPA Regions 8 and 9 in 1987 by
SARA Waste Type
Non-Recurrent RCRA Waste Generation in 1987 in EPA Region 8 and 9
States (Except California) by State
Demand for Hazardous Waste Management of Recurrent and Non-Recurrent
Wastes in 1987 in California by SARA Waste Type
Hazardous Waste Management Capacity in EPA Regions 8 and 9 in 1987
by State
Captive, Commercial, and On-Site Hazardous Waste Management Capacity
in EPA Regions 8 and 9 by SARA Management Category
Demand for Hazardous Waste Management in EPA Regions 8 and 9 by
State
Demand for Captive, Commercial, and On-Site Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment in EPA Regions 8 and 9 by SARA Management Category
Exports of RCRA Hazardous Waste to In-Region and Out-of-Region States
from EPA Region 8 and 9 States in 1987 by Exporting State
Imports of RCRA Hazardous Waste From In-Region and Out-of-Region
States by EPA Region 8 and 9 states in 1987 by Importing State
EPA Region 8 and 9 States as Net Exporters/Importers in 1987
Exports and Imports of RCRA Hazardous Waste to and from EPA Regions
-------
Chart 1: Generation of RCRA Hazardous Waste in EPA Regions 8 and 9 In 1987by State
"S
I
CO
"O
I-
S
o
900
800 -
700 -
600 -
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
O
tZL
i— r
AZ
CA
CO
Waste Generated in 1987
By State
T
Hl
T
MT
—I—
NV
P"
I
I '
NO
-1—
SD
r
UT
WY
Region 8 and 9 States
-------
Chart 2: Generation of RCRA Hazardous Waste in EPA Regions ^ and 9 in 1987by SARA Waste Type
280
Waste Generated in 19S7
By SARA Waste Type
260 -
240
220 -
200 -
180
160
140 -
120 -
100 -
80 -
60
40 -
20 -
O
-T-
4
T- Ti
%
|
&
I
p7:
p7"
ryi P77)
I
i
FT
1
7"
7 8 9 10
SARA Waste Types
1 1
12 13
14
15 16
1 7
-------
Chart 3: Non-Recurrent RCRA Waste Generation in 1987in EPA Region 8 and 9 States (Except California) by State
S
o "g
4) a
ft
in
c
.o
9
Generation of Non—Recurrent Waste
by State
8 H
7
6 -
5 -
4- -
3 -
2 -
1 -
O
1
AZ
CO
~T~
Hl
r
MT
—I—
NV
f
N D
§
l T l
SD
i r
UT
Region 8 4c 9 States (except California)
Note: A breakout between recurrent and non-recurrent RCRA hazardous waste managed In California Is depicted on Chart 4.
WY
-------
Chart 4: Demand for Hazardous Waste Management of Recurrent and Non-Recurrent Waste in 1987 In California by SARA Waste Type
"S
E
"g i
s
.0
260
240 -
220 -
200 ~
180 -
160 ~
140 -
120 -
100 -
so -
60 -
AO -
20 -
O
Recurrent vs. Non —Recurrent Waste
Managed in California
7
~1
/
/
[S
X
x
X
rs
X
x
X
x
X
X
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
r—*
X
X
1 1 1 1
1 T
2
3
4 5 6 7
8 9
10
pi pi FJv
S
\
s
N
N
X
X
\
x
X
X
x
X
X
x
£
11
1 2
1 3
1 4-
1 5
1 6
1 7
\S /1 Non —Recurrent
SARA Waste Types
IX XI Recurrent
-------
Charts: Hazardous Waste Management Capacity In EPA Regions 8 and 9 in 1987by State
Management Capacity in 1987
By State
Region 8 and 9 states
Note: Montana had26,504 tons of management capacity. Wyoming had 1,600tons of management capacity, and North Dakota had 12,380 tons
of management capacity:
-------
Chart 6: Captive. Commercial, and On-Site Hazardous Waste Management Capacity in EPA Regions 8 and 9 by SARA
Management Category
Management Capacity in 1987
By SARA Management Category
5 -
2 -
I
1
1
I
T—T
\y y I Commercial
SARA Mpngg«m«nt Categories
I \ XI Captive
i V
1 o
JSL
x
/
11
1 2
1 3
1 4
rX/s
-------
Chart 7: Demand for Hazardous Waste Management in EPA Regions 8 and 9 by State
Waste Requiring Management in 1987
By State
Region 8 and 9 States
-------
Chart 8: Demand for Captive. Commercial, and On-Site Hazardous Waste Management in EPA Regions 8 and 9
by SARA Management Category
Management Demand in 1987
By SARA Management Category
_ SARA Management Categories
\S Commercial IN XI Coptive XXSXA On—Site
-------
Chart 9: Exports of RCRA Hazardous Waste to In-Region am1Out-of-Region States from EPA Region 8 and 9 States in 1987^
by Exporting State
"8
h
il
s
.0
90
Exports from Region 8 and 9 States
By Exporting State
In — Reqion
Exporting State
I\ \l Out-ofr-Reqion
-------
Chart 10: Imports of RCRA Hazardous Waste to EPA Region 8 and 9 States by Importing State
BO
Imports to Region 8 and 9 States
by Importing State
\S S\ From In—Reqion
Importing Sta
fcs
Out—of—Reqion
-------
Chart 11: EPA Reg/on 8 and 9 States as Net Exporters/Importers hi 1987(Imports-Exports) by State
States as Net Exporters/Importers
by State
Region 8 and 9 States
-------
Chart 12: Exports and Imports of RCRA Hazardous Waste to and from EPA Regions 8 and 9
Exports from/Imports to Regions 8 and 9
by SARA Management Category
Sara Management Categories
IXXI Exported Waste IXN1 Imported Waste
-------
APPENDIX C-Tables
Table 1 Generation of Recurrent and Non-Recunent RCRA Hazardous Waste
(tons/year) by State and SARA Waste Type (1987)
Table 2(a) Total Captive, Commercial, and On-Site Hazardous Waste Management
Capacity (tons/year) by State and SARA Management Categoiy (1987)
Table 2(b) Captive Hazardous Waste Management Capacity (tons/year) by State and
SAJIA Management Categoiy (1987)
Table 2(c) Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Capacity (tons/year) by State
and SARA Management Category (1987)
Table 2(d) On-Site Hazardous Waste Management Capacity (tons/year) by State and
SARA Management Categoiy (1987)
Table 3(a) Total Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Waste (tons/year) Requiring Manage-
ment by State and SARA Management Category (1987)
Table 3(b) Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Waste (tons/year) Requiring Management by
State and SARA Management Category for Captive Facilities (1987)
Table 3(c) Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Waste (tons/year) Requiring Management by
State and SARA Management Categoiy for Commercial Facilities (1987)
Table 3(d) Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Waste (tons/year) Requiring Management by
State and SARA Management Category for On-Site Facilities (1987)
Table 4 In-Region Supply and Demand for Hazardous Waste Management Capacity
(1987)
Table 5 Total Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Waste Exported (Tons/Year) from Each
EPA Region 8 or 9 State to Each EPA Region 8 or 9 State (1987)
Table 6 Total Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Waste Imported (Tons/Year) from
Each EPA Region 8 or 9 State to Each EPA Region 8 or 9 State (1987)
Table 7 Out-of-Region Hazardous Waste Management Capacity Demand (tons/year)
by In-Region State and SARA Management Category (1987)
Table 8 Total Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Waste (tons/year) Imported into EPA
-------
Table 9 Enumeration of Existing TSDs in EPA Regions 8 and 9 by State and SARA
Management Category
Table 10 Enumeration of On-Going and Future (Announced) Regional Permit
-------
Table I: Generation of Recurrent and Non-Recurrent RCRA Hazardous Waste (tons/year) by State and SARA Waste Type (1987)
SARA WASTE TYPES
- -
"•"VMM
2
Hilnmlil
5
Qui III
NBC*
6
MM
r
7
im
8
wm
9
nE?
NBC*
10
llllUll III
¦M
11
llAfcr if
12
Oifir
¦Ml
NBC"
13
UinJ
wpaie/
iMcaafc
*i%r>r
mMi
14
hMgHK
¦Mail
is
***
•Ok*,
NBC*
16
Otnnta,
NBC*
17
TOTAL
StMtCS
Ml
1
3
«*¦*
4
AZ
898
1.627
1,775
52
1,982
37
1,078
1,804
6,472
2,680
217
546
23
289
9,580
109
107
29,276
CA
236,900
68.800
48,700
100
2,000
5,700
38,400
4,100
67,500
88,300
7,600
6,300
86,200
49,200
33,000
109,600
17,700
890,100
CO
298
3,245
1,849
8
109
453
294
372
7,704
16,513
464
3,561
849
150
2,629
2,257
4,660
45.415
HI
60
25
530
10
0
124
69
3
84
88
6
0
31
18
387
6
15
1,456
MT
112
7
42
0
0
2
0
421
0
5
0
0
1,167
20
3,280
112
290
5,458
NV
10
38
45
4
75
0
60
5t
183
199
6
40
0
17
287
,
0
1,016
ND
2,161
272
49
0
0
607
603
29
0
679
0
25
7,511
8
100
42
6
12,092
SD
655
77
1,050
0
0
40
15
0
438
95
0
9
9
12
51
0
9
2,460
IIT
60
1,095
799
3
1
358
392
137,809
48,117
6,755
115
162
1,802
1,788
6,885
168
21,467
227,776
WY
0
0
53
0
0
12
8
5
1
5
215
0
1,121
133
14
967
208
2,742
TOTAL
261.154
75,186
54,892
177
4,167
7,333
40,919
144,594
130,499
115,319
8,623
10,643
98,713
51,635
56,213
(13,262
44,462
1,217,791
*
21.4%
6.2*
4.5*
0.0*
0.3*
0.6*
3.4*
11.9*
10.7*
».5*
0.7*
0.9*
8.1*
4.2*
4.6*
9.3*
3.7*
100.0*
* Not elsewhere classified
-------
Table 2(a): Total Captive, Commercial, and On-Site Hazardous Waste Management Capacity (tons/year) by State
and SARA Management Category (1987)
SARA MANAGEMENT CATBGOJUBS
i
2
0
3
aii ii)
4
jMpOaWI
5
6
7
Orpafa
8
Ofer
9
10
11
Lmd
12
un
13
Daapadi
lljllllllH
14
0*er
W»«-l
15
TOTAL
%
s
T
A
T
E
S
AZ
1.001
2,527
0
0
0
0
616,097
0
311,2M
40,953
0
0
0
0
0
971,156
2.9*
CA
34,037
119312
0
0
0
20,043
I.I5S.017
16,000
69,400
0
1.539,465
252,417
1,539,465
0
19,345,136
24,790,362
73.2*
CO
0
20,009
0
65
623
1,100
960,232
21S.1M
1,731305
1,000
595
0
0
0
0
2,930,113
(.7*
HI
«
2,707
0
0
0
0
141,300
0
2
0
0
1,750
0
0
0
145,759
0.4*
MT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,006
930
0
23,56*
0
0
0
26,504
0.1*
NV
>4,000
22
0
3,000
34,000
0
24,000
<33
433
12,000
1,275
0
1,690,722
0
0
1,152,2(5
5.5*
ND
0
0
0
3,240
f
•60
0
0
0
1,210
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,3(0
0.0*
SD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0*
UT
311
1,494
0
3,964
4,996
20,111
1,429,794
(76,000
105,613
0
52,105
3,M7
610,139
0
0
3,109.1(4
9.2*
WY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,500
0
0
1,500
0
0
0
16,000
0.0*
TOTAL
119,349
146,141
0
12,269
40,479
41,324
5,029,430
1,10S,017
2,241,927
S4.M3
1,593,140
2*3,122
3,139,326
0
19,345,136
33,(54,443
100.0*
%
0.4*
0.4 *
0.0*
0.0*
0.1*
0.1*
14.9*
3.3*
6.6*
0.2*
4.7*
0.1*
11.3*
0.0*
57.1*
100.0*
-------
Table 2(b): Captive Hazardous Waste Management Capacity (tons/year) by State and SARA Management Category (1987)
SARA MANAGEMEN1
^categories r
iMsvaay
i
IJII
luanqr
2
Okr
lamv
3
5
¦ill 1IIJ
6
TrnZm
7
JoqUT
8
9
10
11
Imt
12
13
14
15
TOTAL
%
(¦ i|iiiii>
4
s
T
A
T
E
S
AZ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49.C71
0
0
0
0
0
0
43.C71
5.1*
CA
0
0
0
0
0
0
301.232
0
0
0
0
232,417
0
0
0
733,649
VMS
CO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
AOS
HI
0
0
0
0
0
0
6S.1SI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•3.15a
MT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OSS
NV
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
«M
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
OAS
SD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OAS
UT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OAS
WY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0S
TOTAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
366.390
0
43,671
0
0
212,417
0
0
0
•62,47s
100J) s
%
0.0S
O.OS
O.OS
0.0*
0.0*
0.0*
65.7*
0.0*
S.IS
0.0*
0.0*
29.3*
0.01
0.0*
0.0*
100.0*
-------
Table 2(c): Commercial Hazardous Waste Managemeat Capacity (toos/year) by Stale and SARA Management Category (1997)
SARA]
MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES
Hilili
iMsvay
I III Hll
Oftar
(ll|illi)
' '¦
£
£
ot>
Tmm
La4
. —
5=
i
2
3
' 4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
TOTAL
%
AZ
0
2,527
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.527
0.0S
CA
34.037
.119,3*2
0
0
0
20.043
1,356,715
16,000
61.400
0
1,531,465
0
1,53*.463
19.345,136
M.036.713
90.9*
s
CO
0
19,600
0
65
65
0
0
0
0
1,000
0
0
0
0
0
20,730
0.1 %
T
HI
0
2,624
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,624
0.0%
A
MT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
T
NV
•4,000
0
0
0
0
0
24,000
0
20*
12,000
1,275
0
1,610.722
0
0
1.(12.205
i.9%
E
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
S
SD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
UT
0
1,334
0
0
0
0
21,no
0
29,730
0
52,105
3,N7
436,500
0
0
573,056
2.2%
WY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
TOTAL
111,037
143,467
0
65
65
20,043
1,409,5*5
16,000
9M3S
13,000
1,592^45
3.H7
3,6*5,6*7
0
19,343,1)6
26,447,*S5
100.0S
%
0.4*
0.6*
0.0*
0.0%
0.0*
0.1*
5.3*
0.1S
0.4*
0.0X
6.0*
0.0*
13.9X
0.0*
73.1*
100.01
-------
Table 2(d): Op-Site Hazardous Waste Management Capacity (teas/year) by State and SARA Management Category (1987)
<
* Vs **.
A..'
SARA MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES
x-; ::
*!X
*—;
-0—
II
£
o*>
TmUmmh
•mMM.
W
Tim
.
Sa
Okt
UfMi
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
TOTAL
%
AZ
1,001
0
0
0
0
<16,0*7
0
267,617
40,953
0
0
0
0
0
925,65*
14.1*
CA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0*
s
CO
0
409
0
55*
1.100
960,232
215,114
1.731,305
0
595
0
0
0
0
2,909,3*3
44.5*
T
HI
0
8
0
0
0
76,142
0
2
0
0
1,750
0
0
0
77,977
1.2*
A
MT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,006
930
0
23.561
0
0
0
26,504
0.4*
t
NV
0
22
3,000
34,000
0
0
03
225
0
0
0
0
0
0
40.0*0
0.6*
E
ND
0
•
3,240
MO
0
0
0
1,2*0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,3*0
0.2*
S
SD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0*
:;§
v;?
UT
Ml
MO
0
3,964
4,996
20,111
1,400,994
*76,000
75.N3
0
0
0
153,639
0
0
2,536,12*
3*.**
%
WY
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,500
0
0
1,500
0
0
0
16,000
0.2*
TOTAL
1312
CM
0
12.204
40,414
21.2*1
3,053,455
1,092/117
2,099,111
4i,m
595
26.111
153,639
0
0
6,544,110
100.0*
%
0J0*
0.0*
AM
0.2*
0l6*
0.9*
46.7%
16.7*
32.1*
0.6*
0.0*
0.4*
23*
0.0*
0.0*
100.0*
-------
Table 3(a): Total Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Waste (tons/year) Requiring Management by State ancf SARA Management Category (1987)
SAltA MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES
Mm*
o*.
,-
0*>r
Ltmi
DmpmI
CNhor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
TOTAL
%
AZ
357
2,535
3
824
410
2,273
6,271
2,456
2,876
4,823
680
134
3,925
322
1
27,890
2.3*
CA
27,000
79,400
7,200
11,200
2,000
21,800
52,100
25,300
8,600
0
19,600
13,300
493,100
0
129,500
890,100
73.0*
s
CO
2,107
1,973
1,872
2,072
1,412
4,456
222
14,633
4,118
8
1,713
502
10,668
950
41
46,747
3.8*
T
HI
0
409
0
102
31
263
190
0
115
230
0
11
498
82
0
1,931
0.2*
A
MT
0
6
40
0
0
1
0
405
3
2
16
4,383
602
0
0
5,458
0.4*
T
NV
1
53
0
41
9
286
109
87
18
17
5
311
0
0
1,017
0.1*
E
ND
0
27
657
429
884
89
0
0
0
0
106
27
9,214
684
0
12,117
1.0*
S
SD
0
334
115
701
12
43
0
0
3
0
31
0
1,176
0
0
2,415
0.2*
UT
3,869
814
120
529
20,551
2,395
31
182,817
6,287
500
493
461
8,964
16
3
227,850
18.7*
WY
0
33
11
50
2
0
4
0
168
0
1,498
818
1,854
0
0
4,438
0.4*
TOTAL
33,334
85,584
10,018
15,948
25,311
31,400
59,104
225,720
22,257
5,581
24,154
19,641
530,312
2,054
129,545
1,219,963
100.0*
%
2.7*
7.0*
0.8*
1.3*
2.1*
2.6*
4.8*
18.5*
1.8*
0.5*
2.0*
1.6*
43.5*
0.2*
10.6*
100.0*
-------
Table 3(b): Quantity ofRCRA Hazardous Waste (tons/year) Requiring Management by State and SARA Management Category
for Captive Facilities (1987)
SARA MANAGEMENT
CAtBOORlES
Mm
Oft.
• • -
¦ • -
is
Oft.
Lai
DhpmI
Ote
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
TOTAL
%
AZ
0
4
0
4
3
7
9
12
1,214
6
1
3
30
1
1
1,295
8.5*
CA
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,300
0
0
0
0
9,400
0
0
0
13,700
90.4*
s
CO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0*
f
HI
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
0.5*
A
MT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0*
t
NV
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0*
B
ND
0
©
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0*
3
SD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0*
UT
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
73
0
0
0
0
0
94
0.6*
WY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0*
TOTAL
0
4
0
4
24
7
4,379
12
1,214
79
1
9,403
30
1
1
15,159
100.0*
%
0.0*
0.0*
0.0*
0.0*
0.2*
0.0*
28.9*
0.1*
8.0*
0.5*
0.0*
62.0*
0.2*
0.0*
0.0*
100.0*
-------
Table 3(c): Quantity ofRCRA Hazardous Waste (tons/year) Requiring Management by State and SARA Management Category
for CommetdaJ Facihucs (1987)
SARA MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES
IU,
o»-
¦ • -
ot*
Lmt
B-P-
Ota
1
2
3
4
5
«
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
TOTAL
%
AZ
344
2,491
3
803
392
2,220
5,248
2,292
1,551
3,528
655
124
3,722
294
0
23,667
2.5%
CA
27.000
79,400
7,200
11,200
2,000
21,800
47,800
25,300
8,600
0
19,600
3,900
493,100
0
129,500
876,400
90.9%
s
CO
1,140
1,905
910
2,072
1,400
3,803
208
43
3,025
8
742
502
9,706
950
41
26,455
2.7%
T
HI
0
409
0
102
31
263
0
0
115
230
0
0
498
82
0
1,730
0.2%
A
MT
0
6
40
0
0
1
0
405
0
0
16
0
490
0
0
958
0.1%
¥
NV
1
S3
0
41
9
80
286
109
87
18
17
5
311
0
0
1,017
0.1%
B
ND
0
14
657
28
4
89
0
0
0
0
106
27
9,214
684
0
10,823
1.1%
8
SD
0
334
IIS
701
12
43
0
0
3
0
31
0
1,176
0
0
2,415
0.3%
UT
3,MS
7S7
118
523
170
2,136
31
0
896
0
480
461
8,561
16
3
17,990
1.9%
WY
0
24
11
50
2
0
4
0
2
0
850
0
1,848
0
0
2,791
0.3%
TOTAL
32,293
85,423
9,054
15,520
4,020
30,435
53,577
28,149
14,279
3,784
22,497
5,019
528,626
2,026
129,544
964,246
100.0%
%
3.3*
8.9%
0.9%
1.6%
0.4*
3.2%
5.6%
2.9%
1.5%
0.4%
2.3%
0.5%
54.8%
0.2%
13.4%
100.0%
-------
Tabic 3(d): Quantities ofRCRA Hazardous Waste (tons/year) Requiring Management by State and SARA Management Category
for Oo-Site Facilities (1987)
SARA
MANAGEMEN1
'CATEGORIES
l
2
ii
3
(III Hi)
4
5
6
7
§
o*>
9
10
11
Ual
12
UM
13
14
Oto
15
TOTAL
%
9
T
A
T
E
$
AZ
13
40
0
17
15
46
1,014
152
111
1,289
24
7
173
27
0
2,928
1.2%
CA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
CO
967
68
962
0
12
653
14
14,590
1,093
0
971
0
962
0
0
20,292
8.4%
HI
0
0
0
0
0
0
120
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
131
0.1%
MT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
4,383
112
0
0
4,500
1.9%
NV
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
ND
0
13
0
401
880
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,294
0.5%
SD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
UT
61
26
2
6
20.360
259
0
182,817
5,391
427
13
0
403
0
0
209,765
87.2%
WY
0
t
0
0
0
0
0
0
166
0
649
818
6
0
0
1,647
0.7%
TOTAL
1,041
155
964
424
21,267
958
1,148
197,559
6,764
1,718
1,657
5,219
1,656
. 27
0
240,557
100.0%
%
0.4%
0.1%
0.4 X
0.2%
8.8%
0.4%
0.5%
82.1%
2.8%
0.7%
0.7%
2.2%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
-------
Table 4: In-Regioa Supply and Demand (tons/year) for Hazardous Waste Management Capacity (1987)
CAPACITY SUPPLY
CAPACITY DEMA1S
SURPLUS/DEFICIT
Commercial
Captive
Oa-Site
Total
Commercial
Captive
Oa-SRe
Total
Commercial
Captive
On-Site
Total
1
118,037
0
1,312
119,349
32,293
0
1,041
33,334
85,744
0
271
86,015
s
A
Satveuta
Recovery 2
145,467
0
674
146,141
85,423
4
155
85,582
60,044
(4)
519
60,559
R
A
Other
RtnAfwty 3
0
0
0
0
9,054
0
964
10,018
(9,054)
0
(964)
(10,018)
M
(Lkfrnda) 4
65
0
12,204
12,269
15,520
4
424
15,948
(15,455)
(4)
11,780
(3,679)
A
N
ImctoeraUcm
(Shtdgo/Sotid) 5
65
0
40,414
40,479
4,020
24
21,267
25,311
(3,955)
(24)
19,147
15,168
A
O
Eaergy
Recovery 6
20,043
0
21,281
41,324
30,435
7
958
31,400
(10,392)
(7)
20,323
9,924
b
M
Trmtmmt 7
1,409,585
566,390
3,053,455
5,02^430*
53,577
4,379
1,148
59,104
1,356,008
562,011
3,052,307
4,970,326
b
N
Aqweo*$ tJfgtiUC
16,000
0
1,092,017
1,108,017
28,149
12
197,559
225,720
(12,149)
(12)
894,458
882,297
l"
Other
Tremtmemt 9
98,338
43,671
2,099,818
2,241,827
14,279
1,214
6,764
22,257
84,059
42,457
2,093,054
2,219,570
C
A
Sludge
Tremtmemt
10
13,000
0
41,883
54,883
3,784
79
1,718
5,581
9,216
(79)
40,165
49,302
'1'
E
StmbOzatiom
11
1,592,545
0
595
1,593,140
22,497
1
1,657
24,155
1,570,048
(•)
(1,062)
1,568,985
G
O
Lmmd
Timtmemt
12
3,887
252,417
26,818
283,122
5,019
9,403
5,219
19,641
(1,132)
243,014
21,599
263,481
R
I
Lrn*m 13
3,685,687
0
153,639
3,839,326
528,626
30
1,656
530,312
3,157,061
(30)
151,983
3,309,014
h
S
lajectkm
14
0
0
0
0
2,026
1
27
2,054
(2,026)
(1)
(27)
(2,054)
Other
Duptmi
IS
19,345,136
0
0
19,345,136
129,544
1
0
129,545
19,215,592
0)
0
19,215,591
TOTAL
26,447,855
862,478
6,544,110
33,854,443
964,246
15,159
240,557
1,219,962
25,483,609
847,319
6,303,553
32,634,481
Note: parentheses denote negative numbers
-------
TMc5: Total Quantity ofRCRA Hazardous Waste Exported (tons/year) from Each EPA Region 8 or 9 State to Each
EPA Region 8 or 9 State (1987)
WASTB
BXmttTS TO
AZ
CA
CO
HI
MT
NV
ND
SD
UT
WY
TOTAL
%
w
AZ
N/A
10,082
21
0
0
1,441
0
0
1,471
0
13,015
17.0*
A
S
CA
8,539
N/A
13
0
0
4,127
0
0
24,042
2
36,723
47.9*
T
B
CO
388
1,334
N/A
0
0
367
0
0
9,262
0
11,351
14.8*
B
HI
0
511
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
511
0.7*
X
P
MT
0
0
44
0
N/A
0
0
0
508
0
552
0.7*
0
R
HV
34
568
0
0
0
N/A
. 0
0
164
0
766
1.0*
T
¦ s
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
0
7,914
0
7,914
10.3*
SD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
1,114
0
1,114
1.5*
X
o
UT
356
817
802
0
0
24
0
0
N/A
0
1,999
2.6*
M
WY
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
2,740
N/A
2,754
3.6*
TOTAL
9,317
13,312
894
0
0
5,959
0
0
47,215
2
76,699
100.0*
%
12.1*
17.4K
1.2*
0.0*
0.0*
7.8*
0.0*
0.0*
61.6*
0.0*
100.0*
-------
Table 6: Total Quantity ofRCRA Hazardous Waste Imported (tons/year) from Each EPA Region 8 or 9 State to Each
EPA Region 8 or 9 State (1987)
WASTE
IMPORTS TO
AZ
CA
CO
HI
MT
NV
ND
SD
UT
WY
TOTAL
%
AZ
N/A
10,057
17
0
0
15,511
0
0
1,093
0
26,678
24.5*
m
CA
90
N/A
26
0
0
28,883
0
0
29,079
0
58,078
53.4*
h T
B
CO
0
1,666
N/A
0
0
1,124
0
0
6,488
0
9,278
8.5*
Wk
HI
0
263
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
263
0.2*
Mi
p
MT
0
0
34
0
N/A
0
0
0
449
0
503
0.5*
o
*
NV
1
971
3
0
0
N/A
0
0
93
0
1,068
1.0*
. T:-
s
ND
0
0
4
0
0
0
N/A
0
7,697
0
7,701
7.1*
SD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
1,112
0
1,112
1.0*
¦ML
6
UT
0
1,377
606
0
0
1,812
0
0
N/A
0
3,795
3.5*
M
WY
0
0
48
0
0
0
0
0
250
N/A
298
0.3*
TOTAL
91
14,334
758
0
0
47,330
0
0
46,261
0
108,774
100.0*
%
0.1*
13.2*|
0.7*
0.0*
0.0*|
43.5 *|
0.0*
0.0*
42.5*
0.0*
100.0*
-------
Table 7: Out-of-Regioa Hazardous Waste Management Capacity Demand (tons/year) by In-Region State and
SARA Management Category (1987)
SARA MANAGEMENT
CATEGORIES
" 1
*~2
3
Ml III!
4
T"
T
7
Taliri
s
Otm
TMM
9
SM§i
10
11
Umt
12
Latm
13
Puu|i iM
14
IS
TOTAL
%
I
N
R
E
0
1
O
N
S
T
A
T
E
5
AZ
104
213
1
112
70
333
995
479
283
2,858
481
15
2,563
57
0
8,564
10.7*
CA
2.060
2,573
7,070
11,243
1,154
2,169
40
270
0
0
15,375
100
2,650
0
7,051
51,755
64.7*
CO
442
414
354
1,110
481
3,097
11
10
48
0
180
371
2,011
950
0
9,479
11.8*
«
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
211
0
0
0
82
0
318
0.4*
MT
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
405
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
406
0.5*
NY
0
23
0
19
1
0
13
3
0
2
0
0
1,229
0
0
1,290
1.6*
ND
0
14
653
11
3
86
0
0
0
0
0
0
231
684
0
1,682
2.1*
SD
0
334
115
701
12
43
0
0
3
0
31
0
107
0
0
1,346
1.7*
UT
3,129
2
0
369
120
1,471
0
0
13
0
0
0
20
0
1
5,125
6.4*
WY
0
10
11
12
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
0.0*
TOTAL
5,735
3,583
8,205
13,577
1,843
7,199
1,059
1,167
372
3,071
16,067
486
8,811
1,773
7,052
80,000
100.0*
%
7.2*
4.5*
10.3*
17.0*
2.3*
9.0*
1.3*
1.5*
0.5*
3.8*
20.1*
0.6*
11.0*
2.2*
8.8*
100.0*
-------
Table 8: Total Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Waste (tons/year) Imported into EPA Rcgjkms 8 and 9 by Imparting State and SARA
Management Category (1987)
SARAMAKAOEMBKrCAtBOORffiS
1
2
at*
3
4
5
6
7
Ml-
9
10
11
Umt
12
1 Mill
13
14
Ota
IS
TOTAL
%
• ;':v^«
AZ
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.0%
CA
672
481
3,148
0
0
2
946
2
0
0
171
43
186
0
213
5,864
17.5%
9.
A
t
¦£
09.
0
294
8
44
9
353
0
0
21
2
0
0
3
0
8
742
2.2%
HI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
MT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
NV
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
692
0
14
0
1,880
0
0
2,587
7.7%
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
SO
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
U
UT
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
87
0
771
2
23.451
0
0
24,317
72.6%
WY
f
(0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
TOTAL
673
777
3,156
44
9
355
9S1
2
800
2
956
45
25,520
0
221
33,511
100.0%
%
2.0*
2.3X
9.4%
0.1%
0.0%
1.1%
2.8%
0.0%
2.4%
0.051
2.99
0.1«
16.lt
o.on
0.71
( 100.0)
NOTEidobt not inchade 1,302 tons of waste imported to Colorado from unidentified states.
-------
Tabic 9: Enumeration of Existing TUs in EPA Regions Sand 9 by State and SARA Management Category
SARA MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES
Mm*
fill —
(Mm
MAMI
S
TWi||
Orgafe
Mw
Hdp
Umi
0*K
. 1 .
2
3
4
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
TOTAL
AZ
1
4
«
6
2
19
CA*
S
II
I*
1
2
7
4
3
3
4
4
2
6t
s
CO
%
t
1
3
1
«
3
9
1
S
2
41
T
HI
*
3
1
1
7
A
MT
2
1
3
6
T
NV
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
II
E
ND
1
1
1
3
E
SD"
0
S
UT
2
3
1
3
3
4
4
17
3
2
1
1
44
Y*
1
1
TOTAL
14
29
TO
7
t
3
27
13
41
•
II
10
»
0
2
300
9 California numbers do not include onito TSDt; actual total is approximately 1,700 permitted TSDs.
** South Dakota has permitted two (Safsty-Kleen and Ellsworth AFB) storage/transfer facilities.
-------
Table 10: Enumeration of On-going and Future (Announced) Regional Permit Activities by State and SARA Management
Category (All TDs)
|
i
I01UES
MM
Ote
¦ - -
a—
CZ2
M.
Ota*
OtK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
TOTAL
AZ
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
s
CA
0
1
0
3
3
2
1
1
5
0
0
0
3
0
0
19
8
CO*
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
4
T
HI
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
A
MT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
NV*
0
0
0
1
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
e
ND
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S
SD
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
«
1
UT
0
0
0
4
«
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
II
WY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
j
0
|
TOTAL
0
1
0
10
II
3
2
1
•
1
2
0
6
0
0
43
* Colorado and Nevada currently are in the process of permitting mixed radioactive/hazardous waste management facilities (die
facility for Colorado is a Department of Energy facility). These facilities are not included in the tables.
------- |