Hazardous waste generation hard to quantify

A COMPUTERIZED DEGREE OF HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR EVALUATION OF WASTES: AN INNOVATIVE AID TO MANAGEMENT OF RESIDUALS

Solid waste management is now acknowledged as one of the major environmental issues of our times. It remains a challenge for developed countries and is an exponentially growing problem for developing countries. The last four decades are marked by several incidents highlighting problems with solid and hazardous waste management across the world. 1. Trans-boundary shipments of hazardous and solid waste have received world-wide attention and media headlines. Infamous examples include Khian Sea which started its journey from Philadelphia in 1986 and Mobro which started its journey from New York in 1987; two US barges or ships with cargoes of municipal solid waste that went from one country to another looking for a port to dump their wastes. The Mobro went all the way to Belize and brought its cargo back to Brooklyn, New York for incineration and landfilling. Many speculate that Khian Sea dumped its cargo somewhere in the Indian Ocean in 1988. 2. Most recently, a fire started on 27 January 2016 in India’s oldest and largest open dumping site, Deonar in Mumbai, and was visible in satellite images (shown in Fig. 1.1). It continued for several days leading to complaints of air pollution and closure of schools for 2 days. The massive fire was attributed to the buildup of methane gas in the open dump where the waste had reached heights of more than 30 m. Fires in this dumping site have been recurrent making living conditions in the surrounding areas extremely difficult. 3. Many sources have identified poor solid waste management as one of the major contributing factors to the spread of plague in Surat, India in 1994. Incidents like these led to promulgation of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules in India in 2000. 4. Several industrial sites all around the world remain unusable or a toxic nuisance for their neighbours due to improper handling and management of hazardous wastes on-site. One of the earliest and most cited examples in the USA includes Love Canal, Niagara Falls, New York, where toxic waste was dumped through the 1920s and got national attention only in 1976–1978. The Superfund program (under the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA for ensuring proper disposal of solid and hazardous waste) was initiated in 1980 in the USA and was the government’s response for remediating and rehabilitating such contaminated industrial sites.

J.A. Parnell, SPE, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., and C.J. Herlugson, SPE, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. Abstract Oil and gas companies are subject to comprehensive federal, state and local laws that are increasingly restrictive and provide for an array of potential environmental liability. Many media-specific laws also provide regulatory agencies with broad discretion as to how regulations are interpreted and enforced. A company can successfully manage environmental liability and reduce costs by developing a long-term strategy that focuses on minimizing risk, managing transaction costs, and increasing credibility. Introduction Exploration and production companies are subject to pervasive federal, state and local laws that are becoming increasingly restrictive. Media specific laws such as the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) govern every aspect of oil and gas operations and provide for an array of potential liability. Title 40 of the United States Code (USC) contains more than 12,000 pages of environmental regulations. These laws not only provide expansive coverage, but also provide federal and state regulatory agencies with broad discretion as to how regulations are interpreted and enforced. Environmental laws provide the enforcing agency with discretion to pursue a violation through voluntary compliance, administrative enforcement, civil judicial enforcement or criminal judicial enforcement. Figure 1 illustrates the interactions between corporate strategy and external drivers. Managing environmental liability and costs within this complex framework is the primary component of the environmental strategy developed by BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. (BPXA) Environmental and Regulatory Affairs Department. This strategy can serve as a model for other exploration and production (E&P) companies as they strive to address increasingly important health, safety and environmental (HSE) issues. BPXA's environmental management strategy was developed after a year-long, in-depth examination of business processes and expenditures. The strategy incorporates five main initiatives;pathway reduction,education and outreach,public performance reporting,legislative/regulatory development, andnew technology. Managing environmental liability is critical to the overall financial health of an E&P corporation because companies are judged by their HSE performance. Incidents such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the Brent Spar show that high profile cases, properly framed and easily explained by third parties or the media, can ignite widespread public interest and dramatically impact a company's reputation. There is tremendous competition for investment dollars in today's global E&P industry and corporations must work to gain every advantage. Managing environmental costs and liabilities can provide a corporation with an edge for the future. Corporate HSE Policy. The first element of a strategy to manage environmental costs and liabilities is the establishment of a corporate HSE policy, such as that of the BP Group: "BP's Commitment to HSE Performance: Everybody who works for BP, anywhere, is responsible for getting HSE right. Good HSE performance is critical to the success of our business. Our goals are simply stated - no accidents, no harm to people, and no damage to the environment. We will continue to drive down the environmental and health impact of our operations by reducing waste, emissions and discharges, and using energy efficiently. We produce quality products that can be used safely by our customers. Wherever we have control or influence we will:–consult, listen and respond openly to our customers, neighbours, and public interest groups–work with others - our partners, suppliers, competitors and regulators - to raise the standards of our industry - openly report our performance, good and bad–recognise those who contribute to improved HSE performance Our business plans include measurable HSE targets. We are all committed to meeting them." P. 79

RETURN TO ISSUEPREVNewsNEXTMunicipal Waste Bill Limits Trash Imports from Other StatesDAVID HANSONCite this: Chem. Eng. News 1992, 70, 31, 22Publication Date (Print):August 3, 1992Publication History Published online10 November 2010Published inissue 3 August 1992https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cen-v070n031.p022https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-v070n031.p022newsACS PublicationsCopyright © 1992 American Chemical SocietyArticle Views7Altmetric-Citations-LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICSArticle Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Share Add toView InAdd Full Text with ReferenceAdd Description ExportRISCitationCitation and abstractCitation and referencesMore Options Share onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InRedditEmail Other access options SUBJECTS:Wastes Get e-Alerts

For many decades, waste management strategies have been a major source of concern. Waste management strategies consist of hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste. Hazardous waste is defined as waste that poses a significant or potential threat to the environment as well as human health. Hazardous waste handling may be quite difficult. Even on a small scale, improper hazardous waste management can threaten both human health and the environment. The current research is based on the management of radioactive waste generated in ‘Nuclear Medicine Department’ and the Department of ‘Radiation Therapy’ of Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan (SOA) Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar. At the hospital, radioactive materials are employed in both therapeutic and diagnostic procedures, and exposure to it is generally harmful to human health. Although radioactive wastes cannot be eliminated, waste minimization, waste reduction, and safe disposal should be implemented by India’s Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) norms.

Custom and practice have exerted a powerful influence on waste management in the UK. A notable feature is the role of local government, which remains dominant despite expanding legislation and the increasing technical complexity of waste management. The private sector has long had a major role in the transporting and disposal of hazardous waste. The Environmental Protection Act of 1990 represented a major revision of UK environmental legislation. A significant advance in the handling of hazardous wastes was the imposition of a new principle of 'Duty of Care' on all concerned parties.

Background: Accurate and realistic data regarding hazardous waste generation is required to make improvements in the effective management of hazardous wastes. Battery and accumulator manufacturing industry is one of the priority industries which was investigated in this study under the project named “Hazardous Waste Management in Compliance with European Union Environmental Regulations in Turkey”. The project investigated a number of different industries for the development of an internet-based system named as “The Hazardous Waste Declaration System” in order to meet the requirements of Turkey for hazardous waste management. Objective: In this paper, hazardous waste generation factors were asserted by means of the type and quantity of the hazardous waste originated from the battery and accumulator manufacturing sectors. Method: For this purpose, field studies were conducted in an industrial plant operating in the sector, in order to determine all inputs and outputs of the current manufacturing process utilized. Concurrently, hazardous waste generation declarations made by the industries in the years 2009 and 2010 to the Hazardous Waste Declaration System were evaluated and a range of hazardous waste generation factors were created using the possible minimum and maximum quantities for each waste and the results were compared with the data given in the literature. Results: This paper presents the waste lists and the hazardous waste generation factors for the battery and accumulator manufacturing sectors. Conclusion: It is believed that the study will provide invaluable information for other battery and accumulator manufacturing industries from the point of types and quantities and the management of hazardous wastes generated.

/ The US Army manages an extensive program of environmental restoration that is carried out primarily under authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which establishes response authority for cleanup of inactive waste sites. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulates the management and cleanup of hazardous materials at active hazardous waste facilities. Based on the definitions found in these acts, and corresponding promulgated regulations, environmental media contaminated with chemical warfare materiel (CWM) can be regulated as CERCLA "pollutants or contaminants" but do not appear to be regulated either as CERCLA hazardous substances or RCRA hazardous wastes.In those states that have not included CWM as hazardous materials in their RCRA programs, the RCRA requirements for management of hazardous waste would not strictly apply to any of the CWM. The Army has historically implemented procedures requiring that chemical warfare agents be managed as RCRA hazardous waste regardless of the concentration, physical form, or configuration of the agent. Such application of strict hazardous waste requirements to management of potentially nonhazardous CWM can result in remedial costs well out of proportion to potential human health and environmental benefits. Recent development of chronic toxicity values for the CWM has opened the door for development of cleanup and waste management standards for waste streams or media containing small residual amounts of CWM. Implementation of this health-based approach to management of CWM remediation wastes may, in part, help to reduce potentially unnecessary hazardous waste management costs for the nonhazardous CWM.

RCRA & Operational Monitoring (ROM) Program Office manages the direct funded Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and Operational Monitoring under Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) 1.5.3. The ROM Program Office is a Branch of liquid Waste Disposal, a part of Restoration and Remediation of Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC). The Fiscal Year Work Plan (FYWP) takes it direction from the Multi-Year Program Plan (MYPP). The FYWP provides the near term, enhanced details for the Program Office to use as baseline Cost, Scope and Schedule. Changs Control administered during the fiscal year is against the baseline provided by the FYWP.

When Congress passed the 1984 amendments to the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA), one thing it wanted to do was prevent future landfill problems. It did this by specifying that many industrial wastes would have to be treated to make them safe before they were discarded. The Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of issuing regulations to ensure industry compliance with that directive. Last week, EPA proposed what will be the most expensive hazardous waste treatment regulation under the RCRA amendments. This rule will affect 24 types of industrial waste streams, to be increased to 41 waste streams by an additional proposal in about one month. The rule requires that all the wastes be treated and stipulates exactly what the treatments will be. Companies have no choice in the matter. EPA estimates that the annual cost to comply with this rule will be between $650 million and $700 million. Sylvia K. Lowrance, director ...

A discussion showed that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) requires hazardous waste to be defined both in terms of inherent characteristics, such as flammability and corrosiveness, and by listing of particular hazardous waste. National standards for hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal facilities describe the performance, operating, and design requirements for acceptable facilities. All hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal facilities are required to have RCRA permits. In order to obtain a permit, each facility must demonstrate that it can meet all applicable national facility standards. Several major implementation problems have arisen, including: the interstate movement of hazardous waste, the potential lack of acceptable hazardous waste facility capacity to accommodate all the hazardous waste which will be regulated under this new program, and the new requirement for financial responsibility for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities.

If the hazardous substances at industrial, commercial, and agricultural sites can be properly handled, stored, transported, and/or disposed of, there will be no environmental pollution, and no need to embark on any site remediation. With this concept in mind, the goal of in-plant hazardous waste management is to achieve pollution prevention and human-health protection at the sources where there are hazardous substances. This chapter begins with hazardous waste terminologies and characteristics. Special emphasis is placed on the manifest system, hazardous substances storage requirements, underground storage tanks, above-ground storage tanks, hazardous substances transportation, hazardous waste handling, and disposal.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 is a multifaceted approach to the management of both solid and hazardous waste. The focus of this research is on the RCRA mandated proposed regulations for the siting of hazardous waste disposal facilities. This research is an analysis of the interactions among hazardous waste disposal facilities, energy supply technologies and land use issues. This study addresses the impact of RCRA hazardous waste regulations in a descriptive and exploratory manner. A literature and legislative review, interviews and letters of inquiry were synthesized to identify the relationship between RCRA hazardous waste regulations and the siting of selected energy supply technologies. The results of this synthesis were used to determine if and how RCRA influences national land use issues. It was found that the interaction between RCRA and the siting of hazardous waste disposal facilities required by energy supply technologies will impact national land use issues. All energy supply technologies reviewed generate hazardous waste. The siting of industrial functions such as energy supply facilities and hazardous waste disposal facilities will influence future development patterns. The micro-level impacts from the siting of hazardous waste disposal facilities will produce a ripple effect on land use with successive buffer zones developing around the facilities due to the interactive growth of the land use sectors.

The emergence of hazardous waste as a major environmental issue has forced the society to reexamine the ultimate ends of the whole pollution control enterprise. The hazardous waste problem is a by‐product of this nation's rapid economic growth over the past 50 or 60 years. As the industry has expanded, we have developed more and more reliance on a broader range of chemicals and chemical by‐products in plastics, automobiles, and other major manufacturing sectors. When chemicals are used to develop new products, however, wastes are generated, and unfortunately, the phenomenal growth in the production of waste was not mirrored by the growth in the field of waste management. Much of the waste produced made its way into the environment where it poses a serious threat to ecological systems and public health. It was not until the mid‐1970s that Congress enacted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA ), the first major hazardous waste regulatory document to address waste generation and disposal effectively. This article is organized in a historical manner. In Section 2, waste legislation before the RCRA of 1976—what little there was—is discussed. Section 3 examines the 1976 RCRA with particular emphasis on Subtitle C of the act, which lays the groundwork for the current standards and regulations pertaining to the management of hazardous waste. In Section 4, the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments ( HSWA ) to the RCRA , also known as the New RCRA , are discussed. Along with key elements of the amendments, a discussion of Subtitle 1, which expands the regulation domain of Subtitle C, is included. Section 5 covers the permitting process for incinerators, treatment/storage tanks, and land treatment, with special emphasis on incinerators. Section 6 covers more recent activities by EPA in assisting and expediting the permit processes for incinerators and other hazardous waste combustors including concerns regarding emissions of toxic metals, hydrogen chloride, and chlorine and their control, control of PICs , and measurement techniques for all emissions of concern. Section 7 covers the release and implementation of the boiler and industrial furnace regulations. Section 8 covers the US EPA Hazardous Waste Reduction and Combustion Strategy in the 1993–1994 era with the change of administration in Washington. Included in this section are the activities initiated by the US EPA with the moratorium on new incinerator construction followed by public meetings in February and November 1993 to openly discuss waste minimization and eventually issuance of the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT ) rules for combustion of hazardous wastes in incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns. Section 9 discusses the Combustion Emissions Technical Resources Document ( CETRED ), issued in May 1994. Section 10 covers the MACT rules initially introduced in April 1996, with many reviews by industry, industrial associations, peer review groups, and public groups, with final approval by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) and release in final form in August 1999.

Waste minimization and pollution prevention are inherent goals within the operating procedures of Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS). The US Department of Energy (DOE) and LANS are required to submit an annual hazardous waste minimization report to the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) in accordance with the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or the Laboratory) Hazardous Waste Facility Permit. The report was prepared pursuant to the requirements of Section 2.9 of the LANL Hazardous Waste Facility Permit. This report describes the hazardous waste minimization program (a component of the overall Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention [WMin/PP] Program) administered by the Environmental Stewardship Group (ENV-ES). This report also supports the waste minimization and pollution prevention goals of the Environmental Programs Directorate (EP) organizations that are responsible for implementing remediation activities and describes its programs to incorporate waste reduction practices into remediation activities and procedures. LANS was very successful in fiscal year (FY) 2013 (October 1-September 30) in WMin/PP efforts. Staff funded four projects specifically related to reduction of waste with hazardous constituents, and LANS won four national awards for pollution prevention efforts from the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In FY13, there was no hazardous, mixedtransuranic (MTRU), or mixed low-level (MLLW) remediation waste generated at the Laboratory. More hazardous waste, MTRU waste, and MLLW was generated in FY13 than in FY12, and the majority of the increase was related to MTRU processing or lab cleanouts. These accomplishments and analysis of the waste streams are discussed in much more detail within this report.