Hazardous Waste Management - PowerPoint

Document Sample
Hazardous Waste Management - PowerPoint Powered By Docstoc
					Hazardous Waste
    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
  Kadıköy region.
 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
    all sources.
    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
 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).
  Ignitability
 The hazardous waste characteristic of ignitability was
  established to identify solid wastes capable during
  routine handling of causing a fire, or provoking a fire
  once started.
 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).
 Corrosivity
 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.
 Reactivity
 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).
 Toxicity
 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
    their costs.
   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
    others 1993).
 Composition
 Concerning the composition of the waste, the
  individual components of a waste should be known
  before a complete assessment of its hazard potential
  is made.
 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
  (UNEP 1982).
               Physical Form
   Three major categories of wastes based upon their physical
    forms are; organic materials, aqueous waste and sludge
    (UNEP 1982).
   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).
 Quantity
 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).
 Acute Hazard
 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.
 Long-term Hazard
 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,
  oxidation/reduction, etc.
 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.
Wood preservation:
 K001 ...... Bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of
   wastewaters from wood preservingprocesses that use
   creosote and/or pentachlorophenol.(T)
Inorganic pigments:
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
  McTigue 1989):
 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
  and disposer.
 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 Reduction
 Waste sorting and Recycling
 Waste transfer and Transboundry
 Energy and Material recovery
 Thermal Processing/ Waste Incineration
 Ultimate Disposal/ H.W. Sites
         Physical Treatment
 Lagooning and tank storage are widely
  used to seperate oil and water from mixed
 Solidification fixation processes are
  generally used as pretreatment prior to
  landfill disposal
 Air flotation and various filtration and
  centrifugation techniques
       Chemical Treatment
 Cyanide Oxidation
 Heavy Metal Precipitation
 Hexavalent Chromium Reduction
 Acid neutralization
        Biological Treatment
 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
 Landfill
 Incinaration
 Dumping at sea
 Underground disposal
 Deep-well disposal
       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
                 in cement
                 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

                                                   TANKS FOR


       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
      the environment
    – Which may be in forms of solid, liquid, slurry, sludge and
      pressurized gas
    – 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
  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 [1].
 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 [2].
 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 [3].
   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 [4].
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
  [5]. 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 [6].
 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
                                Rating System
                                  Discarded Material

                          Can it be reused, recovered and/or
                                       recycled?                          Y     Reuse
                                     N                                         Recover

                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


                                         Assess                   Y


                           Non-Regular Waste
To install the rating system formulation, following assumptions
                           are postulated

   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
    non-regular wastes.
 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
 in nature.
 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
                    Model Formulations
   ORV = D + L + [Ee +( CPR ) x f] x Q   (1)

   Ee = I + C+ R + T                     (2)

   I=in                                  (3)

   C=cn                                  (4)

   R=rn                                  (5)

   T=tn                                  (6)

   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.
   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
   Table 2
    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
  toxicity T.
 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
  compounds [13].
 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.
   Table3
    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
                         >6.35                reactive
      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
                                           pH=2.0, pH=12.5
                         <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
  measuring reactivity.
 4 Extraction procedure (EP), toxicity
  characteristics (TC) and toxicity characteristic
  for leaching procedure (TCLP) methods
  described by EPA. [13]
 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 [14]. 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
  graded respectively.
    Table 4
     Rating Values for Combined Potential Risks Eq (7)

                  P1                         Cr2                 In3                   Pe4
 LD50              Exposure
             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. [14]
 Evaluation   method of the carcinogenity
  of the hazardous wastes is far from a
  quantitative approach.
 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 [14].
 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.
 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
                                                                        Bioaccumulative    2
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
  afore statement.
   Table 6
    Rating Values for Physical Form

                Physical Form          f
                     Gas              1.4
                    Liquid            1.3
                 Sludge-Slurry        1.2
                     Solid            1.1
 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
   Table 7
    Rating values for quantity

         Quantity (kg/month)      Q
               >10000            1.4
            10000-5000           1.3
             5000-1000           1.2
               <1000             1.1
   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.

                        Regular Waste

                        Non-regular Waste   0
                        Hazardous Waste

 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.
   Table 8
    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
    waste sites.
 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
  hazardous waste.
 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
    hazardous waste.
   On the other hand, a waste which has a higher
    ORV than another one has more attention
    required for its management.
   Conclusions
   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.
   Nomenclature
   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
   Lq: Liquid
   G: Gaseous
   S: Sludge
   SL: Slurry
   SO: Solid
   EP: Extraction Procedure
   TC: Toxic Characteristics
   LD50: Lethal Dose to 50% of an Exposed Population of Humans within a
    Given Time
   m: Exposure Mode
   I: Inhalation
   OI: Oral Intake
   IN: Ingestion
   SC: Skin Contact
   NRW: Non-Regular Waste
   TLV: Threshold Limit Value
   TLW: Time Weighted Average

Shared By: