CEV 414 E
Every year, billions of tons of solid wastes are
discarded into our environment. These wastes range
in nature from common household trash to complex
materials in industrial wastes, range in nature from
common household trash to complex materials in
industrial wastes, such as hospitals and laboratories.
Waste is defined as 'any material that are no longer
desired and has no current or substance that has been
discarded or otherwise designated as a waste material,
or one that may become hazardous by interaction
with other substances
Hazardous waste may either be in the form of solid, liquid,
semi-solid or contained gaseous material (UNEP 1982).
Turkey had also extricated several catastrophes similar to other
In 1970, hazardous wastes were imported to be utilized as a
fuel from foreign countries. People were unaware of the
adverse effects of the gas formed through burning.
In 1980 a ship named unaware of the adverse effects of the gas
formed through burning. In 1980 a ship named Petersberg had
spent 2 moths in Marmara and Black sea to discharge its
It was not the legislation’s or governmental acts but the
common sense of people that terminated the improper actions.
Great number of fish and other living organisms were found
dead at the sea shore of Marmara Sea between Kartal and
Drums that were full of hazardous waste were found in Black
Sea near Samsun.
Hekimbaşı uncontrolled landfill area was exploded and 40
people died in Istanbul.
A gold mine project, which used cyanide extraction and
proposed waste dam is still being problem to make
Environmental Impact Assessment Report due to lacking in
regulations and their enforcements. Growing concern about the
environment in Turkey has focused attention in recent years on
the need for vigorous Government action.
In consequence, substantial administrative measures have been
introduced to improve the environmental concern and to provide a
more efficient and rational basis for the management of wastes from
In 1995 Control of Hazardous Waste legislation has been passed to
provide a control over wastes that are generated (Control of
Hazardous Waste Regulation-27.08.1995).
The Control of Hazardous Waste Legislation of Turkey has been
based on the idea of regulatory approach of EPA. The Turkish
legislation then becomes a reproduction of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Studies have not been made to see whether the legislation is suitable
for Turkey or not. Thus the legislation cannot be carried out to protect
environment due to inappropriate technical evaluations, misplaced
definition of effects, contradictions and intersections among the lists in
terms of criteria, source, characteristics, as well as subjective
descriptions. Practices which will lead to environmental protection
legislation's have to be based on political proposals, project planning as
well as legal alterations for their ease of applicability.
Classification with Respect to Characteristics
Solid waste has to be examined whether it exhibits a
characteristic that makes it hazardous.
All persons who generate a solid waste have to
ascertain whether their wastes exhibit one or more of
the characteristics as follows: Ignitability,
Corrosivity, Reactivity, Toxicity (Hall and others
1993, UNEP 1983, EPA 1990a).
The hazardous waste characteristic of ignitability was
established to identify solid wastes capable during
routine handling of causing a fire, or provoking a fire
A solid waste is deemed to exhibit the characteristics
of ignitability if meets one of the four descriptions. It
is determined using the test method specified in
ASTM Standard D-93- 79 or ASTM Standard D-
3278 (EP A 1990a, DEPE 1992, Meyer 1989).
Corrosive substances may exhibit extremes of acidity
or basicity or a tendency to corrode steel. Wastes
capable of corroding metal could escape their own
containers and liberate other wastes.
In addition, wastes with a pH at either the high or low
end of the scale can harm human tissue and aquatic
life and may react dangerously with other wastes. It is
determined using the test method specified in EP A
600/ 4- 79-020.
Reactive substances are those, which are extremely
unstable and have a tendency to undergo violent
chemical change or explode during stages of its
The regulation lists several situations where this may
happen which guarantee specific consideration like
the behavior of the substance when mixed with water,
when heated etc. Instead of developing a precise
scientific description of this characteristic, EPA has
publicized a descriptive, prose definition as a suitable
test protocols for measuring reactivity are unavailable
(EPA 1990a, 1990b, Meyer 1989).
One of the most significant dangers posed by hazardous
wastes is the leaching of toxic constituents (of land
disposed wastes) into the ground water (Christensen
1971, EPA 1981).
EPA designed the (Toxicity Characteristic) TC
Toxicity, to identify wastes that pose a threat to human
health or the environment resulting from ground water
contamination by simulating the leaching process that
occurs in a municipal landfill.
EP A treats mixtures of a characteristic hazardous
waste and a solid waste differently than it does a
mixture of a listed hazardous and solid waste. Toxicity
can be determined by fish bioassay tests. Toxicity value
defined by LC50.
The LC50 for a contaminant is the concentration being
lethal to 50 per cent of an exposed population of test fish
with a given time. For estimation of LCso values, various
procedures using different test species and experimental
conditions can be found in literature
(EPA 1990a, 1990b, OECD 1982, Council on
Environmental Quality 1971, Manahan 1990).
The entire volume of a mixed waste is treated as
hazardous if; the listed hazardous waste in the mixture
was not listed separately due to its hazardous
characteristics or mixture does not consist of certain
specified hazardous wastes.
Building Up Criteria to Define Hazardous Waste
Waste can have the potential of being hazardous due to;
substances present in the waste, their concentration, their
chemical reactivity, physical form in which the substances
are present, quantity and recurrent rate of arising of
potentially hazardous material, mobility and persistence of
the potentially hazardous materials in the environment in
which they are placed, targets available in that
environment and their vulnerability to the potentially
hazardous materials, possibility of remedial measures and
The short-term acute and long-term environmentally
hazardous properties of a waste are a function of the
chemical species present. In some cases, wastes have well-
defined dangerous properties and are unequivocally
hazardous. Such wastes generally result from the use of
commonly encountered chemical compounds. The majority
of wastes considered, however are likely to be complex
mixtures, which do not readily lend themselves to chemical
characterization (UNEP 1982, EPA 1990a, 1990b, Hall and
Concerning the composition of the waste, the
individual components of a waste should be known
before a complete assessment of its hazard potential
This knowledge however is often very difficult and
may be impossible in practical terms, particularly for
solid wastes. To demand, either directly or by
implication, that all waste be analyzed for all
potentially hazardous species is quite impractical
Three major categories of wastes based upon their physical
forms are; organic materials, aqueous waste and sludge
These forms largely determine the course of action taken
in treating and disposing of the wastes.
It is relatively easy to deal with wastes that are not mixed
with other kinds of wastes. The physical form of the waste
as relevant to a consideration of both potential acute or
long-term environmental hazards.
In general, liquid or sludge waste is more liable to cause
water pollution problems than is solid waste. Where an
inhalation hazard exists, as with asbestos, fibrous waste is
inherently more dangerous than is matrix-bonded asbestos
waste, e.g. asbestos cement. Small particle size by itself
may confer hazard on a material that is non- hazardous in
larger pieces; many finely divided metals are acutely
hazardous while the massive material is harmless.
Solids formed by cooling from the molten state may often
have their potential hazard much reduced, e.g. metal slags
are often considered non-hazardous despite often relatively
high concentrations of toxic metals (UNEP 1982).
The quantity of the waste and its recurrent rate of arising
are important. The handling and disposal of a few hundred
kilograms of a particular waste as and isolated arising may
demand totally different solution to the disposal of similar
material arising on a regular basis in quantities, which
may be orders of magnitude greater or smaller.
Some countries have introduced requirements that a waste
must be present at more than a predefined minimum
quantity before it is considered hazardous. This approach
is administratively convenient as it reduces the amount of
paperwork associated with the regulatory process, but has
certain dangers (UNEP 1982).
The potential for environmental damage at a waste
disposal site is c1early related not only to the concentration
of the substance released but also to the total quantity
released at a given time (Kolaczkowski and Crittenden
1987, Exner 1 989).
The acute hazard posed by the waste may be
expressed in terms of oral, inhalation or dermal
toxicity, flashpoint, explosivity, concentration of
known corrosive species, etc. Physical characteristics,
such as vapor pressure and boiling point, may be
To avoid dangerous interactions with co-deposited
materials, highly reactive materials, e.g. powerful
oxidants, should also be considered. However, unless
toxicity tests are performed on the waste itself, acute
hazards posed by the waste can only be predicted by
the hazards of its components.
The long-term hazard posed by the waste will depend
upon the chosen disposal route.
For example, such properties as volatility, water
solubility and solubility in organic chemicals will
influence the mobility of wastes deposited in landfill.
The persistence of a particular material will depend
upon its vulnerabİ1İty to various natural breakdown
mechanisms like microbiological, photochemical,
The toxicity of a deposited material and its
metabolites and organoleptic factors, such as taste
and smell, are relevant.
Exclusive List of Hazardous Wastes.
One alterative approach to the problem of adequately
defining what constitutes a hazardous
waste is to draw up a list of known wastes, which
present no significant short-term handling or long-
term environmental hazards, and to define hazardous
waste by exclusion, as any wastes not listed.
While one advantage of the exclusive list approach is
that it is relatively simple to ensure that the listed
materials are not hazardous, materials not listed and,
marginally so. In addition, when reliance is placed
upon qualitative, subjective criteria, different
interpretations will inevitably possible.
Thus, waste producers, waste disposers and
regulatory authorities are denied the certainty they
Inciusive List of H azardous‘ Wastes
More widely employed for regulatory purposes are listings
of hazardous waste, either with or without accompanying
criteria. This approach is currently used in Belgium,
Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the
Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom and the United
The lists comprise wastes from certain industries, wastes
containing specific components or specific waste streams
identified by the processes from which they originate. The
United States also uses this approach but combines it with
prescribed test procedures, such that hazardous wastes are
so defined by their presence in a list of waste materials or
providing certain results when subjected to the test
protocol (EP A 1980, EP A 1990a, 1990b, Hall and others
The inclusive list offers a greater degree of certainty but
suffers from the disadvantage that exclusions may well be
significantly hazardous. The greater the degree of
specificity, the more the list approaches catalogue
proportions (UNEP 1983).
§ 261.31 Hazardous wastes from non-specific
F001 .. The following spent halogenated solvents used in
degreasing: Tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene,
methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, carbon
tetrachloride, and chlorinated fluorocarbons; all spent
solvent mixtures/blends used in degreasing containing,
before use, a total of ten percent or more (by volume) of
one or more of the above halogenated solvents or those
solvents listed in F002, F004, and F005; and still bottoms
from the recovery of these spent solvents and spent
solvent mixtures. (T)
F006 ... Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating
operations except from the following processes: (1)
Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on
carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on
carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum plating on
carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin,
zinc and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6)
chemical etching and milling of aluminum. (T)
§ 261.32 Hazardous wastes from specific sources.
K001 ...... Bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of
wastewaters from wood preservingprocesses that use
creosote and/or pentachlorophenol.(T)
K002 .......Wastewater treatment sludge from the production
of chrome yellow and orange pigments.(T)
K003 ..... Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of
molybdate orange pigments ...... (T)
K004 ..... Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of
zinc yellow pigments ................. (T)
K005 ...... Wastewater treatment sludge from the production
of chrome green pigments ............ (T)
K006 ...... Wastewater treatment sludge from the production
of chrome oxide green pigments (anhydrous and
K007 .....Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of
iron blue pigments ..................... (T)
K008 ......Oven residue from the production of chrome oxide
green pigments ............................ (T)
P021 592–01–8 Calcium cyanide
P021 592–01–8 Calcium cyanide Ca(CN)2
P189 55285–14–8 Carbamic acid, [(dibutylamino)-
thio]methyl-, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl- 7-benzofuranyl
P191 644–64–4 Carbamic acid, dimethyl-, 1-[(dimethyl-
amino)carbonyl]- 5-methyl-1H- pyrazol-3-yl ester.
P192 119–38–0 Carbamic acid, dimethyl-, 3-methyl-1-
(1-methylethyl)-1H- pyrazol-5-yl ester.
P190 1129–41–5 Carbamic acid, methyl-, 3-methylphenyl
P127 1563–66–2 Carbofuran.
P022 75–15–0 Carbon disulfide
P095 75–44–5 Carbonic dichloride
P189 55285–14–8 Carbosulfan.
U002 67–64–1 Acetone (I)
U003 75–05–8 Acetonitrile (I,T)
U004 98–86–2 Acetophenone
U005 53–96–3 2-Acetylaminofluorene
U006 75–36–5 Acetyl chloride (C,R,T)
U007 79–06–1 Acrylamide
U008 79–10–7 Acrylic acid (I)
U009 107–13–1 Acrylonitrile
U011 61–82–5 Amitrole
U012 62–53–3 Aniline (I,T)
U136 75–60–5 Arsinic acid, dimethyl-
U014 492–80–8 Auramine
U015 115–02–6 Azaserine
Management Strategies for
Management strategies also play an important role in defining
a hazardous waste. These steps may include; the source of the
waste, generators, waste transport, waste storage, appropriate
treatment technologies, Final disposal.
Once a waste is identified as hazardous, quantities must be
tracked. In order to identify whether a solid waste is hazardous
or not, generator should have to refer to lists or various tests.
Effective identification and labelling by the generators are
essential for control. Mismanagement of Hazardous Waste
leads to a 'cradle to grave' control system (UNEP 1983).
This system regulates the hazardous waste from the time it is
first generated through the transport to final treatment or
disposal. Some hazardous wastes require special control from
the time of generation through their transportation, temporary
storage, treatment and disposal.
Hazardous wastes should be identified and disposed
of in a manner that will most effectively protect the
environment. The quick and dirty approach is still
employed today by putting wastes in open dumps,
landfills or in warehouses. Hazardous wastes can
either be tracked according to the amount that is
generated (EPA 1990a, DEPE 1992, Phifer and
1.Small quantity generators, 2.Large quantity
or can be classified according to their sources:
Point sources, 2.Diffuse sources.
Industrial hazardous wastes are a unique problem
because they are transportable, and pose hazard either
in short or long term basis. Thus it will be appropriate
to further classify the wastes:
Industrial hazardous waste generators
Non-industrial hazardous waste generators.
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes have
been employed to identify groups of hazardous waste
generators. The office of Management and Budget
Manual establishes these codes.
However in some cases they were found to be
inadequate. The manual and codes do not identify
individual facilities or potential generators. They are
often not descriptive or inclusive as is necessary for a
complete hazardous waste survey.
Collection and Transport
These play an important role particularly in terms of
disposal cycle and in control.
Most incidents of improper disposal of hazardous
waste have occurred during transport and may result
from disposal contracts between the waste generator
and hauler rather than between the waste generator
Thus, any reduction of cost for disposal (e.g. by
means of improper dumping) will increase the profit
of waste haulage firm.
Management, Treatment and
Waste sorting and Recycling
Waste transfer and Transboundry
Energy and Material recovery
Thermal Processing/ Waste Incineration
Ultimate Disposal/ H.W. Sites
Lagooning and tank storage are widely
used to seperate oil and water from mixed
Solidification fixation processes are
generally used as pretreatment prior to
Air flotation and various filtration and
Heavy Metal Precipitation
Hexavalent Chromium Reduction
The in-plant biological treatment of dilute
aqueous effluents is well established, and
m.o. Have been developed to selectively
degrade specific toxic chemicals
Composting may also be useful for certain
organic chemical products
Dumping at sea
Coast of Waste Treatment and
Table 4. Cost to Western Europan Chemical Industry for treating and disposing
of waste by different methods : Spring 1979
Methods Cost Range
US $ /tonnes
Simple Disposal to land 1-20
Disposal to land in a site lined with plastic sheet 10-50
Underground disposal to dropping into old wells or mines 20-150
Land disposal after encapsulation either by mixing the waste 10-100
with cement or other agent or by incarcerating whole drums
Coastal sea dumping from ships or 5-15
Deep-ocean dumping beyond the continental shelf 10-150
Simple incineration (without significant heat recovery) 30-150
Incineration with alkaline stack scrubbing 100-350
Incineration onboard ship at sea 50-350
All types of chemical treatment and, in particular :
Destruction of cyanide by hypochlorite 300-500
Reduction of chromic acid 100-300
Destruction of cyanide (catalytic) 200-500
BASINS FOR ENTRY OF TANKS FOR BASINS FOR STORAGE OF
LIQUIDS CONTAINERS LIQUIDS SLUDGES SOLIDS
SEPARATION OF SEPARATION OF DEHYDRATION,
DETOXIFICATION NEUTRALIZATION TREATMENT
SOLIDS EMULSIONS DECANTING
Hazardous Waste Definition
“Hazardous waste“ is a/any specialized and listed
– which has acute or chronic hazard potential described as
“Flammable” ,”Toxic”, “Corrosive” and/or “Reactive”
– Which should be managed with all together with the social,
political and economical aspects of the eco-system instead of
convantional tratment and disposal techniques because of its
composition, constituents, physical form, fate and transport in
– Which may be in forms of solid, liquid, slurry, sludge and
– Which may be a/any hazardous substance that has been
discarded or otherwise designated as a waste material, or one
that may become hazardous by interaction with other
A RATING SYSTEM FOR
Ilhan Talinli , Rana Yamanturk,
Egemen Aydin, Sibel Basakcilardan
Hazardous wastes, the main drawbacks of
industrialized world, are still keeping their
importance because of their potential hazard to
human health and environment, when
improperly treated, stored, transported and/or
The unique solution for that kind of wastes is
to manage and control them from the point of
generation to ultimate disposal.
The legislators of each country should create
regulations enforcing the safe management of
the hazardous waste.
These regulations should appoint the
hazardous waste generator as a legal entity
who must ensure that the waste is managed in
accordance with its regulatory standards .
But a generator who will comply a regulatory
program demands a far more precise definition
of the term “hazardous waste”.
The term “hazardous waste”, originated from
US Environmental Protection Agency, does
not have a unique and universally accepted
definition but the identification of hazardous
waste in each country is based on the four
characteristics 1) ignitability 2) corrosivity 3)
reactivity 4) toxicity .
Although every country has its own regulatory
program, the most common violation of the
rules, whether willful or inadvertent, is
because of the definition of the waste as
hazardous waste .
In most of the countries, the board responsible
from the hazardous waste management defines
the hazardous waste by using two different
mechanisms (1) by listing (2) by identifying
characteristics and these definitions are
commonly based on the Subtitle C of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
which is the most extensive study done about
hazardous waste management.
Using lists to define hazardous wastes presents
certain advantages and disadvantages.
The main advantage is that lists make the hazardous
waste identification easier for generators. On the
other hand, hazardous waste lists simply can not
include all hazardous wastes.
Another disadvantage is their lack of flexibility. Lists
determine a waste as hazardous if it falls within a
particular category or class.
The actual composition of the waste is not considered
as long as the waste is listed. Thus, the lists can
regulate some wastes that do not pose a significant
health threat or a really hazardous waste may be not
found in the lists .
Determination of hazardous waste by detecting
the characteristics of the waste is another
method which needs proper analyses to define
the waste as a hazardous waste.
At first, all the hazardous characteristics
including phytotoxicity, teratogenicity,
bioaccumulation, mutagenicity are thought to
be in characteristics of the hazardous waste,
but because of the difficulties in testing
protocols of these characteristics mentioned
above EPA decided to use 4 common
characteristics to identify the hazardous waste.
Although EPA introduces the test protocols for
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity and toxicity, there
are still gaps which enable a hazardous waste to be
determined as conventional waste.
The main gap is seen in toxicity testing, which only
43 of the toxic chemicals are subject to the TCLP test
. Thus, if a waste does not bear any of the 43
chemicals, the waste is not considered as hazardous,
which may be a really hazardous waste.
The other example is ignitability which does not have
a test method for non-liquid wastes. The gaps for the
determination of the hazard potential of hazardous
waste mixtures are also noticed and an index is
prepared to serve as a guide for people who produce,
store, transport, dispose, recycle and/or regulate
hazardous waste .
Although lists and characteristics analyses are nearly
the same in all countries, the differences in
regulations make the determination subjective which
creates a serious problem in management of these
In order to eliminate the subjectiveness of lists and
characteristics tests, a quantitative determination
system is stated in this study.
Overall Rating Value (ORV) calculates and quantifies
a/any waste as regular (conventional) waste, non-
regular (solid) waste or hazardous waste by using
variables such as Ecological Effect (Ee) (ignitability,
reactivity, corrosivity, toxicity), Combined Potential
Risk (CPR) (carcinogenic effect, toxic characteristics,
infectious characteristics, persistency), Physical Form
(f), Listing (L) and Quantity (Q) of the hazardous
Can it be reused, recovered and/or
recycled? Y Reuse
Y Is it defined in your wastewater, municipal solid
waste and/or air pollution control regulations?
Hazardous Waste Determination
Check H.W. Y
Regular Waste Has it hazard Y Hazardous Waste
To install the rating system formulation, following assumptions
1. If a/any discarded material has been defined as
a/any waste, the determination of the waste should be
done such as wastewater, municipal solid waste and
air emission. The term “non-regular waste” has been
considered as intermediate waste which differentiates
hazardous and conventional waste defined in
regulations. If a waste is non-regular waste, next step
is determination of hazardous waste. In Equation 1;
the component “D” represents the boundary of the
non-regular waste in the scale. Wastes such as
hospital and radioactive wastes have been neglected
in this inquiry because they have their own control
regulations and these wastes are already identified as
2.Listing methodology of the hazardous
waste and their lists published in different
countries cannot be neglected, thus the
“L” component is additionally taken into
account in order to determine hazardous
3.Ecological effects (Ee) includes
primarily impacts from waste associated
with their one or more hazard
characteristics such as toxicity,
ignitability, corrosivity and reactivity.
Physical forms of the waste are also
rated according to behaviors of the waste
4. Accumulative and synergistic effects and
uncertain potential risks are included in
combined potential risk (CPR) parameter.
Components of this parameter are human
health toxicity, carcinogenetic effects,
infectious risks, and persistency associated
with biodegradability, solubility, and
Physical forms of the waste and exposure
mode are also taken into account during
evaluation of these risks.
5. Four critical components explained above
are considered as cumulative functions of
“Overall Rating Value” (ORV) due to the
higher values of these components, the higher
On the other hand, the amount of the waste is
obviously a basic characteristic of the waste in
this rating system, thus it should be a
multiplier of the other components.
Rating system equation (Eq. 1) is composed of
a cumulative-linear function coupled with 8
sub-equation run the points obtained from
ranking tables for each parameter
ORV = D + L + [Ee +( CPR ) x f] x Q (1)
Ee = I + C+ R + T (2)
CRP = Cr + P + In + Pe (7)
P= pm (8)
Pe = (Bd )sl x ( Bac )-1 (9)
The aim of the proposed formulation is to
quantify the hazard characteristics and to
determine the hazardous wastes with easy and
understandable numbers in a simple scale.
Calculated ORVs from Eq. (1) are matched
with range of the “hourglass” scale in order to
point whether the waste is regular, non-regular
or hazardous waste.
D is the decision factor that differentiates
defined regular waste from undefined wastes.
The rating values for decision factor are listed
in Table 1.
Regulatory definition of the waste D
Undefined waste in certain regulations 50
Defined waste in certain regulations 0
L defines list value of the rating system.
Knowing the source and composition of the
waste is an important aspect for determination
of the hazard characteristics of a waste and
their listing accordingly.
USEPA’s lists depend on both HW from
specific source or non-specific source and
discarded commercial chemical products.
Therefore they are taken as the basis of the
rating values listed in Table 2 to reflect the
importance of the lists. However, the lists do
not depend on the amount of the waste
Rating Values for Hazardous Waste Lists
List Type1 List Code1 L
HW from specific sources K 100
HW from Non-Specific sources F 75
Discarded commercial chemical products2 P, U 50
Not listed - 0
Equation 2 expresses the ecological effects Ee in
terms of ignitability I, corrosivity C, reactivity R, and
In order to establish dimensionless data, all
parameters are graded in rating value tables, thus the
unit variability is eliminated. “I” is the corrected
ignitability value obtained from Eq. (3) in which “i”
is the dimensionless ignitability value of the rating
system. Flash point (0C) used to grade “i” values
should be determined using the test method specified
in ASTM Standard D-93- 79 or ASTM Standard D-
3278 [7, 8, 9]. “C” is the corrected corrosivity value
obtained from Eq. (4) in which “c” is the
dimensionless corrosivity value of the rating system.
The test method specified in EPA A600/4-79-
020 is used to determine corrosivity value
(mm/yr). Reactive substances which are
extremely unstable and have a tendency to
undergo violent chemical change or explode
during stages of its management is available
from descriptive, prose definition which EPA
has publicized. However, a suitable test
protocol is unavailable [7, 9, 10].
Referring to this definition reactivity is
quantified in Eq 5 where “r” is the
dimensionless reactivity value of the rating
Itis necessary to include toxicity since
leaching toxic constituents (of land
disposed wastes) into the groundwater is
one of the most significant dangers posed
by hazardous wastes [11, 12].
Therefore, leaching procedures such as
TCLP and EPT can be used for hazardous
waste in solid and sludge form to obtain
mobility of the organic and inorganic
Eq. 6 determines the corrected toxicity value
“T” where “t” is the dimensionless toxicity
value of the rating system. LC50 value
obtained from bioassay test is used to grade the
toxicity in the rating system.
The physical form correction factor “n”
reflects the effect of the form of the waste on
the intensity of the hazard criteria. The rating
values of components of ecological effect,
which also prevent unit variability, are shown
in Table 3.
Rating Values for Components of Ecological
I C R T Form of the
Flash Corrosivity2 LC504 waste
i c Reactivity3 r t (n)
point1 (C0) (mm/yr) (mg/l)
<60 40 40 <0.1 40 G 1.4
60-90 30 or Reacts with water 30 0.1-10 30 Lq 1.3
pH<2 and Generates cyanide
90-120 20 pH>12.5 and sulphur gas at 20 10-100 20 S, SL 1.2
<6.35 Explodes with 100-
120-200 10 10 10 SO 1.1
or 0 water 1000
>200 0 2<pH<12.5 Non-reactive 0 >1000 0
1 Specified by using the test method defined in
ASTM standard D-3278
2 Abrasion characteristics at 550 C specified
by using the test specified in NACE (National
Association of Corrosion Engineers) Standard
3 There is no suitable test protocols for
4 Extraction procedure (EP), toxicity
characteristics (TC) and toxicity characteristic
for leaching procedure (TCLP) methods
described by EPA. 
Lq: Liquid, G: Gas, S: Sludge, SL: Slurry, SO:
Combined potential risks CPR are
represented as a function of toxicity risks
for human health “P”, carcinogenic effect
“Cr”, Infectious characteristics “In”, and
Persistency “Pe”, in Eq (7).
The quantification of the toxic risk to human being is
almost similar to the quantification of the
environmental risk (LC50), and is given by LD50
which is the lethal dose to 50 percent of an exposed
population of humans within a given time . LD50
for quantifying the toxic characteristics P are
tabulated in Table 4.
It is important to notice that only an individual
material shall be considered in the combined potential
risk if its existence in the waste is acknowledged. The
constant m defines the effect of exposure mode on the
intensity of the toxic characteristics. Main three
exposure modes are considered as inhalation, oral
intake and skin contact. The risks they pose can be
Rating Values for Combined Potential Risks Eq (7)
P1 Cr2 In3 Pe4
p m Risk level Cr
(mg/kg) * Infectious
characteristics Persistency is a
0.1 40 1/105 100 10
I 1.3 except function of
0.1-10 30 1/106 10 hospital waste bioaccumulation,
10-100 20 1/107 1 biodegradation
and solubility of
OI, IN 1.2 Non
100- materials for CPR.
10 carcinogen 0
1000 Non infectious 0 Eq (9), Table (5)
>1000 0 SC 1.1
*Exposure modes: I: Inhalation, OI:Oral Intake, IN:
Ingestion, SC: Skin contact
1 Health based risk specific doses for acutely toxic
2 Risk specific levels for carcinogenic constituents as
chronic toxicity reference levels.
3 Animal carcass, animal feces, used sanitary pads,
biotic chemical by products
4 Bioaccumulation cannot be established
experimentally, it may be predicted by its
physicochemical properties and stability. Depend on
the characteristics of individual substance and
situation; biodegradability may be given as percent of
its degradation. 
Evaluation method of the carcinogenity
of the hazardous wastes is far from a
The classification for the existence is
based on the predicted occurrence of
cancer for instance in one person from
hundred thousand (10-5) [9, 14]. Values
used in the rating system for Cr according
to this classification are given in Table 4.
The infectious characteristics of a hazardous waste
depend upon criteria of being contaminated with
relatively high fractions of disease causing material or
an accumulated disease causing waste.
Medical and hospital wastes are not covered within
the context of hazardous waste management but
tracked under special acts and managed accordingly.
The infectious risk has to be foreordained with the
sources of waste.
Dimensionless infectious risk value of the rating
system, “In”, is involved in rating system and listed in
Table 4 for other than conventionally managed wastes
that need special care due to their infectious
Persistency is a function of biodegradability,
bioaccumulation, and the solubility characteristics of
which the persistency rating equation Eq (9) consists.
The ability of the degradation, “Bd”, of a chemical
material within the environment or living cell is
generally directly proportional to the solubility. This
effect is reflected within Eq (9) with the exponential
expression of dimensionless solubility value of the
rating system “Sl”.
The possessed risk in the non-biodegradable material
is their adverse effect on human health when reached
either trough food chain or water. The living
organisms in water can only degrade soluble
materials; otherwise, the prevailing case will be the
accumulation of substances. Quantification of
bioaccumulation is not possible .
Depending on descriptive classification of
bioaccumulation characteristic of a matter,
dimensionless bioaccumulation value of the
rating system Bac, Bd and Sl values are also
given in Table 5.
Evaluation of Persistency Values Eq(9)
Sl Bd Bac
Solubility Sl Biodegradability % Bd Nature Bac
Very Soluble >50 0.5 Readily >90% 1 Non
Soluble 5-10 0.5 Moderately 70 %- 90 3 bioaccumulative
Slightly soluble <5 1 Slightly >50% 5
Insoluble 1 Non-biodegradable <10 % 10
Miscible in all
The physical form of the waste should be a
function for the evaluation of the combined
potential risk because of fate of the waste in
the environment is relevant to its physical
form. For instance, different risk assessments
should be made for waste in solid form or gas
The physical state factor “f” is determined and
placed in equation with the rating values
summarized in Table 6 in order to reflect the
Rating Values for Physical Form
Physical Form f
The multiplier Q, which is quantity rating
value, is set in consideration of quantity of the
waste and its recurrent rate of arising.
The handling and disposal of a few hundred
kilograms of a particular waste may demand
totally different solution to the disposal of
similar material arising on a regular basis in
quantities, which may be orders of magnitude
greater or smaller.
Selected “Q” value from Table 7 is the last
asset to put in Eq (1) for the evaluation of
Rating values for quantity
Quantity (kg/month) Q
Scaling of Rating System
Projection of the ORVs, which are obtained from the model equations
for hazardous waste determination, is considered with an “hourglass”
scale that shown in Figure 2.
Non-regular Waste 0
While upper side of the hourglass represents the
regular wastes, lower part represents both non-regular
and hazardous waste. Bottleneck points the zero level
which separates regular waste from non-regular
While 50 point level is upper limit for non-regular
waste decision, it is minimum value for hazardous
waste determination. These levels have been
interpolated by minimum and maximum values of Eq.
(1)’s components. Interval of zero to 50 determines a
waste as a non-regular waste. In this situation, a waste
is neither hazardous nor regular. Besides hazardous
waste lists are prepared associated with this non-
regular waste definition in the regulations. Every
additional value such as “L”, “Ee”, and “CPR” to this
level makes the wastes “hazardous waste”. Calculated
ORVs with Eq. (1) and their remarks for 16 waste
samples are summarized in Table 8.
Results and Discussion
The “ORV” values have been obtained in Table 8 for
seventeen real samples in detailed and they can be
interpreted as follows:
Although first four samples have no “Ee” and “CPR”
values controlled by referred test methods, neither
regular nor hazardous waste lists include these
wastes. Thus, they are determined as non-regular
Foundry sand and metal slag may be landfilled in
situ or on site if it cannot be reused such as road
construction. Huge amount of fly ash sludge should
be disposed to controlled landfill area after
solidification. If plastic and rubber scraps cannot be
recycled, their air pollution controlled incineration is
recommended because of their high calorific value.
Application of the rating system to the waste
Samples numbered as 5, 7, and 9 in sludge
form have high toxic and corrosive
characteristics in terms of “Ee” values
according to TCLP test method and acidic pH
Their “Ee” components have correlated values
which are 120, 120, and 167 respectively and
relatively increasing “CPR” values causing
increasing “ORV” values.
Ultimate disposal is recommended after
detoxification and corrosivity control for these
Sample 6 named boron oils and lubricants as
spent hazardous materials from foundry has
low “Ee” but high “CPR” values because of its
persistency and non-biodegradability. In spite
of high flash point of this sample, it can be
assumed as flammable material due to high
calocorrosivity control for these wastes.
calorific values of organic constituents. Thus,
if floatation isn’t a proper treatment
alternative, incineration should be considered
for solution of its ultimate disposal.
Samples numbered as 11 and 14 in sludge
form have nearly same “Ee” and “CPR” values
based on mainly toxic and reactive hazard
criteria because there are cyanide and other
reactive materials in their composition. Despite
nearly same “Ee” and “CPR” values,
differences between ORVs can be explained
by big difference between amounts (Q) of
Thus, a very careful handling is required for
management these wastes such as dewatering,
detoxification, solidification/stabilization, and
ultimate disposal to spent mines or hazardous
In samples numbered as 8, 10, 12, 13, common
hazard criteria is toxicity (T) caused by chromium,
sulfide, organic and inorganic pigments and solvents
concentrated in treatment sludges.
High LC50 values and toxic characteristics (TC) are
determined by TCLP and EPT procedures for both
individual material and overall leached water.
Concentrations of these materials such as chromium
and some solvents increase the CPR value when they
are assessed with TLV and TWA limits. Direct
solidification/stabilization or detoxification in their
leachate and then disposal methodologies can be
recommended for these wastes.
Discarded chemicals from university
laboratories (sample 15) show a mixed
waste characteristic having all hazard
criteria (I, T, C, R).
Therefore, it has high “Ee” value.
Incineration has been applied for this
waste in hazardous waste site after
carefully sorting, storing, and
transportation to the site.
Acrylonitrile spills during Marmara
Earthquake (sample 16) has been assessed as
accident of a hazardous material.
Significant amount of this spilled commercial
material threats the environment especially soil
and water and human health as a hazardous
waste. “Ee” and “CPR” values are very high
due to its high hazardous characteristics.
Soil remediation and clean up procedures
should be applied in contaminated area.
2, 4 D Acid production waste (sample 17) contains a
lot of hazardous constituents such as cyclohexanone,
gasoline, alcohols, 2, 4 D and PCBs as liquid form of
Besides, it is published as a hazardous waste in more
than one list (USEPA K, F, U). It has also maximum
“Ee” and “CPR” values because of its obvious
hazardous specifications such as toxicity and
Management alternatives for this waste can be
considered as chemical treatment by adsorption,
extraction, and oxidation or its direct incineration in
air pollution controlled incinerator on site.
Breakpoints or determination levels in
“hourglass” scale have been obtained with
investigation of real wastes and according to
their values of hazard criteria.
However, neither high nor low ORVs
represent a/any hazardous waste as important,
significant or moderate but they show that
these are exactly regular, non-regular or
On the other hand, a waste which has a higher
ORV than another one has more attention
required for its management.
The “ORV” and “hourglass” scale proposed here is a
simple solution of the problem related to whether a waste
hazardous or not. This rating system is not only to
determine waste type but also helps to listing procedures
showing management alternatives according to main
components of the model i.e. “Ee” and “CPR”. For
instance, if there is a high “Ee” value caused by toxicity
and/or, firstly waste should be detoxified and/or
neutralized as a management strategy and then it can be
disposed. Similarly, incineration should be first
management alternative for an ignitable waste that has a
low flash point. On the other hand, due to “CPR” value
depends on estimation of the long term effects, risk
minimization methodology should be applied for
management of the waste. “CPR” value is basically used
for determination of the waste.
The proposed rating system is open for upgrading with
modification into a refined version eliminating subjective
procedures used in law or regulations. In this case, this
system may be recommended to rewrite subjective and
problematic hazardous waste regulations and lists.
ORV: Overall Rating Value
Ee: Ecological Effect
CPR: Combined Potential Risk
L: Listing Value
D: Decision Factor
f: Physical State Factor
Q: Quantity Rating Value
TCLP: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
I: Corrected Ignitibility Value
C: Corrected Corrosivity Value
R: Corrected Reactivity Value
T: Corrected Toxicity Value
i: Dimensionless Ignitibility Value
c: Dimensionless Corrosivity Value
r: Dimensionless Reactivity Value
t: Dimensionless Toxicity Value
Cr: Dimensionless Carcinogenic Effect Value
P: Corrected Toxic Risks for Human Health Value
In: Dimensionless Infectious Characteristics Value
Pe: Persistency Value
p: Dimensionless Toxic Risks for Human Health Value
Bd: Dimensionless The Ability of Degradation Value
Sl: Dimensionless Solubility Value
Bac: Dimensionless Bioaccumulation Value
HW: Hazardous Waste
EPT: Extraction Procedure Toxicity
n: Correction Factor Depend on Waste Form
LC50: Lethal Concentration to 50% of an Exposed Population of Fishes within
a Given Time
EP: Extraction Procedure
TC: Toxic Characteristics
LD50: Lethal Dose to 50% of an Exposed Population of Humans within a
m: Exposure Mode
OI: Oral Intake
SC: Skin Contact
NRW: Non-Regular Waste
TLV: Threshold Limit Value
TLW: Time Weighted Average