SUBTITLE D ESTABLISaMENTS 

VVESTAP 

An Employee-Owned Research Corporation Y I 
DRAFT FINAL REPORT 

SCREENING SURVEY OF INDUSTRIAL 

SUBTITLE D ESTABLISHMENTS 

Submitted to 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Solid Waste 

401*M Street, S.W. 

-Washington D.C. 20460 

(Under Contract No. 68-01-7359) 

Authors 

Kirsten Schroeder 

Robert Clickner 

Esther Miller 

Submitted by 

Westat, Inc. 

1650 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, Mayland 20850 

December 29, 1987 
I 

Sect ion 

1.0 

2.0 

3.0 

4.0 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. o....... 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..... o........... 

I NTRO DUCT1 ON .. ............................. 

1.1 Regulatory Background ................. 1.2 Need for Screening Survey ............. 1.3 Objectives of the Screening Survey .... 

STUDY METHODOLOGY ........................... 2.1 Frame Development and Sample Design ... 

2.1.1 . Target Population ............. 2.1.2 Sample Frame Development ...... 2.1.3 Sample Design ................. 

2.2 Questionnaire Design ........... ....... 2.3 Data Collection Procedures ............ 

2.3.1 Programming the Questionnaire 

for CAT1 ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Pre-Data Collection 

Procedures .................. 2.3.3 Response Rate ................. 2.3.4 Data Quality Assurance 

Procedures .................. 

STATISTICAL RELIABILITY AND DATA ACCURACY - . . 

3.1 Sampling Error ........................ 3.2 Nonsampling Error ..................... 

RESULTS OF THE STUDY ........................ 

4.1 Waste Management Practices at the 

Establishment Level ................. 

4.1.1 Total Number of Establishments 

that Manage Industrial 

Subtitle D Waste ............ 

that use Waste Management 

Units to Manage Subtitle D 

Industrial Process Wastes ... 

Managed in Subtitle D LandBased Management Units ...... 

4.1.2 Total Number of Establishments 

4.1.3 Total Quantity of Waste 

Paqe 

ix 

X 

1-1 

1-1 

1-2 

1-4 

2-1 

2-1 

"2-1 

2-3 

2-5 

2-7 

2-10 

2-10 

2-13 

2-14 

2-15 

3-1 

3-1 

3-3 

4-1 

4-4 

4-4 

4-6 

4-13 

ii 

I, I I " wy_ 
‘section 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) R 

I Pase 

4.0 4.2 Waste Management Practices at the 

I 

I 

.......................... 4-19 

4.2.1 Landfills 4-19 

4-23 4.2.3 Land Application Units 4-28 

Unit Level 

..................... 4.2.2 Surface Impoundments .......... 4.2.4 Waste Piles 4-33 ........ ................... 4.3 

4.4 Alternative Waste Management 

Practices ........................... 4.5 Closed Units .......................... 4.6 

Specific Information ................ 

Generators .................. 

Handle SQG Wastes, by 

Unit Type ................... 

Handle Halogenated Solvents, 

Non-Halogenated Solvents, and 

metals in Subtitle D Units .. 

Capacity and Surface Area Estimates of Land-Based Waste Management Units ... 

Small Quantity Generator and Waste4.6.1 Number of Small Quantity 

4.6.2 Number of Establishments that 

4.6.3 Number of Establishments that 

ADDendix 

A 

B 

INDUSTRIAL SUBTITLE D SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE 

COPY OF LETTER AND LIST OF QUESTIONS SENT 

TO RESPONDENTS PRIOR TO THE INTERVIEW ....... 

4-37 

4-40 

4-47 

4-48 

4-48 

4-54 

4-57 

A- 1 

B-1 

B 

i 

1. 

I 

2. 

E 

1 

C INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC ESTIMATES ................. 

I 

I 

I 

1 

iii 

< 
Table 

2-1 

2-2 

3-1 

4-1 

4 -2 

4-3 

4 -4 

4-5 

4-6 

4 -7 

4-8 

4-9 

4-10 

LIST OF TABLES 

Pase 

In-Scope Groups, SIC Codes, Number of Establishments Provided by Dun and Bradstreet, 

Number of Establishment in Sample ............... 2-4 

Sample Size of Eligible Establishments that 

Completed a Questionnaire in Each Industry 

by Size of Establishment ........................ 

t1Don8t Know" Responses .......................... 

Industry Group Numbering System ................. 

Managed Subtitle D Industrial Waste in 1985 ..... Estimated Number of Establishments that 

Estimated Number of Establishments that 

Managed Subtitle D Industrial Waste in 1985 

in Select Industries ............................. 

Estimated Number of Establishments that 

Managed Waste in Land-Based Waste Management 

units in 1985 ................................... 

Estimated Number of Establishments that 

Managed Waste in Land-Based Waste Management 

Units, by Industry, in 1985 ..................... 

Estimated Number of Establishments that 

Managed Wastes in Landfills, Surface Impoundments, Land Application Units, and Waste Piles 

in 1985 .......................................... 

Estimated Number of Establishments that used 

Waste Management Units, by Industry Group, in 

1985 ............................................ 

Total Estimated Quantity of Subtitle D 

Industrial Process Waste Managed Through LandQuantity of Waste Managed Through Land-Based 

Waste Management Units by Industry .............. 

Landfills in 1985 ............................... 

Based Waste Management Units .................... 

2-8 

3-6 

4-3 

4-4 

4-6 

4 -7 

4-9 

4-10 ~ 

4-12 

4-13 

4-15 

4-19 
Table 

4-11 

4-12 

4-13 

4-14 

4-15 

4-16 

4-17 

4-18 

4-19 

4-20 

4-21 

4-22 

4-23 

4-24 

4-25 

4-26 

LLST OF TABLES (Continued) 

Estimated Number of Landfill Units by Industry 

in 1985 .......................................... 

Estimated Quantity of Waste Managed Through 

Landfills by Industry in 1985 ................... 

Estimated Average Quantity of Waste Managed 

per Landfill by Industry in 1985 ................ 

Surface Impoundments in 1985 .................... 

\ 

Estimated Number of Surface Impoundments 

by Industry in 1985 ............................. 

Quantity of Waste Managed Through Surface 

Impoundments by Industry in 1985 ................ 

Estimated Average Quantity of Waste Managed 

per Surface Impoundment by Industry in 1985 ..... 

Land Application Units in 1985 .................. 

Estimated Number of Land Application Units 

by Industry in 1985 ............................. 

Estimated Quantity of Waste Managed Through 

Land Application Units by Industry in 1985 ...... 

Estimated Quantity of Waste Managed per Land 

Waste Piles in 1985 ............................. 

Application Unit by Industry in 1985 ............ 

Estimated Number of Waste Piles by Industry 

in 1985 ......................................... 

Estimated Average Quantity of Waste Stored 

in Waste Piles by Industry in 1985 ............ ;. 

Estimated Average Quantity of Waste Stored 

per Unit in 1985 ................................ 

Estimated Capacities and Surface Areas of the 

Land-Based Waste Management Units in 1985 ....... 

V 

Pase 

4-21 

4-22 

4-23 

4-24 

4-26 

4-27 

4-28 

4-29 

4-31 

4-32 

4-33 

4-33 

4-34 

4-36 

4-37 

4-38 
I 

1. 

Table 

4-27 

4-28 

4-29 

i 

4-30 

4-31 

4-32 

4-33 

4-34 

4-35 

LJST OF TABLES (Continued) 

Estimated Number of Establishments that did 

not Manage Subtitle D Industrial Waste in 

Land-Based Units, but Employed Some Other 

Method or Practice in 1985 ...................... 

Estimated Number of Establishments that 

Managed Subtitle D Industrial Waste Using an 

Alternated Practice by Industry in 1985 ......... 

Estimated Number of Establishments that 

Employed Alternative Waste Management 

Practices by Location in 1985 ................... 

Estimated Number of Responses for Alternative 

Waste Management Practices ...................... 

Estimated Number of Establishments with Closed 

Unit Types in 1985 .............................. 

Unit-Specific Estimates of Number of 

Establishments that have Closed Units by 

Industry in 1985 ................................. 

Industry-Specific Estimates of Number of 

Establishments that were Small Quantity 

Generators in 1985 .............................. 

Small Quantity Generators as a Percentage of 

Establishments that used Waste Management 

Units in 1985 ................................... 

Estimated Number of Establishments that 

Managed Small Quantity Generator Wastes in 

Landfills, Surface Impoundments, Land Application Units, and Waste Piles in 1985 ........... 

vi 

Pase 

4-41 

4-43 

4-44 

4-45 

4-48 

4-50 

4-53 

4-54 

4-55 
Exhibit 

2-1 

4-1 

4 -2 

4-3 

4 -4 

4-5 

4-6 

4-7 

4 -8 

4-9 

4-10 

4-11 

4-12 

4-13 

4-14 

LIST OF EXHIBITS 

I Industrial Subtitle D Facilities CAT1 

Instrument Flow Chart ........................... 2-12 

Estimated Number of Establishments that 

Managed Industrial Subtitle D Waste in 1985 ..... 4-5 1 

Estimated Number of Establishments that 

Managed Subtitle D Waste in Land-Based Waste 

Estimated Number of Establishments that 

Managed Waste in Land-Based Units by Industry 

in 1985 ......................................... 4-11 

Estimated Quantity of Waste Managed Through 

Land-Based Waste Management Units by Industry 

in 1985 ......................................... 4-14 

Management Units in 1985 ........................ 4-8 

I 

I 

Estimated Quantity of Waste Managed in LandBased Units by Size of Establishment in 1985 ..... 

Cumulative Quantity of Waste Managed Across 

Establishments in 1985 .......................... 

Landfills in 1985 ............................... 

Surface Impoundments in 1985 .................... 

Land Application Units in 1985 .................. 

Waste Piles in 1985 ............................. 

Estimated Number Of'Establishments that 

Managed Subtitle D Waste Using Alternative 

Practices in 1985 ............................... 

Estimated Number of Establishments that 

Managed Waste Through Alternative Waste 

Management Practices by Industry in 1985 ........ 

Estimated Number of Establishments that 

Operated Units in the, Past as Reported for 

1985 ............................................. 

Small Quantity Generators as a Percentage of 

Establishments that Used OnSite Subtitle D 

Units in 1985 ................................... 

4 - 16 

4-18 

4-20 

4-25 

4-30 

4-35 

4-42 

4-46 

4-49 

4-52 

i 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

m 

vii 
LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued) 

Exhibit 

4-15 Estimated Number of Establishments that 

Managed Small Quantity Generator Waste in 

Each Unit Type by Industry in 1985 .............. 

Managed Low Concentrations of Halogenated 

Solvents and Metals Less than EP Toxicity 

Levels in Land-Based Units in 1985 .............. 

4-16 Percent of Establishments Within Industries 

Paae 

4-56 

4-59 
I 

I 

? 

I 

I 

The authors 

several project staff 

contributions to.this 

Jim Craig 

Stephen Diet2 

Robert Clickner 

Kirsten Schroeder 

Esther Miller 

Lisa Puhl 

Rotraut Bockstahler 

Pat Leydig 

There were many people who contributed to the operation 

of.this survey, and we appreciate their efforts. We would like 

to thank Mary Usher and other programmers for the'many hours 

spent programming the telephone questionnaire for Computer 

Telephone Assisted Interviewing (CATI); Sandy Gallagher and Nita 

Lemanski for typing numerous drafts of the screening 

questionnaire, OMB clearance package, and screening report: A1 

Geswein and Jim Craig for answering numerous questions posed by 

respondents on how to answer certain questions; Cassie Thompson 

for her assistance in preparing Confidential Business Information 

for analysis; and John Burke and John Rogers for their assistance 

providing variance estimates and advice on interpreting these 

estimates. The authors also recognize and thank Rita Gunscher, 

Dianne Moore, Charles Parker, and Ita Clagett for all the hours 

spent reviewing, editing, and updating data received from 

interviews for this survey. 

Finally, we greatly appreciate all the time and effort 

spent by telephone interviewers and supervisors in contacting 

respondents, soliciting their cooperation, and collecting the 

data for this report. 

have been possible. 

Without their effort, this study would not 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

wish to acknowledge the assistance of 

members who have made signifTcant 

screening survey: 

EPA Project Officer 

Westat Corporate Officer 

Pro] ect Director 

Project Manager 

Survey Research Assistant and Hotline 

Supervisor 

Survey Research Assistant 

Telephone Interviewing Supervisor 

Programmer 

ix 
Westat under the direction of EPA conducted a screening 

survey of establishments to obtain information on industrial 

solid waste management practices in selected industries. 

two main objectives for the screening survey were to: 

EPA‘s 

1. Develop a representative list of establishments that 

manage Subtitle D wastes in landfills, surface 

impoundments, land application units, and waste piles 

that are not regulated as hazardous: and 

e 2. Develop national and industry-specific estimates of: 

0. 

0 

0 

The number of establishments that manage 

industrial Subtitle D waste.onsite; 

The number of establishments that manage Subtitle 

D waste onsite in landfills, surface impoundments, 

land application units,. and waste piles: 

The number of landfills, surface impoundments, 

land application units, and waste piles used to 

manage Subtitle D waste; and 

0 The amount of Subtitle D waste managed onsite 

through the four types of land-based waste 

management units. 

In addition to EPA’s main objectives, the screening 

survey was also designed to collect basic data on each type of 

waste management unit and to identify which establishments 

managed industrial Subtitle D waste using practices or methods 

other than the four land-based waste management units. The 

background of this study, including the regulatory background and 

the objectives of this study, are described in Section 1 of this 

report. 

Westat surveyed a sample of 18,051 establishments from 

17 different industry groups which were selected by EPA. Within 
each industry group, establishments were stratified by size of 

employees as the proxy for size. 

were selected with certainty, while the sampling rate for small 

and medium sized establishments varied with industry. The data 

collection took place over a period of six months and over 99 

establishment (small, medium, and large), using the number of D 

I 

I 

All large sized establishments 

percent of the establishments responded to the survey. 

Of the 18,051 establishments surveyed, 10,930 

establishments managed Subtitle D waste in 1985. 

10,930 establishments that manage Subtitle D industrial waste are 

eligible to receive a follow-up mail survey which asks more 

detailed questions about waste management practices. 

describes the survey methodology developed and implemented for 

this study, including the sample frame development, sample 

The sample of 

I 

3 

I 

I 

I 

Section 2 

design, questionnaire design, and data collection procedures. 

Data collected was on the establishments that managed 

Subtitle D waste, and the results are analyzed in this report. 

Emphasis was placed on providing national and industry-specific 

estimates and standard errors for those variables outlined in 

EPA's second objective. Additional estimates were provided for 

However, one should note that the survey was not specifically 

other variables on which the screening survey collected data. 

designed to provide accurate estimates of these other variables 

and therefore, one must use caution in using these estimates. 

8 

Section 3 discusses the accuracy of the estimates and sources of 

sampling and nonsampling error while Section 4 presents the 

results of the study. 

Summarizing the data on establishments at the national I 

I level, there were an estimated 72,400 establishments that managed 

Subtitle ~~ D industrial waste in 1985 and of those establishments 

an estimated 20 percent or 12,000 establishments used at least 

xi .. 
one of the land-based waste management units to manage waste. Of 

the 12,000 establishments that used land-based waste management 

units to manage waste, an estimated 2,320 establishments used 

landfills, 6,680 establishments used surface impoundments, 2,140 

establishments used land application units, and 4,200 

establishments used waste piles. All together these 

establishments managed an estimated 6.9 billion metric tons of 

Subtitle industrial waste in 1985. 

At the unit level, there were nationallv in 1985 an 

estimated: 

0 2,760 landfills used to manage 78.4 million metric tons 

of Subtitle D industrial waste: 

0 15,250 surface impoundments used to manage 6.7 billion 

metric tons of Subtitle D industrial waste: 

0 4,300 land application units used to manage 90.1 

million metric tons of Subtitle D industrial waste: and 

0 5,330 waste piles used to store 69.9 million metric 

tons of Subtitle D industrial waste. 

The industn-sDecific estimates at the establishment 

level can be best summarized by examining the number of 

establishments that use land-based waste management units and the 

quantity of waste managed within an industry: 

0 An estimated 60 percent of the establishments that 

managed Subtitle D industrial waste in land-based units 

in 1985 were in the stone, clay, glass, and concrete 

industry and the food and kindred products industry, 

yet these two industries only accounted for 13 percent 

of the estimated total quantity of waste managed 

through land-based units. . 

o 4 percent of the establishments that managed Subtitle D 

industrial waste in land-based units in 1985 were in 

the pulp and paper industry, and yet the establishments 

in this industry managed nearly 30 percent of the 

xii 
estimated total quantity of waste managed through landbased units. 

4.3 percent of the establishments that managed Subtitle 

D industrial waste in land-based units in 1985 were in 

the primary iron and steel industry, and this industry 

accounted for 17 percent of the estimated total 

quantity of waste managed through the land-based units. 

o 

Furthermore, the distribution of waste managed was 

examined across industries, and as later discussed, is found to 

be highly skewed with a few very large establishments. The 

distribution shows that 10 percent of the establishments manage 

over 50 percent of the waste managed through Subtitle D units. 

This skewed distribution has implications on the variability of 

estimates and the mean for estimating the quantity of waste 

managed at an establishment. 

At’the unit level, the industrv estimates can be 

summarized as follows: 

The stone, clay, glass, and concrete industry operated 

an estimated 45 percent of the landfills in 1985, yet this industry only disposed an estimated 8 percent of 

the waste managed through this unit type. In contrast 

the electric power industry operated only 6 percent of 

the estimated total number of landfills, 

industry accounted for nearly 62 percent of the 

estimated quantity of waste disposed in these units. 

The food and kindred products industry and the stone, 

clay, glass, and concrete industry operated nearly 50 

percent of the estimated number of surface 

impoundments, but these two industries managed less 

than 15 percent of the waste managed through this unit 

type. The pulp and paper industry and the primary iron 

and steel industry, on the other hand, operated only 

8.5 percent of the estimated number of surface 

impoundments but accounted for nearly 50 percent of the 

estimated total quantity of waste managed through this 

unit type. 

1 

0 

yet this 

o 

0 The food and kindred products industry operated nearly 

75 percent of the estimated number of land application 

xiii 
units and accounted for 77 percent of the total 

estimated quantity of waste managed through this unit 

type. 

0 The stone, clay, glass, and concrete industry and the 

food and kindred products industry operated 57 percent 

of the estimated number of waste piles but these two 

industries operated less than 13 percent of the 

estimated quantity of waste stored in this unit type. 

Inorganic chemicals, on the other hand, operated only 

1.4 percent of the estimated number of waste piles yet 

accounted for over 50 percent of the estimated total 

quantity of waste stored in this unit type. 

The above estimates show that the food and kindred 

products and the stone, clay, "lass, and concrete industries have 

numerous establishments that manage Subtitle D waste in landbased units and have the largest number of unit types. Except 

for land application units, these two industries generally 

account for a relatively small percentage of waste managed 

through each unit type. Large managers of Subtitle D waste in 

land-based units seem to be the pulp and paper industry, the 

electric power industry, and the primary iron and steel industry. 

There are other industries which are not mentioned above but 

discussed in Section 4 that are also large managers of waste, 

particularly when examining average quantities of waste managed 

. per unit. These industries include fertilizer and agricultural 

chemicals, inorganic chemicals, primary nonferrous metals, and 

plastics and resins manufacturing. 

Section 4 presents all national estimates and 

corresponding standard errors and highlights industry-specific 

estimates while Appendix c provides all industry-specific 

estimates and corresponding standard errors. One should note the 

accuracy of estimates for certain industries varied greatly, 

especially when estimating quantities of waste managed through 

each unit type. Certain industries have large coefficients of 

variation (standard error as a percentage of the estimate) for 

xiv 
waste quantity estimates. 

certain industries the sample size is small for a particular unit 

type (e.g., landfills). 

size of establishment is extremely variable. 

estimates given in Section 4, it is extremely important to refer 

to Appendix C for the accuracy of these estimates. 

Th,s is due to the fact that in 

Also, quantities of waste managed by 

When viewing the 
i 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Under the latest amendments to RCRA, EPA must study the 

management of non-hazardous (Subtitle D) waste, report on the 

status of facilities that manage Subtitle D waste, and revise the 

criteria applied to facilities that manage small quantity 

generator and household hazardous wastes. Furthermore, EPA must 

study Subtitle D waste in order to further develop hazardous 

waste characteristics used for the listing and delisting of 

wastes as hazardous. EPA, however, has limited information on 

Subtitle D waste, particularly industrial waste. The Agency 

therefore decided to conduct a screening sunrey to identify 

establishments that generate and manage industrial non-hazardous 

process wastes and follow up those establishments with a mail 

questionnaire. 

background leading to a study involving a screening survey, the 

need for a screening survey of industrial establishments, and the 

objectives of the screening survey. 

This section summarizes the regulatory 

1.1 Regulatory Background 

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which 

was passed in 1976 contained the first set of guidelines to 

address hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste management 

practices. RCRA primarily focused on the management of hazardous 

waste, known as Subtitle C waste, and EPA was given direct 

authority to develop and enforce regulations regarding the 

management of hazardous wastes. Non-hazardous waste, known as 

Subtitle D waste, was left to the states to regulate. EPA was 

given the authority only to formulate guidelines to be used by 

the States in the development of their solid waste management 

plans. 

1-1 
In 1984, Congress passed the Hazardous and Solid Waste 1 

Amendments (HSWA) which made several changes to RCRA. One change 

resulted in adding Section 4010 which mandates EPA to take the 

f ol 1 owing act ions : 

"STUDY -- The Administrator shall conduct a study of 

the extent to which the guidelines and criteria under 

this Act ... which are applicable to solid waste 

management and disposal facilities, including, but not 

limited to landfills and surface impoundments, are 

adequate to protect human health and the environment 

from groundwater contamination.lI 

"REPORT -- ... the Administrator shall submit a report 

to the Congress setting forth the results of the study 

required under this section, together with any 

recommendations made by the Administrator on the basis 

of such study." 

"REVISIONS OF GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA -- . . .the 

Administrator shall promulgate revisions of the 

Criteria under paragraph (1) of section 4004(a) and 

under section 1008(a)(3) for facilities that may 

receive hazardous household wastes or hazardous wastes 

from small quantity generators under section 3001(d). 

Because EPA was never responsible for the regulation of 

(2) 

(b) I 

(c) 

I 

Subtitle D (non-hazardous) wastes, the Agency did not have the 

information needed to meet the Congressional mandate described 

above. 

I 1.2 Need for the Screening Survey 

I 

1 

I 

To meet the Congressional mandate, EPA decided to 

conduct a series of studies to identify and collect data on 

facilities used to manage Subtitle D waste. 

process waste and undertook a several studies specific to these 

wastes. 

EPA specifically 

lacked information on the management of industrial Subtitle D 

EPA began by examining existing secondary data on 

1-2 
industrial Subtitle D units and summarized the results in the 

report, Summary of Data on Industrial Nan-Hazardous Disposal 

Practices.' 

produces non-hazardous solid waste and reported the type of 

waste, the amount of waste generated, the number of on-site landbased waste management units (landfills, surface impoundments, 

land application pnits, and waste'piles) and the percentage of 

waste treated on-site and off-site. EPA estimated that 

approximately 392,000,000 metric tons of non-hazardous waste are 

In the study, EPA examined each major industry that 

generated annually by the 23 industries examined in this study 

and 57 percent of the waste is managed in land-based waste 

management units. Seventeen of the industries are estimated to 

'generate 99.7 percent of the total non-hazardous waste while the 

other six industries generate the remaining 0.3 percent of the 

waste. EPA also determined that these 17 industries are most 

likely to manage their non-hazardous wastes on-site. 

information was useful, EPA found large data gaps in number and 

design of waste management units and descriptions of nonhazardous waste. Moreover, data on quantities of waste managed 

for certain industries was over 10 years old. From this study, 

EPA concluded that the existing data was inadequate for preparing 

a report to Congress or revising the Criteria and recommended 

that the following data should be collected: 

Though this 

o Number of on-site waste management facilities; 

o Design characteristics of each type of waste management 

unit used by each industry; 

0 Types and quantities of non-hazardous wastes generated 

by certain industries; and 

. lSummarv of Data on Industrial Non-Hazardous DisDosal Practices, 

prepared by Science Applications International Corporation for 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-01- 

7059, December 5, 1985. 

1-3 
I 

0 Amounts of each waste type being managed in each type 

of on-site waste management unit. 

I 

I 

Following up on the study's recommendations, Westat 

The survey was 

under EPA's direction, conducted a survey of industrial 

establishments with on-site Subtitle D units. 

limited to the 17 industries that were believed to generate over 

99 percent of Subtitle D industrial process waste. In designing 

establishments that generated and managed industrial process 

waste existed. 

m 

the suney, EPA found that no comprehensive list of 

As a result, EPA decided to conduct this survey 

in two phases: 

Phase I - Telephone screening survey I 

Phase I1 - Mail survey. 

The telephone screening survey of Phase I was designed 

to identify establishments that generated and managed industrial 

Subtitle D waste and to collect some basic information on waste 1 

management units. 

Phase I1 mail survey which will be administered to the list of 

The screening survey will be followed by the 

establishments identified in Phase I as generating and managing 

contain more detailed questions about waste management practices. 

Subtitle D industrial process wastes. The mail survey will I 

1.3 I Objectives of the Screening Survey 

This screening survey was designed to meet EPA's two 

main objectives which are as follows: I 

1. To develou a reDresentative list of establishments that 

manaue Subtitle D wastes in landfills (LFI. surface 

imDoundments (SI), land armlication units (LA), and 

waste piles (WP) that are not requlated as hazardous. 

€PA had no listing of establishments with one or more 

1-4 
2. 

land-based Subtitle D waste management units. EPA 

needed such a list of establishments for a followup 

mail survey designed to gather detailed information 

about Subtitle D waste management practices. 

To develoD national and industrv-specific estimates of: 

0 The number of establishments that generate and 

manage industrial Subtitle D wastes onsite; 

o The number of establishments that manage wastes 

onsite in landfills, surface impoundments, land 

application units, and waste piles. 

land application units, and waste piles used to 

manage solid waste onsite; 

the four types of land-based waste management 

units. 

0 The number of landfills, surface impoundments, 

o The amount of solid waste managed onsite through 

The estimates are needed by the Agency for its report 

to Congress on the status of facilities that manage 

Subtitle D wastes. 

The Agency also had another objective which was not a 

primary focus around which the screening survey was designed but 

was needed for the followup mail survey. EPA needed to develor, a 

representative list of establishments that manacle Subtitle D . 

wastes usinu a method other than throuuh a land-based waste 

manauement unit. These other methods included establishments 

that sent Subtitle D wastes offsite or used alternative practices 

as incineration, energy recovery, tanks, and recycling to manage 

Subtitle D wastes. 

that use such practices to manage Subtitle D wastes. 

The Agency had no listing of. establishments 
2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY 

This section presents the sample design, questionnaire 

design, and data collection procedures used to conduct the 

screening survey. 

2.1 Frame Development and sample Design 

The sample design was developed to meet EPA's two 

primary objectives which were to develop a representative list of 

establishments that generate and manage industrial Subtitle D 

wastes in landfills, surface impoundments, land application 

units, and waste piles;.and to develop national and industryspecific estimates on the data itelps outlined in Section 1.3. 

meet the Agency's objectives, Westat designed a two-way 

stratified random sample, stratified by industry group and size 

of establishment. The following subsections describe the target 

population, the sampling frame, and sample design that were 

developed for this screening survey. 

To 

2.1.1 Target Population 

The target population for the screening survey was 

divided into two groups: 

1. Establishments. in 17 industry groups that manage 

Subtitle D industrial process waste on-site in waste 

manasement units identified by EPA; and 

Subtitle D industrial process waste throush some other 

practice (incineration, energy recovery, tank 

treatment, off-site management, etc.). 

2. Establishments in 17 industry groups that manage 

2-1 
In defining both target populations, EPA included only 

those establishments that generated Subtitle D waste as a result 

of an industrial process and defined Subtitle D waste as solid 

waste not regulated as hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA. EPA 

used the following definitions to define waste included in this 

study: 

Solid Waste includes any solid, liquid, semi-solid, or 

contained gaseous material resulting from industrial or 

commercial operations, as well as from community 

activities. Wastes not considered solid wastes are materials found in domestic sewage: irrigation return 

flows: industrial discharges which are point sources 

subject to permits under Section 402 of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act; in-situ mining wastes: and 

Atomic Energy Commission source, special nuclear, or 

by-product material. 

Subtitle D Waste is any solid, liquid, semi-solid or 

contained gaseous material resulting from industrial or 

commercial operations that is not regulated'as 

hazardous under Subtitle, C of the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act. 

. 

The two target populations differ by the types of waste 

management practices employed. The first target population 

includes only those establishments that manage waste onsite 

through landfills, surface impoundments, land application units, 

and waste piles. 

management unit types as follows: 

EPA defined the four land-based waste 

Landfill is a natural or man-made excavated depression 

in the earth. 

disposal of solid wastes, residuals and sludges. 

(Specifically excluded from the survey were municipal 

waste landfills, demolition debris landfills and other 

non-industrial types of landfills). 

Landfills are used for the permanent 

Surface ImDoundment is a natural topographic 

depression, man-made excavation, or diked area formed 

primarily of earthen materials which is designed to 

hold an accumulation of liquid, semi-solid, or solid 

residuals, wastes, and wastewaters. (Specifically 

excluded from the survey were surface impoundments th 

2-2 
collected only domestic sewage or runoff from parking 

lots and roofs). 

Land ApDlication Unit is an area of land where 

residuals and wastes are applied onto or into the soil. 

Waste Pile is a mass of waste material, generally 

placed on the ground. 

or wall to contain the materials in the pile. 

It may or may not have a fence 

The second target population includes those 

establishments that manage waste using a practice other than the 

four waste management units: e.g., incineration, energy recovery 

(boilers), tank treatment, recycling, etc. Unlike the first 

target population, the second target population includes 

practices that are employed onsite and offsite. 

populations, however, include those units or practices that are 

used only to manage wastes not regulated as hazardous. 

Both target 

. Both target populations are limited to the 17 industry 

groups that are believed to generate over 99 percent of the 

industrial Subtitle D waste. 

classified by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and 

are listed in Table 2-1. 

The 17 industry groups are 

2.1.2 Sample Frame Development 

At the onset of this survey, there was no comprehensive 

list of establishments that generate and manage industrial 

Subtitle D waste in the 17 target industry groups which EPA 

determined would contain over 99% of the entire universe. 

Westat, therefore, began with the development of a sampling 

frame. A list of all establishments in the 17 target industries 

was purchased from Duns Marketing, 

The data provided by Duns Marketing included establishment name, 

Inc., and used as the frame. 
Table 2-1. In-Scope Groups, SIC Codes, Number of 

Establishments Provided by Dun and Bradstreet, 

Number of Establishments in the Sample 

I 

No. of No. of 

ments in ments in 

establish- establish- I r D&B sample 

Industry group SIC Code 

Organic Chemicals 

Primary Iron and Steel 

2865, 2869 1,413 

3 3 12-3 3 2 1 3 , 581 

Fertilizer and Agricultural Chemicals 2873-2879 

Electic Power Generation 4911 

Plastics and Resins 

Manufacturing 2821 

Inorganic Chemicals 2812-28 19 

2,159 

3,945 

1,235 

2,949 

Stone, Clay, Glass and / 

Concrete 23 , 109 

Pulp and Paper Industry 26 9,212 

Primary Nonferrous Metals 3331-3399 6 , 851 

Food and Kindred Products 30,161 

3 , 341 Water Treatment 4941 

32 

20 

J 

Petroleum Refining ' 2gJ 

Rubber and Miscellaneous 

Products 30 

Transportation Equipment 37 

3,712 

560 

603 I 

1,.146 

57 5 .i 

692 n 

I 1,951 

1,090 

861 1 

2,245 

615 I 

I 1,148 

19 , 564 1,241 

18 , 048 

Allied Selected Chemicals Products and 28-2 2824 3 , 392 692 1 

585% &.&/ 2891 

1,065 I 

All Industries 149 , 151 18 , 051 1 

Textile Manufacturing 11,732 22 

Leather and Leather Products 31 4,747 683 

2-4 
locational and mailing addresses and phone number, up to six SIC 

codes identifying the establishment's industry(s), number of 

employees onsite, corporate revenue and other financial data. 

There were nearly 150,000 establishments on the list. Table 2-1 

displays the 17 in-scope industries, their SIC codes, and the 

number of establishments provided by Duns Marketing. 

2.1.3 Sample Design 

The sample was drawn from each industry group and was 

stratified by the size of establishment, for two basic reasons. 

First, it was believed that the larger establishments would be 

more likely to manage their waste onsite in one of the four landbased waste management units, rather than shipping it off site. 

Second, larger factories generate more waste than smaller ones. 

In fact, we expected the distribution to be highly skewed. A 

prior EPA study of hazardous waste generators and managers had 

found that 5 percent of the facilities generated 95 percent of 

the waste.' 

sample and the variance of the estimated amount of waste would be 

improved by a size-based design. 

Thus both the expected eligibility rate in the 

We selected the number of employees as the measure of 

size because it was the only one available at the required, i.e., 

establishment level. Other size measures that were believed to 

associate better with amount of industrial waste generated, 

production volume or revenue, were available only at the 

corporate level or not available at all. Nevertheless, for 

several reasons, we expected a low, but positive, association 

e.g., 

'National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators and Treatment 

Storage and Disposal Facilities Regulated Under RCRA in 1981/ 

Report by Westat, Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-01-6861, 

subcontract No. EPA 33-01. (1984) 

2-5 
between the size measure and the key response variables: 

administrative offices can have many employees, but generate no 

industrial waste; two factories, one automated and one not, could 

produce the same volume of product and hence the same volume of 

waste, but have greatly differing numbers of employees. 

For these reasons, and because we were also interested 

in estimating proportions, we did not want a design highly 

dependent on establishment size. Therefore, as a compromise 

between simple random sampling and probability proprotional to 

size sampling, three size strata were developed independently 

within each of the 17 industries: small, medium and large. The 

medium-large breakpoints ranged from 40 to 650 employees, except 

for one industry at 2,100 employees (transportation equipment I 

manufacturers). 

34 employees. 

The small-medium breakpoints ranged from 13 to 

The large establishments were sampled with certainty in 

order to maximize the eligibility rate in the sample and control 

the variance of the estimated totals. 

rates for the medium and small establishments varied with 

The sampling sizes and 

industry. The resulting total sample size was 18,051. The 

18,051 establishments were selected independently within each of 

the 17 industries and three size strata. 

the sample size by industry. 

Table 2-1 also displays 

On a size basis, the frame counts 

and sample sizes are as follows: 

I Size Stratum Frame Count Sample Size 

small 

Medium 

Large 

106,750 

37,315 

5,086 

149,151 

3,887 

9,078 

5,086 

8 

1 

Total 18,051 .. 

.. . 

2-6 
I I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Approximately 12.3 percent of the sampled 

establishments were found to be out of scope (went out of 

business, moved, duplicate entries, etc.) or unlocatable (wrong 

address or phone number and no directory assistance record), 

leaving 15,832 establishments in the sample. 

summarizes the resulting sample size (i.e., completed 

questionnaires from eligible respondents) by industry and size of 

establishmentTable 2-2 

2.2 Questionnaire Design 

I Westat met with the Office of Solid Waste to discuss 

the Agency’s objectives and data needs for this screening survey. 

Westat designed the screening questionnaire to meet the Agency‘s 

objectives outlined in Section 1.3. 

developed a list of data items for which information was needed. 

The data items were as follows: 

Together with EPA, Westat 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

The identity of the person in charge of the management 

of process industrial waste at the establishment; 

The presence of any on-site Subtitle D land-based waste 

management units (LF, SI, LAU, or WP) at the 

establishment; 

The number of each type of unit; 

The size and capacity (where applicable) of each type 

of unit: 

The amount of Subtitle D waste managed through each 

type of unit: 

A brief description of how waste was managed if no 

Subtitle D waste was managed through one of the four 

disposal units: 

The existence of any closed Subtitle D units; and 

Management of small quantity generators (SQGS) waste ’in 

any of the land-based waste management units and 

2-7 
Table 2-2. Sample size of eligible establishments that 

completed a questionnaire in each industry 

by size of establishment 

Size category of Establishment 

Industry Small Medium Large Total 

Organic Chemicals (1) 66 140 277 483 

Primary Iron and Steel (2) 85 423 359 8 67 

Fertilizer & Ag. Chem (3) 82. 181 250 513 

Electric Power Gen. (4) 101 518 485 1,104 

Plastics & Resins Mfr. (5) 72 224 209 505 

Inorganic .Chemicals (6) 82 304 226 612 

Stone, Clay, Glass & Conc. (7) 449 787 450 1,686 

Pulp & Paper Industry (8) 136 520 3 15 971 

n 

1 

1 

i 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

755 1 Primary Nonferrous Metals (9) 119 463 173 

Food & Kindred Products (10) 573 935 460 1,968 

Water Treatment (11) 80 388 99 567 1 

Petroleum Refining (12) 94 472 457 1,023 

Rubber & Misc. Products (13) 3 57 563 147 1,067 1 

Transportation Equipment (14) 314 1,125 204 1,643 

Selected Chem. & Allied (15) 87 335 199 621 1 

914 I 

Total 2,953 8,241 4,650 15,844 1 

1 

Textile Manufacturing (16) 184 481 249 

\ 

Leather & Leather Products (17) 72 382 91 545 

\- 

2-8 

..' 'I 
storage or disposal of household waste in any landfills 

and waste piles. 

0 Placement of halogenated solvents, nonhalogenated 

solvents, or metals in any of the on-site land-based 

units. 

Westat assisted EPA in developing a questionnaire which 

gathered information on the above data items. Appendix A 

contains a copy of the questionnaire. Westat and EPA decided to 

administer this screening questionnaire by telephone. This 

survey method was chosen over a mail survey because EPA was under 

a time schedule to complete the screening survey for its mandated 

report to Congress, and it will be necessary to use the list of 

establishments developed from the screening questionnaire for the 

followup mail survey. Westat and EPA also decided to administer 

the questionnaire using computer assisted telephone interviewing 

(CATI) , instead of using conventional hard-copy paper 

questionnaires. CATI was used to administer this questionnaire 

because complex skip patterns contained in the instrument could 

be programmed so that the interviewer did not need to manually 

scroll through the questions. CATI was used to program precoded 

responses for a number of questions which enabled the interviewer 

to enter a code rather than write out the entire response. CATI 

enabled the programming of on-line logic checks and out-of-range 

edit checks which allowed interviewers to check responses to 

questions while conducting the intenriew with the respondent. 

Because the questionnaire was being administered over 

the phone, the questions were designed to be as short and 

straight-forward as possible. 

provide responses to quantitative questions according to their 

usual recordkeeping practices. 

the instrument was pretested on nine establishments to see if 

questions could be answered over the phone by the respondents. 

The pretest resulted in simplifying the language of the 

Respondents were allowed to 

Prior to receiving OMB clearance, 
questionnaire, rephrasing the questions so that they were more 

straight forward, and sending out a copy of questions prior to 

the intenriew so that respondents would have a chance to prepare 

their responses. Appendix A contains the list of questions sent 

to respondents prior to the interview. 

I 

1 

I 2.3 Data Collection Procedures 

I 

1 

This subsection describes the effort that went into 

designing the survey for CATI as well as the actual survey 

operations. Included in survey operations, we describe pre-data 

collection procedures, methods used to obtain a high response 

rate, and quality assurance procedures. 

2.3.1 Programming the Questionnaire for CATI 

As mentioned earlier, data was collected by the state 

I of the art CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewer) system. 

The CATI program was structured to: 

1. Verify the location of the establishment. 

I 2. Identify and reach the facility manager or the 

environmental affairs manager as the respondent for the 

survey ; 

I 

1 

3. Determine whether or not the establishment generates 

and manages waste onsite in landfills, surface 

impoundments, land application units, and/or waste 

piles and collect basic information on the units; 

Identify the method of handling waste if the 

establishment does not manage waste in one of the four 

management unit. 

4. 

I Because EPA wanted information on waste management 

units, the data collection effort was based on the location; 

2-10 
i.e., data was collected for only those locations drawn for the 

sample. If we contacted an establishment that was located at an 

address different from what our records showed, that particular 

establishment was removed from the sample. If instead we 

contacted an establishment that was located at the address shown 

ijn our records but the business name had changed, we kept the 

establishment in our sample. Questions to identify the location 

of the establishment were programmed in CATI to handle these 

various situations. 

Because the questionnaire was sent out to the "Facility 

Manager" at each establishment, a series of questions to identify 

the name of the Facility Manager or the person who was "most 

knowledgeable" about the industrial process wastes was programmed 

into the CATI system. 

information on respondent name, address, telephone number and 

mailing address for the purposes of developing the sampling frame 

for Phase I1 of the study. 

CATI was also programmed to collect 

Exhibit 2-1 shows a simplified version of the complex 

information flow programmed in CATI for this questionnaire. 

After the interview was completed, the case was assigned one of 

seven different final result'or final status codes. The list of 

result codes and corresponding definitions are as follows: 

C1 Establishments reported at least one type of onsite 

waste management unit. 

P1 Establishments reported at least one type of onsite 

waste management unit but the respondent answered 'IDK" 

to the questions "How many units are at this 

establishment? and/or I8How much waste is managed in 

this unit?1v. In the final analysis, a result code of, 

P1 was not differentiated from a result code of C1. 

Establishments reported that waste was managed, using a 

practice other than the four land-based waste 

management units. 

C2 

2-11 
L 

2-12 
ICBI Establishments declared I8confidential Business 

Informationll for at least one item during the 

interview. The original telephone interview was 

terminated and CBI cleared interviewers finished the 

case. In the final analysis, the CBI cases were 

assigned "dummy ID'S", all identifying information was 

stripped from the data, and a final result code of C1, 

P1, or C2 was assigned. 

P2 Establishments declared that no industrial Subtitle D 

waste was generated. Establishments with this result 

code included office buildings, warehouses, or 

establishments that only generated hazardous waste. 

I Establishments were found to be ineligible for the 

study because they were duplicates in the Dun and 

Bradstreet sampling frame, out of business, unreachable 

or for any other reason declared ineligible for the 

study. 

RB Establishments that refused to answer the study. 

Establishments that were assigned one of the first four 

result codes formed the sample which would be considered for the 

follow Up mail survey. 

2.3.2 Pre-data Collection Procedures 

Telephone interviews with respondents were preceded by 

a mailing of definitions and a list of questions used in the 

industrial Subtitle D Survey and a letter from EPA explaining the 

reasons for conducting the survey and encouraging the respondents 

to co-operate with the data collection effort. 

were not required to write out the answers to the questions that 

were mailed but rather requested to use the list of questions as 

a reference when completing the telephone interview. Appendix B 

contains a copy of the letter and list of questions sent to the 

respondent prior to the interview. 

The respondents 
.- 1 

I 

I The notification letter and list of questions were sent 

out in blocks of 300 to the 18,051 respondents over a period of 

two and one-half months, beginning in November, 1986. The mail 

out in blocks of questionnaires facilitated fielding questions 

from respondents and scheduling interviews for those respondents 

who did call for assistance. The questionnaire was designed so 

that all questions could be dnswered over the phone. Respondents 

were requested to answer the questionnaire over the telephone, 

however provisions were made for those respondents that requested 

to mail in the questionnaire. Telephone numbers for technical 

assistance concerning completion of qpecific questionnaire items 

were provided in EPA’s notification letter. Approximately 2,000 

calls were handled by the hotline service. 

All interviewers participated in a 4-day training 

session which consisted of presenting the scope of.the study, 

reviewing waste management definitions, reviewing CAT1 

interviewing, and role playing various hypothetical scenarios. 

After an interviewer could successfully role play several 

scenarios, he/she began to conduct interviews for the study. 

2.3.3 Response Rate 

Data for this survey was collected over a period of 6 

months from November 1986 to April, 1987. Response rates 

obtained for this survey were exceptionally high for telephone 

suneys, due in part to the mandatory response authority under 

which the survey was conducted. 

99 percent, where.only 10 establishments refused to respond. 

The final response rate was over 

A number of approaches were used to encourage the 

recipients of the questionnaire to complete the telephone 

interview. The cover letter informed recipients of their legal 

2-14 
w 

a 

obligation to respond to the telephone interview. 

respondents who did not return their questionnaires received 

follow up telephone calls and a follow up letter informing them 

of their lateness of response. Other pre-data collection 

procedures described above, such as the mailout of questions and 

the telephone hotline, were implemented to encourage respondents 

to answer the questionnaire. The questions were also designed so 

that the respondents could provide responses consistent with 

their normal recordkeeping practices, thereby making it easier to 

respond. 

NonWhen an interviewer could not reach an establishment at 

a given phone number, telephone directory searches and phone 

calls to corporate offices were used to obtain a new phone 

number. All locational addresses were verified during the data 

collection procedure. If these two routes were unsuccessful for 

obtaining a new telephone number, we checked to see if the 

questionnaire package was returned. If an establishment could 

not be contacted after trying several sources, the establishment 

was considered ineligible and assigned a result code of I1It8. 

2.3.4 Data Quality Assurance Procedures 

During the time interviews were conducted, the data was 

edited with a series of manual and computerized data checks and 

data retrieval for incomplete cases was completed. Following a 

CAT1 interview, coders manually checked the data for valid result 

codes, inconsistencies, outliers and incomplete values to 

identify cases that needed data retrieval. 

editing was completed, the data was run through a series of 

computerized edit checks which included frequencies, cross 

tabulations, plots and lists of individual cases. Once again 

coders checked cases for valid result codes, inconsistencies, 

After the.manua1 
. ... 

outliers and incomplete values to identify cases that needed data 

retrieval. 

Data retrieval is the process of recontacting the 

respondent to clarify information provided during an earlier 

interview or to collect missing information. Data retrieval for 

this study was prioritized to a list of select edit checks. The 

highest priority was placed on two sets of data items that were 

identified as vlCriticalll or' necessary in meeting EPA's 

objectives:. 

0 The number of units at establishment; 

o The quantity of industrial Subtitle D waste managed in 

any one of the onsite waste management units. 

If data was incomplete for either one of these two 

items,'the case was immediately sent back for data retrieval. 

Typical reasons for data retrieval on these two sets of items 

1 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I 

a 

I 

were incorrect unit of measurements, '*Don't Know" responses, and 

values that were out of range. An attempt was made to limit data 

retrieval to one time per case. 

1 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

'2-16 1 
3.0 STATISTICAL RELIABILITY AND DATA ACCURACY 

This report presents estimates of a number of 

characteristics of interest to EPA. These include, for example, 

estimates of the number of establishments with a particular waste 

management unit and total quantity of Subtitle D waste managed in 

landfills, surface impoundments, land application units, and 

waste piles. It is important to keep in mind that these are 

statistical survey estimates and are subject to error. Such 

error can be classified into two general categories: sampling 

error and nonsampling error. 

Sampling error is the difference between the estimate 

obtained from the sample and the value that would have been 

obtained had a complete census been conducted using the exact 

same procedures and instruments as the sample. It is typically 

measured by confidence intervals and standard errors (standard 

deviations of an estimate). 

other sources of error that might occur in a survey. These 

include mistakes in entering values on a questionnaire, 

misinterpretation of questions, undetected data entry errors, 

transcription errors, nonresponse, etc. In general, nonsampling 

errors cannot be measured from the data collected in a survey. 

Nevertheless, for this survey, we did identify sources of 

nonsampling error and took measures to minimize their impact. 

Nonsampling error refers to all 

3.1 Sampling Error 

Sections 4.1 and 4.2 present national estimates and the 

major industr$-specific estimates (i-e., those industries that 

account for over 70 percent or more of the national estimate) 

each variable that EPA outlined in its objectives. 

for 

In these 

3 -1 
I 

corresponding standard errors. 1 

sections, we provide the standard errors and 95 percent 

confidence intervals for each of the national estimates, while 

Appendix C contains all industry-specific estimates and 

Sampling error for the national estimates outlined by I 

I 

I 

I 

EPA tended to be rather low. 

(standard error as a percentage of the estimate) ranged between 1 

percent and 10 percent for estimates on the total number of 

establishments that managed Subtitle D waste or used a certain 

(CV) tended to be slightly larger when trying to estimate the 

units (11%) and were even higher when the quantity was estimated 

The coefficient of variation 

land-based waste management unit. The coefficient of variation 

total quantity of Subtitle D waste managed through land-based 

by unit type, ranging between 3.8 percent for waste piles. and 27 

percent for landfills. 

When examining industry-specific estimates, the 

variability tends to fluctuate among industries. 

industry estimates on number of establishments and number of 

units were generally lower than for estimates on quantities of 

Variability for 

I 

I 

waste managed. The variability for a waste quantity estimate by 

industry ranged from as low as a CV of 1 percent to as high as a 

CV of 97 percent. The high variability for an estimate of a 

sDecific industry can * be attributed to the small number of smalland medium-sized establishments in the sample that have a unit 7 

type and to the extreme quantities reported within a size 

1 

D 

stratum. 

it is important to refer to Appendix C for the reliability of 

these estimates. 

Therefore, when examining industry-specific estimates, 

Section ~ 4.3 through 4.6 provide estimates on variables 

that were not out1"ined in EPA's objectives, but the Agency wanted 

to collect some data on them. I One set of variables included 

3-2 
establishments that manage Subtitle D waste in land-based waste 

management units are found in 23 industries.' 

narrowed down to 17 of the 23 industries which EPA believed to 

generate over 99 percent of the non-hazardous or Subtitle D 

waste. Consequently, there is the possibility that the sampling 

frame did not accurately represent the industries that generate 

Subtitle D industrial waste; however, it is our belief that this 

source of error is relatively small. 

The survey was 

2.' The respondent's ability to understand the 

terminoloqv of the study. 

Because EPA has never directly regulated the management 

of industrial Subtitle D waste, a number of respondents were not 

familiar with RCRA terminology. For example, many respondents 

did not know what I1Subtitle D" waste was or did not understand 

the term "Small Quantity Generator" hazardous wastes. 

with terminology may have caused some respondents to 

inadvertently exclude certain wastes or units which should have 

been reported and vice versa. In order to help the respondents 

understand the terminology, EPA included a list of definitions 

with the list of questions which were sent to the respondent 

before the interview. 

number where respondents could call in if they had any questions. 

Confusion 

Westat also managed a toll-free telephone 

3. Respondent's abilitv to estimate quantitative 

responses. 

There were some questions in the questionnaire which 

respondents said they could not estimate. Specifically, a number 

'Summarv of Data on Industrial Non-Hazardous DiSROSal Practices, 

prepared by Science Applications International Corporation for 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-01- 

7059, December 5, 1985. 

3-4 
surface area and capacity estimates for the land-based.waste 

management unit types. Sampling errors for the national 

estimates of capacity and surface area tended to be unusually 

high. For example, the CV for the surface area of a land 

application unit was 60 percent and for the capacity of a 

landfill was 76 percent. One reason for the large variability is 

that the size of the establishment may not have been a useful 

stratifying variable for estimating capacity or surface area 

because large establishments may not necessarily have units with 

large surface areas or capacities. Because the capacity and 

surface area estimates for the waste management unit types show 

such high variability, these estimates are presented in Section 

4.3 and are not-integrated as part of the overall analysis of 

each unit. This section also presents estimates for these 

variables and reliability and accuracy of them. 

Sections 4.4 through 4.6 provide estimates on the 

remaining data. Standard errors are not presented for most of 

these estimates; however, one can expect high variability because 

the survey was not designed to provide accurate estimates on 

these variables. Moreover, some estimates are based on a small 

size, particularly for certain industries. Because sample size 

is key for providing accurate estimates, the unweighted sample 

size is given with each estimate in Appendix C. 

3.2 Nonsampling Error 

Sources -for nonsampling error for this survey include: 

1. ADproximation of the Universe. 

The development of the sampling frame was based on 

previous EPA research which determined \ that the universe of 

3-3 
of respondents could not estimate the quantity of waste managed 

in landfills or surface impoundments. A number of respondents 

could not estimate the design capacity of landfills or surface 

impoundments and responded by saying lldon't know" or that the 

capacity was lllimitlessel. If a respondent could not provide a 

quantitative response, the response was coded as a Itdon't know". 

Attempts were made to minimize such responses. Schedule- and 

budget did not allow us to contact every respondent that provided 

ambiguous responses: however, we did contact all respondents that 

answered Itdon't know" to the critical items discussed in Section 

2.3.4 and tried to obtain a quantitative response. When data 

retrieval was completed, there were 260 respondents that answered 

"don't know81 to the critical items. 

Table 3-1 presents the count of Itdon't know" responses 

to the quantitative questions asked in the questionnaire and for 

which estimates are provided in Section 4. The number of 

respondents answering lldon't know" to one of the quantitative 

questions ranged between 7 and 92. For the critical item 

questions, "don't know1* responses as a percentage of respondents 

answering the question ranged between less than 1 percent 

(quantity of waste managed through a landfill) to 3.6 percent 

(quantity of waste stored in waste piles). 

responses to some noncritical item questions (capacity and 

surface area) tended to be in absolute numbers and percentages 

higher than the critical item questions, particularly for the 

capacity and remaining capacity of landfills. Eleven percent of 

the respondents that had landfills (92) answered '#don't know" to 

the capacity of landfills and 8 percent (66) answered ltdon't 

know" to the remaining capacity. 

llDon't know" 

In this study, the "don't know1I responses for a 

specific variable do not necessarily present a problem unless a 

large number of I1don't knows" for that variable are from large 

.' 3 -5 
Table 3-1. "Don't Know Responses" 

B 

I 

# Large 

# Large # of Estabs. with 

# Estabs. Estabs. Don't Know Don't Know 

Question with Unit with Unit Responses Responses 

Quantity of Waste 

Managed through 

Landfills* 536 

536 

536 

6 

92 

66 

an 2 

a27 

827 

Design Capacity of 

Landfills 53 

36 

Remaining Capacity 

of Landfills . 

Quantity of Waste 

Managed through 

Surf ace 

Impoundments* 33 

13 

59 

25 

1,930 1,083 

Design Capacity of 

Surf ace 

Impoundments 

Quantity of Waste 

Managed through 

Land Application 

Units* 

1;930 1,083 

354 iai 7 1 

Surface Area of 

Land Application 

Units 354 181 2 0 

Quantity of- Waste 

stored in 

Waste Piles* 853 375 31 11 

Surface Area of 

Waste Piles as3 375 5 1 1 

~ *Critical Item Questions I 

3-6 
establishments. 

because it was believed that the large establishments would 

account for a sizable proportion of the waste managed through 

waste management units. A large establishment that answered 

I*don't know81 to a question on the quantity of waste managed 

through a unit may manage a relatively large amount of waste 

through a landfill, for example. When estimating the total 

quantity of waste managed through a landfill, a missing response 

from a large establishment can lead to a biased estimate and thus 

underestimate the quantity of waste managed through a landfill. 

Large establishments were sampled with certainty 

Column 2 of the Table 3-1 lists the number of large 

establishments that have the unit type and Column 4 shows the 

number of large establishments that answered Isdon't know" to the 

quantitative question. For critical item questions, the 

percentage of large establishments that answered "don't know" 

ranges between less than 1 percent and 3 percent. 

noncritical items, on the other hand, a larger percentage of 

large establishments answered 11don8t know". 

(53) of the large establishments that had landfills answered 

lldontt known1 to the design capacity of landfills, and nearly 7 

percent (36) answered Itdon't know1' to remaining design capacity. 

If the large establishments answering 'Idon't knoww1 account for a 

 significant^ percentage of total capacity and remaining capacity, 

the national and industry-specific estimates will be biased. 

For certain 

Nearly 10 percent 

There is also another aspect of the respondent's 

ability to provide estimates, and that is the ability to provide 

accurate estimates. Comments that were recorded for interviews 

indicated that a number of respondents were unsure about quantity 

estimates that they provided. During the data retrieval process, 

respondents who provided quantitative responses that were out-ofrange or did not make sense (e.g., remaining capacity was larger 

than the capacity) were recontacted and asked to verify or 

3-7 
clarify responses. Comments which were recorded for each case 

also indicated that respondents were not sure about responses 

that they had provided earlier, particularly for questions on the 

quantity of waste managed through a unit and the capacity and 

size of a unit. Respondents were asked to provide their best 

estimate for quantitative questions; however, comments indicated 

that a number of estimates, particularly for capacity, may not be 

very accurate. Consequently national and industry specific 

estimates may be biased, and therefore one should use caution 

when interpreting these numbers. 

4. Convertina responses with various units of 

measurement into resDonses with a standardized 

unit of measurement. 

In answering the quantitative qyestions, respondents 

provided responses consistent with their recordkeeping practices. 

For example, respondents could provide responses to volume 

questions in tons, gallons, cubic yards, cubic feet, acre-feet, 

etc. For analysis purposes, all responses were converted to 

standardized units of measurement. In converting responses to 

standardized units, assumptions were made with regard to the 

density of waste and quantities were rounded off, all of which 

may contribute to nonsampling errors. We did,. however, carefully 

check comments of each case for any elaborations on certain 

responses. 

check for unusually large or small quantities. 

We also ran the data through numerous edit checks to 

3-8 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

1 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

E 

B 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 
4.0 RESULTS OF THE STUDY 

In this section, we first present the descriptive 

statistics that describe the Subtitle D waste management 

practices, focusing specifically on waste managed through landbased waste management units. .We first present statistics that 

describe the waste management practices at the establishment 

level : 

o The estimated number of establishments that manage 

Subtitle D industrial process waste: 

o The estimated number of establishments that manage 

Subtitle D industrial process waste in landfills, 

surface impoundments, land application units, and waste 

piles. 

o The estimated quantity of Subtitle D industrial process 

waste managed through land-based 'waste management 

units: 

We then follow with a discussion on statistics that 

describe waste management practices at the waste management unit 

level : 

0 Total estimated number of landfills, surface 

o 

impoundments, land application units, and waste piles: 

Total estimated quantity of Subtitle D industrial 

process waste managed through each land-based waste 

management unit: 

o Estimated Subtitle D industrial process waste managed 

per unit for each type of waste management unit: 

The above statistics are presented as national and 

industry specific estimates and meet EPA's objectives outlined in 

Section 1.3. 

initial objectives and presents statistics that describe size and 

capacity of waste management units, the usage of alternative 

The remainder of this section goes beyond EPA's 

4 -1 
waste management practices, types of closed units, and the 

management of small quantity generator and other special wastes. 

Throughout this section, we use the word ttwastetl which 

means Subtitle D industrial process waste unless otherwise 

specified. Furthermore the usage of the word "waste management 

I 

I 

I 

E 

3 

I 

units" or @tunitstt refers to landfills, surface impoundments, land 1 

application units, and'waste piles that are used to handle 

Subtitle D waste, or waste not regulated as hazardous. I 

The following subsections are written so as to present, 

national estimates, followed by industry and/or size of 

establishment estimates. 

the results for industry-specific and size estimates. Industry 

Graphics are used -to visually present 

groups in the graphs are denoted by numbers which are given in 

Table 4-1. ' 1 

Text and tables that discuss industry-specific 

estimates usually focus on the industries that account for over 

70 percent or 80 percent of the national estimate. 

discussion on industries in order to contain the length of the 

We limit the 

1 

report. 

presented in the following subsections. 

Appendix C contains tables that correspond to each graph 

In discussing the estimates, we present the standard 

errors for all national estimates while standard errors for 

industry-specific estimates are given in Appendix C. Where 

needed, we also discuss any problems with interpreting the 

estimates; e.g., interpretation of the question, nonresponse 

specific question. 

4-2 

I 

I 

I 

I 

to a 

m 
Table 4-1. Industry Group Numbering System 

Group Number Industry GrOUD 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8. 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

Organic Chemicals 

Primary Iron and Steel 

Fertilizer and Agricultural 

Chemicals 

Electric Power Generation 

Plastics and Resins 

Manufacturing 

Inorganic Chemicals 

Stone, Clay, Glass, and 

Concrete 

Pulp and Paper 

Primary Nonferrous Metals 

Food and Kindred Products 

Water Treatment 

Petroleum Refining 

Rubber. and Miscellaneous 

Products 

Transportation Equipment 

Selected Chemicals and 

Allied Products 

Textile Manufacturing 

Leather and Leather 

Products 
1.1 Uaste Management Practices at the Es ablishment Level 

4.1.1 Total Number of Establishments that Manage Industrial 

subtitle D Uaste 

Of the 15,844 establishments sampled, 69 percent or 

10,931 establishments managed Subtitle D industrial process 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

wastes in 1985. Based on the sample, we estimate that nationally 

72,421 establishments managed Subtitle D industrial process waste 

in 1985. I 

1 

B 

Number of I 

Table 4-2. Estimated Number of Establishments that Managed 

Subtitle D Industrial Waste in 1985 

Standard Confidence Interval 

Est hate Error (95%) 

Establishments 72,421 758 70,933 - 73,907 

Exhibit 4-1 displays the estimated number of I 

u 

8 

I 

1 

establishments managing Subtitle D industrial waste by industry. 

Over 70 percent of the establishments that managed industrial 

Subtitle D waste were found in five industries which are listed 

in Table 4-3. 

4-4 
I 

I 

L - 

* 

I I I 1 I I I I 

N - 

b 

m 

N 

4-5 
Table 4-3. Estimated Number of Establishments that Managed 

Industrial Subtitle D Waste in 1985 in Select 

Industries I 

I Industry Group Estimated Number of Establishments 

Food and Kindred Products (10) 14 , 542 

Stone, Glass, and Concrete (7) 11,765 1 

Rubber and Miscellaneous 

Products (13) 11,128 i 

Textile Manufacturing (14) a, 274 

Transportation m Equipment (16) 5,760 

I 

P 

I 1 

Another 11 percent of establishments that managed 

Subtitle D ifldustrial process wastes in 1985 were in the pulp'and 

paper (8) an7 the primary nonferrous metals (9) industries. 

I 

I 

I 

i 

t 

4.1.2 Total Number of Establishments that use Waste 

Management Units to Manage Subtitle D Industrial 

Process Wastes 

Re,spondents were asked whether or not waste was managed i 

in landfills, surface impoundments, land application units, or 

wastes piles that were not regulated as hazardous during 1985. 

Of the establishments that managed industrial waste, an estimated 

20 percent or 12,007 establishments managed waste in at least one 

of the land-based waste management units described above. 

1 

4 -6 " 1 
, Table 4-4. Estimated Number of Establishments that Managed 

Waste in-Land-Based Waste Management Units in 1985 

Standard Confidence Interval 

Estimate Error (95%) 

Establishments that 

use Waste Management Units 12 , 007 408. 11,208 - 12,805 

Exhibit 4-2 shows the 12,007 establishxnents distributed 

across industries. As shown in this exhibit, nearly 60 percent 

or 7,089 establishments that managed waste in land-based units in 

1985 were in the stone, clay, glass, and concrete (7) and the 

food and kindred products industry (10). The remaining number of 

establishments were fairly evenly distributed across industries, 

ranging from an estimated 67 establishments in the leather 

industry (17) to 573 establishments in the primazy iron and steel 

industry (2). Table 4-5 lists by industry 80 percent of the 

establishments that used at least one of the four land-based 

waste -management units to manage waste in 1985. 

4 -7 

Table 4-5. Estimated Number of Establishments that Managed 

Waste in Land-Based Waste Management Units by 

Industry in 1985 

Industry Group 

~~ 

Estimated Number of Establishments 

Stone, Clay, Glass 

and Concrete (7) ,4,368 

Food and Kindred 

Products (10) 

Primary Iron and 

Steel (2) 

Textile Manufacturing (16) 

Pulp and Paper (8) 

Petroleum Refining (12) 

Electric.Power Generation 

2,721 

57 3 

520 

498 

459 

396 

Of the estimated 12,007 establishments that managed 

wastes in Subtitle D units, an estimated 2,321 establishments 

managed waste in landfills, 6,681 establishments managed wastes 

in surface impoundments, 2,136 establishments managed waste in 

land application units, and 4 , 205 establishments managed waste in 

waste piles. 

4-9 
Table 4-6. Estimated Number of Establishments that Managed 

Wastes in,Landfills, Surface Impoundments, Land 

Application Units, and Waste Piles in 1985 I 

Standard Confidence Interval 

Estimate Error (95%) 

Landfills (LF) 

Surf ace 

Impoundments (SI) 

Land Application 

Units (LA) 

Waste Piles (WP) 

2,321 168 

6,681 298 

2,136 200 

4 , 205 257 

1,992 - 2,649 

6,098 - 7,265 ,$ 

1,734 - 2,528 

3,700 - 4,708 

Exhibit 4-3 displays, by industry, the number of 

establishments that managed wastes in each of the four land-based 

waste management units in 1985. Each industry, except for the 

the leather and leather products industry (17), managed waste in 

all four unit types. Furthermore, the use of each unit type for 

managing waste was dominated by certain industries, particularly 

the stone, clay, glass, and concrete industry (7) and the food 

and kindred products industry (10). In 1985, these two 

industries accounted for at least 50 percent of the 

establishments that used each type of unit. 

industries, the usage of each unit type tends to be rather evenly 

distributed. Table 4-7 presents by unit type those industries 

that account for over 70 percent of the establishments using 

waste management units in 1985. 

I 

s 

4 

I 

N 

I 

Among the remaining 

4-10 
W 

r 

4-11 
1 Table 4-7. Estimated Number of Establishments that used Waste 

Management Units in 1985 by Industry Group 

Unit type I Estimated Number 

Industry Group of Establishments Percentage 

Land f i 11s Stone, Clay, Glass 

and Concrete (7) 

Food and Kindred 

Products (10) 

Pulp and Paper (8) 

Primary Iron and 

Steel (2) 

Electric Power and 

Generation (4) 

Surf ace 

ImDoundments Stone, Clay, Glass, 

and Concrete (7) 

1,153 

189 

180 

177 

126 

1,977 

Food and Kindred - Products (10) 1,713 

Textile Manufacturing (16) 388 

Inorganic Chemicals (6) 345 

Electric Power and 

Generation (4) 

Land ARDliCatiOII 

Units Food and Kindred 

Products (10) 

Stone, Clay, Glass, 

and Concrete (7) 

Waste Piles Stone, Clay, Glass, 

and Concrete (7) 

Food and Kindred 

Products (10) 

Primary Iron and 

322 

1,375 

188 

2,082 

8.1 I 

7.8 

7.8 

5.4 

29.6 

26.6 

6.8 

6.2 

4.8 

,64 i 4 

8.8 

e 

1 

'y 

8 49.6 

340 

335 

8.1 

Steel (2) 8.0 

Transportation 

Equipment (14) 307 7.3 

4-12 
4.1.3 Total Quantity of Waste Managed in Subtitle D Landbased Management Units 

If an establishment managed waste through a waste 

management unit, the respondent was asked to report how much 

waste was managed through each type of waste management unit. An 

estimated 6.9 billion metric tons of industrial Subtitle D waste 

was managed through landfills, surface impoundments, land 

application units, and waste piles during 1985. 

Table 4-8. Total Estimate Quantity of Subtitle D Industrial 

Process Waste Managed through Land-Based Waste 

Management Units 

(in billion metric tons) 

Standard Confidence Interval 

Estimate Error (95%) 

Quantity 

of Waste 6.924 7.38 5.478 - 8.37 

In Section 4.1.2 we noted that several industries, such 

as stone, glass, and concrete and food and kindred products, have 

a large number of establishments that manage Subtitle D 

industrial process wastes through waste management units. These 

same industries, however, do not manage the largest quantities of 

Subtitle D industrial process wastes. In contrast, the pulp and 

paper industrfr (8), which does not have a large number of 

establishments (an estimated 557), managed the largest quantity 

of waste through land-based management units in 1985. As shown 

in Exhibit 4-4, the pulp and paper industry accounts for nearly 

30 percent of the waste managed through land-based management 

4-13 
P 

-3 

Q, 

1: 

I 

0 0 I I I I 

0 

a 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 a 0, 

0 

0 

N *a r( 

m 

4-14 
units in 1985, totaling an estimated 2.04 billion metric tons. 

Table 4-9 displays the industries that account for over 70 

percent of the waste managed through the four waste management 

units in 1985. The industries shown in the table account for an 

estimated 1862 establishments that used land-based units in 1985, 

which is less than the number of establishments in either food 

and kindred products or the stone, clay, glass, and concrete 

industries (26,307 establishments), yet these industries managed 

more ,than twice the estimated quantity of waste in 1985. 

Table 4-9. Estimated Quantity of Waste Managed Through Landbased Waste Management Units by Industry in 1985 

Industry Group Quantity of Waste (metric tons) 

Pulp and Paper (8) 2.047 X lo9 

Primary Iron . and Steel "(2) 1.182 x lo9 

t 

Electric Power 

Inorganic Chemicals (6) 836 x lo6 

and Generation (4) 993 x lo6 

As noted earlier, the sample was stratified by size of 

establishment because! we believed that larger-sized 

establishments' would generate greater quantities of waste than 

smaller-sized establi'shments. Exhibit 4-5 displays the total 

estimated quantity of waste managed through waste management 

units by large-, medium-, and small-sized establishments. 

Larged-sized establishments managed an estimated 4.3 

billion metric tons of Subtitle D industrial waste, medium-sized 

establishments managed an estimated 2.2 billion metric tons, and 

small-sized establishments managed an estimated 463 million 

4-15 
n 

w 

E 

? 

b 

N, 

rn 

I I I I I I 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

OJ 

a 

0 4r, 

0 

0 

rn 

0 

0 : 0 e + 

4-16 

c 
metric tons. 

managed in land-based waste management units, large-sized 

establishments account for an estimated 62 percent, medium-sized 

account for an estimated 31 percent, and small-sized 

establihsments account for an estimated 7 percent. As expected 

from the sample design, the estimated average quantity of waste 

managed per establishment is greater for large-sized 

establishments than for medium-; and small-sized establishments. 

A large-sized establishment managed an estimated average 2.8 

million metric tons, a medium-sized establishment managed 492,000 

metric tons, and a small-sized establishment managed 76,500 

metric tons. 

As a percentage of the total quantity of waste 

~ 

Furthermore, we anticipated that the management of 

waste would be skewed; e.g., 5 percent of the establishments 

would manage 95 percent of the waste managed through waste 

management units. The number of establishments and the total 

cumulative amount of waste managed per establishment was plotted 

in order to examine the distribution of Subtitle D industrial 

waste managed through land-based units across establishments. 

Exhibit 4-6 displays the plot of percentage of establishments 

versus the percentage of waste managed by establishments, and as 

expected,Fthe distribution of waste is skewed. 

that 50 percent of the establishments manage less than 20 percent 

of the waste managed through Subtitle D waste management units. 

The remai&ng 50 percent of the establishments show a large 

increase in the quantity of waste managed per establishment. 

Ninety percent of the establishments, however, still manage less 

than 45 percent of the waste, and the remaining 10 percent of the 

establishments manage over 50 percent of the waste managed 

through Subtitle D units. 

The plot shows 

4-17 
z 

4-18 
4.2 Waste Management Practices at the Unit Level 

This section examines each unit type: landfills, 

surface impoundments, land application units, and waste piles. 

For each unit type, we present national and industry-specific 

estimates on the total number of units, the total amount of waste 

managed, and the waste managed per unit type. 

4.2.1 Landfills I 

In 1985, there were an estimated 2757 landfills that 

were used to manage industrial Subtitle D waste. An estimated 

78.4 million metric tons were disposed in landfills during 1985. 

Table 4-10. Landfills in' 1985 

Standard Confidence Interval 

Estimate Error (95%) 

Total Number of 

Landfills 2757 196 2730 - 3138 

Quantity of Waste 

Managed through 

Landfills (in 

million metric 

tons) 78.4 21.3 36.65 - 120.11 

Exhibit 4-7a shows the distribution of the number of 

landfills among industries. In 1985, seventy-five percent of the 

landfills were operated by 5 industries which are listed in 

Table 4-11. 

4-19 
0 

, 4- 

f 8 

s 

s 

6 f s 

4-20 
Table 4-11. Estimated Number of Landfill Units by Industry 

in 1985 

Industry Group Estimated Number Percentage 

Stone, Clay, Glass, 

and Concrete (7) 

Pulp and Paper (8) 

Primary Iron and 

Steel (2) 

Food and Kindred 

Products (10) 

Electric Power and 

Generation’ (4) 

1,257 

259 

202 

194 

155 

45.0 

9.4 

7.3 

7.0 

5.6 

Though the stone, clay, glass, and concrete industry 

operated 45 percent of the landfills in 1985, this industry only 

disposed 8 percent of the waste managed through landfills. As 

shown in Exhibit 4-7b, the electric power industry disposed an 

estimated-48.6 million metric tons of waste into landfills, which 

accounts for 62 percent of the waste disposed in landfills during 

1985. Table 4-12 lists the industries which account for over 80 

percent of the waste disposed in landfills. 

4-21 
Table 4-12. Estimated Quantity of Waste Managed through 

Landfills by Industry in 1985 

Industry Group Estimated Quantity Percentage 

Electric Power and 

Generation (4) 

Stone, Clay, Glass, 

and Concrete (7) 

48.6 X lo6 

6.9 X lo6 

62.0 

8.0 

Pulp and Paper (8) 5.3 x lo6 6.9 

Fertilizer and 

Agricultural 

Chemicals (3) 5.26 x lo6 6.7 

Next, we examined the average quantity of waste managed 

per unit for each industry. 

the average quantities of waste managed through an individual 

unit for each industry. 

reveals the result of industries that have relatively few units 

but manage large quantities of waste and vice versa. 

7c shows the waste managed per unit for each industry during 

1985, and Table 4-13 lists the five industries that managed the 

largest quantities of waste per unit. 

This ratio provides information on 

This information is useful because it 

Exhibit 4- 

4-22 
respondents were told to report quantities. 

estimates, respondents were told to include the quantity of waste 

When providing 

and the liquid that the waste was dissolved in; i.e., the entire 

volume of wastewater. 

Table 4-14. Surface Impoundments in 1985 

Standard Confidence Interval 

Estimate Error (95%) 

Total Number of 

Surface 

Impoundments 15 , 253 700 13,881 - 16,625 

Quantity of Waste 

Managed through 

Surface Impoundments 

(in million metric . tons) 6,685 737.5 5239 - 8131 

Exhibit 4-8a shows the distribution of the number of 

surface impoundments among industries. Nearly seventy percent of 

the surface impoundments were operated in 1985 by five industries 

which are listed in Table 4-15. 
Table 4-13. Estimated Average Quantity of Waste Managed per 

Landfill by Industry in 1985 (in metric tons) 

~ 

Industry Group 

Waste per 

Unit > 

Electric Power 

and Generation (10) 313,201 

Fertilizer and 

Agricultural Chemicals (3) 168,588 

Inorganic Chemicals (6) 24,423 

Pulp and Paper (8) I 20,592 

Food and Kindred Products (10) 16 , 807 

* As shown in the above table and Exhibit 4-7c, the 

electric power industry managed the largest average quantity of 

waste per unit across all industries. The stone, clay, glass, 

and concrete industry which had the largest number of landfills 

managed one of the smallest average quantities of waste. 

4-2-2 Surface Impoundments 

In 1985 there were an estimated 15,253 surface 

impoundments that were used to manage Subtitle D waste. 

estimated 6.685 billion metric tons were managed through surface 

impoundments during 1985. 

managed through this unit type is several order of magnitudes 

greater than the quantity of waste managed through other unit 

types. This is largely due to the type of waste managed, 

typically liquid waste, and the nature of the industrial process 

which tend to be large-scale wastewater treatment processes. The 

large quantities reported by establishments is also due to how 

An 

The estimated .quantity of waste 

4-23 
3 I li" e 

U 

z 

;*k. 

uo 

E 

g:-g 

0 8 0 

0 n 8 

5 0, 

8 

0 aI 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 D 0 m Q) 0 

-*- 

30 

in 

I 

d 

T 

.. 4-25 
Table 4-15, Estimated Number of Surface Impoundments by Industry 

in 1985 

Industry Group Estimated Number Percentage I 

Food and kindred 

products (10) 4,166 27.3 

Stone, Clay, Glass, 

and Concrete (7) 

Electric Power and 

Generation (10) 

3,153 

1,220 ' 

21.0 

7.9 c 

I Inorganic Chemicals (6) 1,039 6.8 

Pulp and Paper (8) 918 6.0 

As shown in Exhibit 4-8a, nearly 50 percent of the I 

I 

I 

surface impoundments, by industry, in 1985. Table 4-16 lists E 

i 

surface impoundments in 1985 were operated by two industries, 

food and kindred products and stone, clay, glass, and concrete. 

Though these two industries operate half of the surface 

impoundments, they accounted for less than 15 percent of the 

waste managed through this unit type during 1985. 

displays the total estimated quantity of waste managed through 

those industries that account for over 80 percent of the waste 

managed through surface impoundments, 

Exhibit 4-8b 

- 

4-26 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 
Table 4-16. Quantity of Waste Managed through Surface 

Impoundments by Industry in 1985 

Industry Group Estimate Percentage 

Pulp and Paper (8) 2.032 x lo9 30.4 

Primary Iron and 

Steel (2) 1.173 X lo9 

Electric Power and 

Generation (4) 943.3 x lo6 

Inorganic Chemicals (6) 795.5 x lo6 

Stone, Glass, Clay, and 

Concrete (7) 550.2 x lo6 

17.5 

14.1 

11.8 

8.2 

The pulp and paper industry and the primary iron and 

steel industry together account for nearly 50 percent of the 

waste managed through surface impoundments during 1985. 

the industries in Table 4-16 operate relatively few surface 

impoundments, the waste managed per unit is relatively large in 

comparison with other industries that have numerous units. 

Exhibit 4-8c displays the estimated average quantity of waste 

managed per unit in 1985, and Table 4-17 lists the five 

industries that managed the largest quantities of waste per unit. 

When comparing Tables 4-16 and 4-17, the four industries (primary 

iron and steel, pulp and paper, electric power, and inorganic 

chemicals) which managed the largest quantities of waste also 

managed the largest quantities of waste per unit. 

Because 

4-27 
Table 4-17. E tim ted Average Qu ntity of Waste Man 

Surface Impoundment by Industry in 1985 

tons) 

ged per 

(in metric 

Industry Group 

Quantity of Waste 

Managed per Unit 

Primary Iron and 

Steel (2) 3 I 065,411 

Pulp and Paper (8) 2 I 214,809 

Electric Power and 

Generation (4) 773,242 

Inorganic Chemicals (6) 765,625 

Plastic and Resins 

Manufacturing (5) 552,736 

In comparison with landfills, larger average quantities 

of waste tend to be managed through a surface impoundment. 

is typically due to waste treatment processes involving a 

continual flow of wastewater or liquids through surface 

impoundment units. 

(electric power, inorganic chemicals, and pulp and paper) also 

managed the largest quantities of waste through landfills. 

This 

Three of the industries listed in Table 4-17 

4.2.3 Land Application Units 

In 1985, there were an estimated 4,308 land application 

units that were used to manage Subtitle D waste. 

90.1 million metric tons were applied to land application units 

during 1985. 

An estimated 

4-20 
Table 4-18. Land Application Units in 1985 

Standard Confidence Interval 

Estimate Error (95%) 

Number of Land 

Application Units 4,308 1,100 

Quantity of Waste I 

Applied to Land 

Application Units 

(in million metric 

tons) 90.144 12.08 

2,151 - 6,465 

66.46 - 113.83 

Exhibit 4-9a shows the distribution of the number of 

land application units among industries, The number of land 

application units are more concentrated in one industry than is 

evidenced for the landfills and surface impoundments. The food 

and kindred products industry operated over 70 percent of the 

land application units in 1985. Table 4-19 lists the five 

industries that account for over 95 percent of the number of land 

application units operated during 1985. 

4-29 
z 

u 

:?2 

P 

Y 

I i. 

f 

9 

. 4-30 
Table 4-19. Estimated Number of Land Application Units 

by Industry in 1985 

Industry Group Estimated Number Percentage 

Food and Kindred 

Products (10) 

Stone, Clay, Glass, 

and Concrete (7) 

Fertilizer and 

Agricultural 

Chemicals (3) 

Water Treatment (11) 

pulp and Paper (8) 

3,128 72.6 

309 7.2 

160 3.7 

147 

139 

3.4 

3.2 

As discussed earlier, the usage of landfills and ' 

surface impoundments was such that the stone, clay, glass, and 

concrete industry and the food and kindred products industry have 

relatively numerous units but these industries do not manage 

large quantities of waste through their units. Land application 

units show a different pattern of usage. The food and kindred 

products industry which operated the largest number of land 

application units during 1985 also managed the largest quantity 

of waste through their units. Exhibit 4-9b displays the quantity 

of waste managed through land application units by industry. As' 

shown in the exhibit, the quantity of waste managed through land 

application units is largely concentrated in three industries: 

food and kindred products, water treatment, and pulp and paper. 

These industries account for over 90 percent of the waste managed 

through this unit type during 1985 and are listed in Table 4-20. 

4-35 
Table 4-20. Estimated Quantity of Waste Managed through Land 

Application Units by Industry in 1985 (in metric 

tons) m 

Industry Group Estimated Quantity Percentage 

Food and Kindred 

Products (10) 69.034 x lo6 

Water Treatment (11) 8.140 X lo6 

76.6 

9.0 

Pulp and Paper (8) 8.128 x lo6 9.0 

8 

1 

I 

1 

I 

1 

When examining the average quantity of waste managed 

per unit, several industries manage large quantities of waste 

through few units though the total amount of waste for that 

industry is relatively small. 

quantity of waste managed per unit for each industry in 1985. 

The food and kindred products industry operates a number of units 

that is proportional to the quantity of waste managed through 

those units and therefore does not manage a large quantity of 

Table 4-21 lists 

the industries which managed the largest average quantities of 

waste per unit in 1985 and shows that organic chemicals and pulp 

and paper are the two industries managing the largest volumes per 

unit . 

Exhibi,t 4-9c displays the average 

waste per unit relative to other industries. 

4-32 
Table 4-21. Estimated Quantity of Waste Managed per Land 

Application Unit by Industry in 1985 (in metric 

tons) 

Quantity of Waste 

Industry Group Managed per Unit 

organic Chemicals (6) 62,357 

Pulp and Paper (8) 58,494 

Water Treatment (11) 55,510 

Primary Nonferrous 

Metals (9) 38,887 

Textile Manufacturing (16) 22,944 

4.204 Waste Piles . 

In 1985, there were an'estimated 5,335 waste piles used 

' to manage Subtitle D waste. An estimated 69.9 million metric 

tons were stored in the waste piles during 1985. 

Table 4-22. Waste Piles in 1985 

Standard Confidence Interval 

Estimate . Error (95%) 

Number of Wastes 

Piles 5,335 336 4,676 - 5,994 

Quantity of Waste 

Stored (in million 

metric tons) 69.94 2.667 64.69 - 75.19 

4-33 
Exhibit 4-10a shows the distribution of the number of 

waste piles across industries. Table 4-23 lists the industries 

that account for over 75 percent of the waste piles that were 

active during 1985. 

Table 4-23. Estimated Number of Waste Piles by Industry in 1985 

Industry Group Estimate Percentage 

Stone, Clay, Glass, 

and Concrete (7) 2 , 528 47.0 

Food and Kindred 

Products (10) 540 10.0 

Primary Iron and 

Steel (2) 

Transportatibn 

Equipment (14) 

464 

362 

Primary Nonferrous 

Metals (9) 312 

8.6 

6.7 

5.8 

Exhibit 4-10b shows the estimated quantities of waste 

managed by industry. 

of units do not necessarily manage the largest quantities of 

waste. Table 4-24 lists the industries that account for over 90 

percent of the waste stored in waste piles. 

which had an estimated 98 waste piles, stored the largest 

quantity of waste (37.6 million metric tons) in waste piles 

during 1985. Food and kindred products, on the other hand, 

operated relatively numerous units but stored only an estimated 

8,240 metric tons during 1985- 

The industries that have the largest number 

Inorganic chemicals, 

I 

I 

3 

I 

I 

1 

1 

a 

4-34 
hE.r 

uo 

E 

4-35 
‘I 

Table 4-24. Estimated Average Quantity of Waste Stored in Waste 

Piles by Industry in 1985 (in metric tons) 

Industry Group Estimated Quantity Percentage E 

Inorganic 

Chemicals (6) 

Stone, Clay, Glass, 

and concrete (7) 

Primary Nonferrous 

Metals (9) 

Primary Iron and 

Steel (2) 

Fertilizer and 

Agricultural 

Chemicals (3 ) 

37.6 x lo6 

8.4 x lo6 

7.9 x lo6 

5.6 x lo6 

4.4 x 106 

54.0 

11.8 

11.3 

7.9 

6.2 

I 

I 

I 

Because the inorganic chemicals industry operates 

relatively few units, it stores a substantially higher volume of 

waste in waste piles than other industries. Exhibit 4-1Oc 

illustrates this point by displaying the estimated average 

quantity of waste stored per unit by industry during 1985, and 

Table 4-25 lists the industries that stored the five largest 

average quantities of waste per unit. 

4-36 

I 

1 

I 

1 

I 

a 
Table 4-25. Estimated Average Quantity of Waste Stored per Unit 

in 1985 (in metric tons) 

Industry Group Quantity of Waste Stored per Unit 

Inorganic Chemicals (6) 

Fertilizer and 

Agricultural Chemicals (4) 

Plastic and Resins 

Manufacturing (5) 

Primary Nonferrous 

Metals (9) 

382,196 

87, I85 

86,334 

25,558 

Primary Iron and 

Steel (2) 12,000 

4.3 Capacity and Surface Area Estimates of Land-Based Waste 

Management Units 

Based on the survey data, there was in 1985 a total 

estimated landfi,ll capacity of 9.42 billion metric tons and a 

remaining capacity of 8.91 billion metric tons: whereas surface 

impoundments had an estimated capacity of 28.78 billion metric 

tons. Size measures for land application units and waste piles 

are given in surface area. 

total estimated surface area of 1.12 million acres and waste 

piles had an estimated surface area of 23,273 acres. 

In 1985, land application units had a 
Table 4-26. Estimated Capacities and Surface Areas of the 

Land-Based Waste Management Units in 1985 

Standard Coefficient of 

Estimate Error Variation (CV) 

Total Capacity 

of Landfills 9.425 X IO9 7.149 X lo9 76% 

Total Remaining 

Capacity of 

Landfills 8.913 X lo9 6.950 X lo9 78% 

Total Capacity 

of Surface 

Impoundments 28.78 x lo9 21.48 x lo9 75% 

Total Surface 

Area of Land 

Application Units 1.12 x lo6 672,848 

Total Surface 

Area of Waste 

Piles 23,273 10,805 

60% 

46% 

The variance of a national estimate is the sum of I 

I 

I 

Using landfill capacity, as an example, the coefficient I 

1 

I 

1 

variances across industries. Therefore, the high variability in 

the national estimates in Table 4-26 is due to the variability 

found in the industries that make up the estimate. (Refer to 

Appendix C for the industry-specific estimates and standard 

errors. ) 

of variation (the standard error as a percentage of the estimate) 

percent. The industries that have high CVs (greater than 20%) 

for this data item are: 

varies by industry from less than 2 percent to as high as 88 

46.6% 

88.4% 

46.2% 

-- Electric Power and Generation 

Stone, Clay, Glass and Concrete 

Food and Kindred Products 

-- 

-- 

., 

4-38 
Rubber and Miscellaneous Products -- 65.8% 

Transportation Equipment -- 22.2% 

The high variability found in the above industries for 

this estimate is due to a combination of factors. First, in some 

of the industries, a small percentage of medium- and small-sized 

establishments sampled had landfills and their responses were 

weighted to provide industry estimates. When the sample size is 

small within a stratum, the variances tend to be larger, and, 

consequently, the small and medium sized establishments 

contribute greatly to the variance of the estimate.' Secondly, 

the responses that are provided by respondents within a size 

stratum varied so highly that large establishments provided 

estimates for capacity that were smaller than estimates provided 

by small and medium sized establishments, and vice versa. 

Consequently, the stratifying variable was not extremely useful 

in decreasing the var,iability of this estimate. 

I 

4-39 

These two reasons, small sample sizes and inefficient 

sample design, resulted in large variability of industry 

estimates for landfill capacity, as well as the other estimates 

listed in Table 4-26. 

In addition to the sampling error, nonsampling error, 

which cannot be measured, is also a key factor to consider in the 

reliability of these estimates. Respondents were asked to 

provide their best estimate of capacity and surface area and were 

not required to collect data in order to provide responses. In 

providing responses, respondents indicated difficulties in 

estimating these size variables. Consequently, responses that 

they did provide may be biased indicating that if every 

establishment was surveyed and asked to provide a best estimate, 

the sum of the estimates would not be the true population total. 
Because the national estimates show such high 

variability, one should instead focus on the individual industry 

estimates and examine the industries with reliable estimates 

versus the industries with highly variable estimates. 

4.4 Alternative Waste Management Practices 

The questionnaire was structured to first determine 

which establishments managed waste in one of the four waste 

management units in 1985. If an establishment did not manage 

waste in any of the land-based waste management units, 

respondents were asked to explain how the waste was managed. The 

question was asked to get a general idea of what waste management 

methods were applied by establishments that did not use land 

based waste management units. Respondents for the estimated 

12,006 establishments that had reported onsite waste management 

units were not asked if they applied other alternative waste 

management practices. 

8 

I 

1 

I 

I 

management practices: I 

Respondents of this question were not given response 

categories for alternative waste management practices, instead 

telephone interviewers were trained to pick up on Itkeytt words 

such as incineration, tank treatment and recycling. The 

responses were then coded into the following alternative waste 

Recycling, Reclaiming and Reusing; 

Incineration; 

Underground Injection; 

Boilers ; 

Tank Treatment; 

Waste is sent offsite; 

Waste is sold: and 

Practice cannot be classified into 1 through 7, above. 

1 

I 

The first five methods were further coded to indicate 

whether the practice was employed onsite, offsite, or location of 

440 
management not specified. The alternative waste management 

practice question was coded for up to four practices reported by 

the respondent. 

As the question about alternative waste management 

practices was only posed to those establishments that did not 

report the use of any one of the four waste management units, we 

can only estimate the number of establishments that employed 

waste management practices other than land-based waste management 

units. In the sample, 8,081 establishments managed waste using 

some alternate waste management practice. Based on the sample, 

we estimate nationally that there were an estimated 60,414 

establishments that used alternative management practices to 

manage their waste in 1985. 

I 

Table 4-27. Estimated Number of Establishments 'that did not 

Manage Subtitle D Industrial Waste in. Land-Based 

Units, but Employed Some Other Method or Practice 

in 1985 

Standard Confidence Interval 

Estimate Error (95%) 

Number of 

Establishments 60,414 757 58,930 - 61,897 

Exhibit 4-11 displays the estimated number of 

establishments that employed alternative waste management 

practices, by industry, in 1985. As shown in the exhibit, 

several industries have a large estimated number of 

establishments that employ alternative practices. The industries 

that account for over 70 percent of the establishments that 

employed alternative practices in 1985 are listed in Table 4-28. 

441 
r 1 I 

0 0 

I I I 

0 0 

0 

0 

0) 

8 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 8 f! 

E! 0, 

mavJs3 # 

E 

I 

1 

8 

I 

1 

I 

t 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

1 

I 

1 

I 

m 

n 

4-42 

L 

ow E 

k 

E 
Table 4-28. Estimated Number of Establishments that Managed 

Subtitle D Industrial Waste Using an Alternative 

Practice, by Industry, in 1985 

Industry Group 

Estimated Number 

of Establishments Percentage 

Food and Kindred Products (10) 11,830 19.6 

Rubber and Misc. Products (13) 10 , 844 18.0 

Transportation Equipment (14) 7,859 13.0 

Stone, Clay, Glass C Concrete (7) 7,397 12.2 

Textile Manufacturing (16) 5,240 8.7 

Table 4-29 displays the estimated total number of 

establishments that.employed alternative practices by location 

(e.g., onsite versus offsite) in 1985. One should note that one 

establishment can employ multiple alternative practices, 

therefore, the estimated number of establishments do not sum to 

60,414. 

and, 
Table 4-29 Estimated Number of Establishments that Employed 

Alternative Waste Management Practices, by Location, 

li in 1985 

- 

Alternative Practice Number of Establisments 

onsite Practices 6,786 

offsite Practices* 54,409 I 

Unspecified Location 

(onsite or Offsite) I 3,244 

Unspecified Practice 

I and Location 4 , 744 

1 *Includes waste that was sold or sent offsite for management. 

Because EPA's emphasis is on onsite waste management 

practices, we limit the discussion of the industry-specific 

estimates to onsite alternative waste management practices. 

Table 4-30 displays by type of practice the estimated 6,786 

establishments that employed alternative waste management 

practices onsite during 1985. 

I 

I 

I 

4-44 
Table 4-30. Estimated # of Responses for Alternative Waste 

Management Practices 

Alternative Practice Number of EstabPisments 

___ 

Onsite Recycling/Reclaim/Reuse 

Onsite Incineration 

Onsite Underground Injection 

Onsite Boilers 

Onsite Tank Treatment 

4,608 

463 

16 

19 

1,683 

Exhibits 4-12a through 4-12e display by industry the 

estimated number of establishments that. employed each alternative 

practice onsite in 1985. 

employed by very few industries and within industry by relatively 

few establishments. An estimated 13 establishments in the food & 

kindred products (10) industry employed boilers and an estimated 

11 establishments in the organic chemicals (1) industry injected 

wastes underground. In the sample, a number of industries did 

not have any establishments that employed either of these two 

methods. (Refer to Appendix C for the number of establishments 

in the sample that reported using underground injection and 

boilers to manage wastes.) 

Underground injection and boilers were 

Recycling and tank treatment, on the other hand, are 

alternative practices that seem to be employed much more commonly 

across all industries. The rubber & misc. products (13) industry 

and the stone, clay, glass & concrete industry are each estimated 

to include over 1,000 establishments that used recycling as an 

alternative method in 1985, while most of the other industries 

are estimated to have at least 50 establishments. 

4-45 
__i 

4 a 

i 

i 

4 

3 

I 

. 4-46 
Tank treatment was employed by an estimated 428 

establishments in the food and kindred products (10) industry and 

an estimated 321 establishments in the transportation equipment 

(14) industry. Most of the other industries are estimated to 

have at least 20 establishments that employed this method during 

1985. 

4.5 Closed Units 

If an establishment managed waste in active Subtitle D 

units or employed alternative waste management practices, 

respondents were asked whether or not the establishment had 

operated landfills, surface impoundments, land application units 

or waste piles that had since permanently closed. 

respondents were not asked for actual numbers of closed units. 

We defined permanently closed units as those units which were in 

the midst of legal processes of becoming permanently closed 

during 1985 or units that had not been used for several years 

with no intentions of being used again. 

The 

Table 4-31 presents the estimated number and percentage 

of establishments that had each type of closed unit in 1985. The 

percentages given in the table are based on the number of 

establishments with the closed units type as a percentage of the 

estimated number of establishments (72,419) that managed Subtitle 

D industrial waste. 
Table 4-31. Estimated Number of Establishments with Closed 

Unit Types in 1985 

Estimated Number of 0 of I 

Unit Type Establishments Establishments 

Landfills 1,757 2.4 

Surf ace Impoundments 1,906 2.63 I 

Land Application Units 

Waste Piles 

601 

1,092 

.a 

1.5 

i 

Exhibit 4-13 presents the estimated number of 

establishments in the above table by industry, and Table 4-32 

presents those industries which account for 70 percent of the 

establishments with closed units. For each type of closed unit, I 

up to an estimated 40 percent of the establishments in 1985 were 

either in the stone, clay, glass and concrete industry or the 

food and kindred products industry. The remaining number of 

establishments with closed units were distributed faiqly evenly 

across all other industries. I 

I 

4.6 Small Quantity Generator and Waste Specific Information 

I 4.6.1 Number of small Quantity Generators 

Under RCRA, any generator (establishment) that 

generates less than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous waste is 

considered (by EPA’s definition) a conditionally exempt small 

quantity generator (CESQG). Conditionally exempt small quantity 

generators are exempt from hazardous waste regulations. 

this study, CESQG were termed as small quantity generators (SQG). I 

I 

For the 

4-48 
0 

0 

eu 

d 

. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ..-. _... . . . . . . . . . dw ...-..._ . . . . . . . . . 

1. 

a 

0 

QD 

I 

4-49 

1 

0 
Table 4-32. Unit Specific Estimates of Numbers of Establishments I that have Closed Units by Industry in 1985 

Estimated 

Number of 

D Estab- Cumulative 

Industry lishments Percent Percent 

Stone, Clay, Glass & Conc. (7) 

Pulp & Paper Industry (8) 

Food & Kindred Products (lo) 

Transportation Equipment (14) 

Inorganic Chemicals (6) 

Primary Iron & Steel (2) 

Rubber & Misc. Products (13) 

Textile Manufacturing (16) 

B. Surface Inmoundrnents 

Food & Kindred Products (10) 

Stone, Clay, Glass & Conc. (7) 

Inorganic Chemicals (6) 

Primary Nonferrous Metals (9) 

Textile Manufacturing (16) 

Pulp & Paper Industry (8) 

Rubber & Misc. Products (13) 

Food & Kindred Products (10) 

Stone, Clay, Glass & Conc.(7) 

Petroleum Refining (12) 

Pulp & Paper Industry (8) 

Water Treatment (11) 

Fertilizer & Ag. Chemicals (3) 

454 

179 

140 

127 

115 

104 

93 

84 

406 

3 15 

173 

136 

112 

111 

111 

25.8 

10.2 

7.9 

7.2 

6.5 

5.9 

5.3 

25.8 

36.0 

43.9 

51.1 

57.6 

63.5 

68.8 

4.8 73.6 

21.3 21.3 

16.5 37.8 

9.1 46.9 

7.1 54 .% 

5.9 60.7 

5.8% 66.5 

5.8% 72.3 

229 38.1 38.1 

48 7.9 56.6 

38 6.3 62.9 

30 5.0 67.9 

28 4.6 72.5 

64 10.6 48.7 

D. Waste Piles 

Stone, Clay, Glass & Conc. (7) 305 . 27.9 27.9 

Food & Kindred Products (10) 141 12.9 40.8 

Primary Iron & Steel (2) 102 9.4 50.2 

Transportation Equipment (14) 93 8.5 58.7 

Primary Nonferrous Metals (9) 93 8.5 67.2 

I 

Pulp & Paper (8) 69 6.3 73.5 

4 -50 
The Agency needed this information on small quantity generators 

for the Report to Congress. 

In this study, questions about SQG wastes were limited 

to those establishments that managed Subtitle D waste in landbased waste management units in 1985. Respondents were asked if 

the establishment generated waste in quantities less than one 

hundred kilograms per month. Of the estimated 12,006 

establishments, an estimated 31.2 percent or 3,742 establishments 

generated SQG wastes in 1985. Table 4-33 displays by industry 

the estimated number of establishments that were small quantity 

generators in 1985. Of the 3,742 establishments that were SQG’s, 

nearly 60 percent were in the Stone, Clay, Glass & Concrete and 

Food & Kindred Products industries. The remaining small quantity 

generators were rather evenly distributed across industries. 

Exhibit 4-14 displays small quantity generators as the . 

percentage of establishments within an industry that use Subtitle 

D waste management units. In nine of the 17 industries, over 30 

percent of the estab shments that operated land-based waste 

management units in 85 were SQGs. When comparing across 

industries, the stone, clay, glass & concrete and food & kindred 

product industriek have the largest estimated number of 

establishments that were small quantity generators (1,266) in 

1985, yet this estimated total accounts for less than 34 percent 

of their establi ments that managed wastes in land-based waste 

management units in the same year. In contrast, the estimated 

224 small quantity generators in the electric power generation 

industry comprise over 55 percent of the establishments that 

managed waste in land-based waste management units in 1985 and 

the estimated 196 establishments in the petroleum refining 

industry comprise over 40 percent. 

percentages of small quantity generators in selected industries 

where percentages are large. 

r 

Table 4-34 displays specific 

4-51 
f; 

9 

7 

c 

E 

4 

1 

4-52 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 
Table 4-33. Industry Specific Estimates of Numbers of 

Establishments that were SQGs in 1985 

Estimated Number 

of Establishments 

Industry that are SQGs 

stone, Clay, Glass & Concrete (7) 

Food & Kindred Products (10) 

Electric Power Generation (4) 

Textile Manufacturing (16) 

Petroleum Refining (12) 

Primary Iron and Steel (2) 

Pulp and Paper Industry (8) 

Primary Nonferrous Metals (9) 

Inorganic Chemicals (6) 

. Water Treatment (11) 

Transportation Equipment (14) 

Rubber and Miscellaneous Products (13) 

Fertilizer and Agricultural Chemicals (3) 

Selected Chemicals and Allied Products 

Plastics and Resins Manufacturing (5) 

organic Chemicals (1) 

Leather & Leather Products (17) 

(15) 

1,266 

896 

224 

207 

196 

. 182 

169 

148 

122 

111 

53 

48 

45 

31 

19 

13 

12 

4-53 
Table 4-34. Small Quantity Generators as a.Percentage of 

Establishments that used Waste Management Units 

in 1985 I 

Industry 

I % of 

Estimated # Establishments 

of SQG’s that Use Units 

I 

I 

Pulp and Paper (8) 169 34.0% I 

Electric Power (4) 224 56.6% 

Petroleum Refining (12) 196 42.7% 

Textile Manufacturing (16) 207 39.8% 

I 

4-6-2 Number of Establishments that handle SQG Wastes by Unit 

TYPe 

I 

I 

1 

I 

If an establishment was a small quantity generator in 

1985, the respondent was asked if any of the establishment’s onsite active Subtitle D units received SQG wastes. Respondents 

were not asked for the numbers of active units that actually 

received the small quantity generator wastes but rather if any of 

their on-site units received small quantity generator waste. Of 

the estimated 3,742 establishments that were SQGs in 1985 an 

estimated 16.2 percent or 605 establishments managed the exempt 

small quantity generator ‘Qastes in their on-site land-based 

management units. 

percent of the establishments managed small quantity generator 

wastes through alternative waste management methods or Subtitle C 

hazardous waste units. 

1 

We expect that the remaining estimated 84 

Table 4-35 presents the estimated number of a 

establishments that managed SQG wastes in each unit type during 

1985. 1 

4-54 
Table 4-35. Estimated Number of Establishments that Managed SQG 

Wastes in LFs, SIs, LAUs and WPs in 1985 

Unit Type Number of Establishments 

Landfill 

Surface Impoundment 

Land Application Unit 

Waste Pile 

69 

309 

91 

135 

Exhibit 4-15 displays the industries that managed SQG 

wastes in their land-based waste management units in 1985. In 

the sample, no establishment in the leather & leather products 

industry reported managing SQG waste in any of unit. 

Numerous other industries contained estimates of zero 

establishments managing SQG waste in one type of a unit or 

another. Summarizing the management of SQG waste in land-based 

waste management units: 1 

0 An estimated 69 establishments managed SQG onsite in 

landfills during 1985. Of the 69 establishments, an 

estimated 26 establishments were in the stone, clay, 

glass & concrete (7) industry. The remaining 

industries have an estimated 14 establishments or less 

that managed SQG waste in landfills during 1985, with 9 

industries that have an estimated zero establishments. 

0 ' More establishments reported managing SQG waste in 

surface impoundments than in any other unit type. 

Nationally, we estimate that 309 establishments managed 

SQG waste in surface impoundments. An estimated 84 

establishments that managed SQG wastes in surface 

'Refer to Appendix C for the industry-specific estimates and the 

corresponding number of respondents in the sample that answered 

the question. 

4-55 
I I 

I I I 1 I I I I 

0 

I I 

0 0 

I 

OO Q O* Ow 0 0 0 0 0 

(Y "ZfZ 

-;Is3 # 

4-56 

I 

I 

1 

I 

1 

U 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 
I 

! 

impoundments during 1985 were in the food and kindred 

products (10) industry. Estimates for five other 

industries ranged between 15 and 50 establishments and 

7 industries were estimated to have less than 10 

establishments that managed SQG wastes. 

0 An estimated 91 establishments managed SQG waste in 

land application units. 

establishments were found in 3 industries (primary iron 

and steel; stone, clay, glass, and concrete; and food 

and kindred products), each of which have an estimated 

20 or more establishments that managed SQG waste in 

land application units during 1985. In the sample, 

establishments in 11 industries do not report managing 

SQG waste in land application units. 

The majority of these 

0 An estimated 135 establishments managed SQG waste in 

waste piles during 1985. In the Stone, Clay, Glass & 

Concrete (7) industry, an estimated 62 establishments 

managed SQG waste in waste piles. An estimated 10 or 

more establishments used waste piles in four industries 

while the remaining 12 industries had an estimated 10 

establishments or less managing SQG waste in waste 

piles. 

4.6,3 Number of Establishments that Handle Halogenated 

Solvents, Non-Halogenated Solvents and Metals in 

Subtitle I) Units 

One of the final questions in the study requested 

information about halogenated and non-halogenated solvents and 

metals that were not regulated as hazardous, due to low 

concentrations less than EP toxicity levels. 

asked only of the estimated 12,006 establishments that managed 

waste in land-based Subtitle D units in 1985. 

The questions were 

In 1985, an estimated 4.4 percent or 533 establishments 

managed low concentrations of halogenated solvents 

waste management units, 5.9 percent or 710 establishments managed 

non-halogenated solvents, and 18.6 percent or 2,233 

establishments managed metals in concentrations less than EP 

toxicity levels in land-based waste management units. 

in land-based 

4-57 

_. 
I 

Exhibit 4-16 displays, by industry, the number of 

solvents, non-halogenated solvents and metals as a percentage of 

establishments that use waste management units. Except for the 

food and kindred products industry (lo), establishments were more 

likely to manage wastes containing low concentrations of metals 

(less than EP toxicity levels) in waste management units than 

either halogenated or nonhalogenated solvents. 

establishments that managed low concentrations of halogenated I 

1' 

1 

I 

I 

The disposal of these waste types in land-based waste 

management units can be s,ummarized as follows: 

0 

No more than an estimated 12 percent of the 

establishments using waste management units managed 

halogenated solvents in the land-based waste management 

units in 1985. 

The estimated number of establishments that managed 

non-halogenated solvents in waste management units in 

1985 ranged from less than 1 percent in the water 

treatment (11) industry to 26 percent of the 

establishments in the plastics and resins (10) 

industry. 

For most industries, the estimated percentage of 

establishments that managed low concentrations of 

metals in land-based units in 1985 was higher than the 

estimated number of establishments that managed 

halogenated and non-halogenated solvents. Industries 

with a high percentage of establishments managing low 

concentrations of metals were found in the leather & 

leather products (17), primary iron and steel (2) and 

the primary nonferrous metals (9) industries with 

estimates of 73 percent, 61 percent and 51 percent, 

respectively. 

4-58 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
1 

Tr 

--!!!!Iz ........... ........... 

I* ......... ........ 

8" 

4-59 
I 

I 

APPENDIX A 

INDUSTRIAL SUBTITU D SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE 
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Industrial Subtitle D Facility Study Questionnaire 

August 5, 1986 
UNITED STATES ENVIROUMENTAL PROTECTIOl AGENCY 

SUBTITLE D INDUSTRIAL 

NQI-HAZARDWS UASTE SURVEY 

TELEPHOUE SCREENING OUESTIOIINAIRE 

A. RtSDadtn t Identifying Lakl 

ESTABLISHMENT NARE AND ADDRESS 

NAME AND PHDUE NLUBER OF PER- FOR INITIAL tOWTACT TELEPHONE CALL 

SIC CCOE<S) 

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 

NOTE TO REVIEWER: INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INTERVIEVER APPEAR INSXDE SOUARE BRACKETS ([I) AND IN ALL 

CAPITAL LETTERS. 

REVIEWER HAVE BEEN ADDED FOR REVIEW ONLY TO AID IN UWOERSTANDING THE fLW OF THE QUESTIONMAIRE IN THE 

CWPUTER-ASSISTED TELEPHWE INTERVIEYING (UTI) SYSTEM. THESE NOTES YILL APPEAR IN THE OUESTIONNAIRE INSIDE 

TRIANGULAR BRACKETS (<>I. 

SUCH TEXT WILL NOT BE SEEN BY THE RESPONDENT OR REA0 TO HIWHER. ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE 

1 
8. 

B1. 

B2. 

ldentifY Resoondent 

lntiettO, my name is [INTERVIEUER NAME], and 1 am calling for EPA in Uashington, D.C. 

wave 1 reached CESTABLISHUENT NUIEI at WORESSI? 

Yes [CONT.INUE WITH E21 .................................................... 1 

NO [to TO B3J ............................................................ 2 

May I please speak to the facility manager or mvironncntrl affairs manager? [IF THERE IS 

APPARENTLY NO WE SPECIFICALLY IN CHARGE OF ENVIROWMENTAL AFFAIRS OR MANAGING INDUSTRIAL PROCESS 

UASTES, ASK FOR THE HIGHEST RANKING OFFICIAL AVAILABLE ON SITE; THE PLANT MANAGER, PRESIDENT, OUNER, 

ETC.3 Uhar is his/her 

Titlc/Position 

CASK IF YCUR CALL CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO THE PER- LISTED IN &STION 82. IF THE CALL CANNOT BE 

TRANSFERRED OR THE PERSOW IN WESTION 62 IS UNAVAILABLE, TERMINATE THE PHWE CALL. CALL THE 'PERSON 

LISTED IN WEST101 82 AND GET A COrPLETE QUESTIONNAlRE - PARTS C THRWGH G - IF THIS 15 THE PERSON 

IN CHARGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS. OTHERUISE, GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF SECTIW 8.1 

83. May 1 please have the phone nurkr of your establishment at WORESSJ? 

Phone Nrmkr (-) 

[CALL THIS NEW NUIBER AN0 GO BACK TO THE BEGINNlNt OF SECTION 8.1 

2 
t. , IntroduCtim To Resdmt 

<UOTE TO REvIEVER: THIS SECTIOY BEGINS THE ACTUAL INTERVIEW UITH THE RESWWDENT.> 

"Hello, y is [NAMEI. I arm calling for EPA in Uashingtm, D.C. Ywr nam uas given to m as 

an appropriate person to ask saw questions concerning the snrnagammt of industrial process uastes generated 

at your establishmnt. 

Under the Resource Comervation ad Recony Act, RCRA, EPA is doing a stud, of hou Subtitle D 

uastes are mmmged. 

received a letter fraa EPA saying that you wuld be called regarding the msfmgemmt of Subtitle D uastes at 

your establishment. 

Skbtitlc D wastes arc wstn that are regulated 8s hazardous. You should have 

[IF THE RESPWDEWT HAS ANY GENERAL CUESTIDIS ABQIT THE SURVEY'S FURPOSE. OBJECTIVE, OR USE OF THE 

DATA, HE/SHE CAN ULL WESTAT'S OUES71ONNAIRE ASSISTAYCE CENTER AT THE TOLL-FREE YlH8ER (800) 638- 

8??8; 

c1. 

IF THE RES-ENT HAS ANY WESTIONS ABWT SUBllTLE D AND MW IT AFFECTS THEIR FACILITY, HE/SHE CAN 

CALL THE RCRA HOTLINE AT (2021 800-424-9316 a 202-382-3000; 

IF THE RESPONDENT uisws TO VERIFY THAT THE INTERVINR IS LEGITIMATELY UWDERTAKIMG THIS.SURVEY FOR 

- €PA, THE RESWI)DENT CAN CALL JIM CRAIG, PROJECT WCER AT EPA'S OFFICE OF SOLID MSTE (202-382- 

Zfpl). HE CANNOT ACCEPT COLLECT PWE &LS. REfER AS FEU CALLS AS POSSIBLE TO HIM.] 

[IF THE RESPONDENT SAYS THAT HE/SHE CANNOT RES- TO WESTJOYS ABQIT HW INDUSTRIAL PRWESS RESlDUILS AND 

WSTES ARE HANDLED, AND HIS/HER ATTITWE IS FIRM, THEW ASK OUESTIol C2 AND TERMINATE THE PHONE CALL. 

OTHERYISE SKIP TO WESTION C3.J 

<NOTE TO REVIEWER: ALL SKIPS ARE PROGRAMMED IN UTI AND OtWR AUTOCUTICALLY WHEW THE RESPONSE IS ENTERED.> 

3 
c2. Is there anyone else at your establishment whom I could talk to about hou industrial uastes 

are handled there? What is his/hcr 

\ 

Title/Position 

[TERMINATE THE PHONE CALL. 

OUESTIOIINAIRE - SECTIONS C THRQlGH G.1 

CALL THE PERSON LISTED IN QUESTION C2 AND GET A COMPLETE 

<NOTE TO REVIEUER: OUESTION IS A UNIVERSAL SCREENER OUESTlON TO WICKLY DETERMINE IF THE ESTABLISHMENT 

i 

HAS THE SUBTITLE D DISPOSAL UNITS OF INTEREST.> 

a. Does your establishment currently use iandfitls, Land application units, uaste piles, 

surface inpomdnmts, ponds, pits, 

[PROVIDE DEFINITIOWS IF THE RESPONDENT IS UNSURE OF THE TERMS OR IF HE/SHE REQUESTS A 

CUR1 F ICATION.1 

LagooM to manage Only Subtitle D vastcs on-site? 

Its [CONTl.WE WITH.SECTIOI Dl.............. ............................... 1 

No [SKIP TO SECTION DS, PAGE 131.... ...................................... 2 

Refused [CMITINUE WITH SECTION 03. ........................................ 7 

Don't K- [CONTIWE WITH SECTlOIl Dl.. .................................... 8 

4 
1 am now going to ask yw sa questions abwt your waste nmnagsnrnt mits. 

Subtitle D units, the ory~ 

wits regulated as hazardous vder RCRA. 

Dl. LANDFILLS 

1 am only interested in your 

resulatcd as hazardous. Please k sure your ansuers do not include any waste 

I would like to begin with landfills. 

[IF THE RESPONDENT IS UNNRE UHAT A LANDFILL IS, REFER TO ATTACHCIENT 1 AND READ THE DEFINITIOW OF A 

LANDFILL -1 

Dla. Do yw have any Subtitle D lsndfills at your establishment? 

[IF THE RESPONDENT IS UNSURE OF YWT U€ WEAN.BY "ACTIVE", TELL HIWHER YE MEAN UNITS HE/SHE 

IS CURRENTLY USING Oa TEMF'ORARILY NOT USING, UITH PLANS TO USE AGAIN IN THE FUTURE.] 

Ye 

YO 

CCONTINUE WITH OUESTIOW Dlb-1 ......................................... 1 

[SKIP TO SECTIQ1 D21. ................................................. 2 

Refused [SKIP TO SECTION D21 .............................................. 7 

Don't KaU...........................--.......--.-...-....................-~ 

[REFER TO ATTACnWENT 1 AND READ THE DEFINITION 

OF LAWFILL. 

SKIP TO SECTION D2.1 

IF RESPDNDENT STILL DOES NOT KNW, 

Dlb. 

Dtc. 

Hou msny do you have? 

Active Subtitle D landfills 

What is the .Fproriaste total area covcrd by these Lendfill wits? 

Acr cs...................................~..............l 

CGUYT I TYI Hcctarcs. ..........2 

SqlPre yarQ. .......................................... 3 

Other, SPECIFY ....................... 91 

Refuscd. .......................................................7 

Don't Krou. ...................,.................................-8 

[REASSURE HIM/HER THAT ONLY A RWGH ESTIMATE 

IS HEEDED.] 

5 
Dld. 

Ole. 

Dlf. 

In 1985, what was the amfaximate total quantity of uaste placed in these landfills? 

Tons...... ............................................. 1 

[CUNT I TI1 Cubic Yards.........'...................................2 

Geltons................................ ................ 3 

,Refuscd..........................................,............-7 

Other, SPECIFY ....................... 91 

Don't r;noU...............-.--...--.----.---.-..-.~.......-....~ 0 

[REASSURE MIWHER THAT ONLY A ROUGH ESTIHATE 

IS NEEDED.1 

Uhat is the total desiqn caoacity of these landfitls? 

material. 

Ptease exclude any cover or fill 

[IF THE RESPOHDENT DOESN'T KNOU THE DEFINITION OF TOTAL DESIGN CAPACITY, TELL HIH/HER THAT 

IT IS THE WIRM AKUW OF WSTE THAT THESE LANDFILLS ARE DESIGNED TO ACCEPT.] 

T~...................................................l 

COUANTlTY] Cdic Iards... ......................................... 2 

G~tLaa........................... ..................... 3 

Refuscd................ ........................................ 7 

Don't K~OU.,................~ 

[REASSURE MIU/HER THAT ONLY A RWGH ESTIMATE 

IS NEEDED.] 

Other, SPEC1 FY ....................... 91 

[IF Dld > Ole, PROBE TO RESOLVE THE INCONSISTENCY.1 

Approximtcty hw mKh more uaste can be placed in these LardfiLLs? 

Tonr.............................. ..................... 1 

Cubic YsrQ............................. ............... 2 

Other, SPECIFY ....................... 91 

Don't Kno~. .................................................... 8 

[UT I TYl 

G.LLonr. ............................................... 3 

Rcfrar?d.... .................................................... 7 

[REASSURE WIWHER THAT ONLY A ROUGH ESTIMATE 

IS NEEDED.] 

[IF THE SUI OF Dld AND Dlf EXCEEDS Dle, PROBE TO RESOLVE THE 1NCOIISISTENCY.I 

I 6 
Dlg . Do any of these 

Dlh . 

IandfiILs receive uastes fran off-site? 

Yes 

No ISKIP TO SECTIOU 023 ................................................. 2 

Refuscd ................................................................. 7 

[CONTIWE WITH WESTIOU Dlhl ........................................ 1 

Don't Km [SICIP TO SECTIOU 021 ......................................... 8 

Are any of the off-site uistes frm households or residences? 

Its ..................................................................... 1 

no ...................................................................... 2 

Ref uscd ................................................................. 7 

Don't Knou .............................................................. 8 

7 
DZ. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS 

1. would like to ask you a feu questions about surface inpuxhmts. 

ponds and lagoons used to collect rvroff. 

In Your answrs, please include pits, 

i [IF THE RESPONDENT IS UNSURE WHAT A SURFACE IkWUNDHENT IS, REFER TO ATTACHMENT 1 AND READ THE DEFlWITION OF 

A SURFACE 1HPWNDHEHT.J 

a 

I 

I 

Dta. Do yw have any active Subtitle D surface inpovwmmts at your establishment? 

[IF THE RESPONDENT IS UNSURE OF UWAT YE MEAN BY "ACTIVE'*, TELL HIWHER UE MEAN UNITS HE/SHE 

IS CURRENTLY USING OR TEMPORARILY NOT USING, UITH PLANS TO USE AGAIN IH THE FUTURE.] 

Yes [u3wTINUE WITH OUESTIOH DZb.1 ....................................... 1 

Refused [SKIP TO SECTIOH 031 7 

NO (SKIP TO SECTION D31 ................................................. 2 

............................................ Dm't K~OU.................---.-.-.---..-.........-....................-~ 

[REFER TO ATTACHRENT 1 AND READ THE DEFINITION 

OF SURFACE IWfMIDMNT. IF RESPOWDEHT STILL 

DOES NOT KNOU, SKIP TO SECTIDW D3.J 

DZb. 

DZc. 

Hou mny do you have? 

Active Subtitle D surface inpouuhmts 

How msny of these surface iapaurhmts are used M(Y to back- the other surface 

irrpovrchmts &ring rain events, or to contain vusua1 velum surges in process uasteuater. 

Surface inpowdmmts used only for bnckup during 

rain cvmts or to contain crusual surges in 

process nsteuater 

[IF D2c DZb, PROBE TO RESOLVE THE INCOWSISTENCY.1 

a 
D2d. 

D2e. 

O2f. 

I 

mat is the approximate total surface area of these surface inpocsrhmts, including the 

backup mi ts? 

Acrcs............................................ ...... 1 

CWANTITYI Hcctarcs............................................ ... 2 

Square fcet ............................................. 3 

-re yards.. ........................................ .4 

Other, SPEC1 FY ......................... 91 

Don't ........................................................... a 

Refuscd...........,.........................................,.*7 

[REASSURE HiCI/HER THAT ONLY A ROUGH ESTIMATE 

IS NEEDED.] 

In 1985, uhat uas the approximate total awnt of uastes flowing through these surface 

iqmmdaents? 

Gallons per day..... ............................... 1 

CQUAWTITYI Gallons per year ................................... 2 

Acre-feet pr year ................................. 3 

Tom per day.. ...................................... 4 

Tons per year......,.............S 

Wic wrcb per dsy................................ 6 

Cubic yards per year ............................... .7 

Other, SPECIFY. ......................... 91 

Refused.. ...................................................... 7 

Dm't know. .................................................... 8 

.. 

CRUSSURE HICI/HER THAT ONLY A ROUGH ESTIMATE 

IS- NEEDED. I 

Uhat is the approximte torsl camcity of these surface impovremmts? 

[IF THE RESPONDENT DOESN'T KNOU THE DEFINITIOl OF TOTAL CAPACITY, TELL HIWHER IT IS THE 

CuxIClun VOLlME OF YASTE THE SURFACE INPWNDWENTS ARE DESIGNED TO HOLD.] 

Tons...-......--.--..-.-..-.-.---.........---~~..-.....l 

CWNTITYJ Cubic Yar ds.............,.. 2 

Gallons. ............................................... 3 

Acre-fnt.. ............................................. 4 

Other, SPECIFY ........................ 91 

Rtfuscd. ....................................................... 7 

Don't Icnar...........,........................................: 8 

CREASSURE HIWHER THAT ONLY A ROUGH ESTIMATE 

IS NEEDED.] 

. 

9 
03. LAND APPLICATION UNITS 

I non have some questions about 1and.application units. 

I 

E 

I [IF THE RESPONDENT IS UNSURE WIT A LAND APPLICATION UNIT IS, REFER TO ATTACHMENT 1 AND READ THE DEFINITION 

OF A LAND APPLICATION UNIT.1 

Do you have am active Subtitle land wlication units at your establishment? 

5 D3a. +* 

[IF THE RESPONDENT IS UNSURE OF UWAT UE MEAN BY "ACTIVE", TELL HIM/HER UE MEAN UNITS HE/SHE 

'i 1s CURRENTLY USING OR TEPIPORARILY NOT USING, YITH PLANS TO USE AGAIN IN THE FUTURE.] 

....... 4 . 

8. 

.I 

Yes [CONTINUE UITH PUESTION D3b.l ............................,.... No [SEIP TO SECTION 041................................... 2 

Refused [SKIP TO SECTION D41....:.......................... ...... 7 

Don't Knou.. ....... i.. .......................................... -8 

[REFER TO ATTACHMENT 1 AND READ THE 

DEFINITIOW OF LAND APPLICATION UNIT. 

IF. RESPdWDENT STILL DOES NOT KNW, 

STXP TO SECTI~~ 04.1 

D3b. Hournanycky~t~ have? . 

D3c. 

D3d. 

Active Subtitle D Land application rnits 

Uhat is the approximte total area of these units? 

I 

Acres............................. ..................... 1 

[OUANT ITYl HcEtares........................................ ....... 2 

-re ............................................. 3 

Other, SPECIFY ....................... 91 

Ref~ed.......................... .............................. 7 

Dm't IDlou....................................................- 8 

[REASSURE HIM/HER.THAT ONLY A RWGH ESTIMATE 

IS NEEDED.] 

In 1M5, hat was the acoroximtc total wantity of waste meMgcd in these land application 

mi t(s)?. 

I 

.I 

1 

G.11 ~..................................-............-l 

CIlbic Yar~. ............................................3 

Acre-Fnt ...........................-.....-.....-......C 

Ref used.......................................................-7 

Don't K~O..........................-~ 

[REASSURE HIM/HER THAT CULY A RWGH ESTIMATE 

IS NEEDED.] 

[WANT ITYl Tons.........................-............-.............Z 

Other, SPECIFY ....................... 91 

10 
01. UASTE PILES 

Finally, I would like to ask you a feu questions abwt maste piles. 

[IF THE RESPONDENT IS UNSURE UHAT A WASTE PILE IS, REFER TO ATTACHRENT 1 AND READ THE DEFINITIOW OF A UASTE 

PILE.] 

04a. 00 YOU have a& active Subtitle 0 uaste piles at your establishmnt? 

[IF THE RESPONDENT IS UNSURE OF WHAT UE MAN BY “ACTIVE”, TELL HIU/HER YE MEAN UNITS HE/SHE 

IS CURRENTLY USING OR TEMWRARILY NOT USING, WITH PLANS TO USE AGAIN KN THE FUTURE.] 

I 

04b. 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

04c. 

Hau’msy.do you have? 

Yes tCOWTIItuE WITH WESTIW Dlb-l................. ....... 1 

Refused [SKIP TO SECTION D51............................-7 

NO [SKIP TO SECTIOY 051.1 ................................ 2 

Don’t Knw......................................... ...... 8 

[REFER TO ATTACHRENT 1 AND READ 

THE DEFINITION OF WASTE PILE. IF 

RESPONDENT STILL DOES NOT WNW, 

SKIP TO SECTION 05.1 

Active Subtitle D naste piles 

Uhat is the approximate total area of the grovrd currentiy covered by these uastc pile(s)? 

CIF THE RESWWDENT SAYS THAT If VARIES, TELL HIM/HER THAT M WANT TO KNOW THE AREA COVERED 

TWAY .I 

Acrw .................................................. 1 

[PUMITITYI- -re Fcct. ........................................... 2 

Scwre YrrQ. ........................................... 3 

Other, SPEClFY ....................... 91 

Ref ~~..................................‘.,.............~.....,~7 

[REASSURE HIR/HER THAT ONLY A RWGH ESTIMATE 

IS NEEDED.] 

Don’t KOU....-.......-.-..--...--................-..-..--.-..~8 

11 
DCd. 

D4e. 

In 1985, what was the awroximatc total auantity of uaste placed in these uaste piles? 

t Tons...................................... ............. 1 

[OUANTITYI Cubic Ftet .... I.Z 

Cubic Yar&............................................3 

Other, SPECIFY ....................... 91 

Refused.......................................................-7 

Don't wnW......................................~.....'........- 8 

[DON'T READ RESPONSES; LET RESPONDENT ANNR AND CUTCH RESPONDENT'S ANSUERCS) $0 THOSE 

LISTED EELOU. i CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY.] 

[REASSURE HWHER THAT ONLY A ROUGH ESTIMATE 

IS NEEDED.] 

How is the waste managed after tarporary storage in these waste pites? 

DCf . 

Sent off-site ................................................................... 1 

Recycled on-site...............................................................2 

Incinerated on-+ite............................................................3 

Transferred to a landfill on-site..............................................C 

Transferred to a land elication rnit on-site ........................... ; ...... 5 

Transferred to a surface inporncbmt on-site...................................6 

Kept in permanent storage in a uaste pile ...................................... 7 

Other Describe ................................. 91 

Don't knar.... ................................................................. 8 

I 

Refured. ...............;.......................................................-7 

Do any of these waste piles receive wastes fran off-site? 

....................................... I ....................................... Yes tCONTINUE UlTH WESTION DO91 1 

No [SKIP TO SECT.IOW D6, PAGE 161 2 

Refusd [SKIP TO SECTION 06, PAGE 161...... ............................ 7 

Don't wnW t%IP TO SECTION D6, PAGE 161 .............................. -8 

. Are any of these off-site wastes fran househot& or residences? 

.Yes..............................-.-.- -1 

[SKIP TO SECTION 06, PAGE 161 

12 
DS. OTHER WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

<NOTE TO REVIEVER: THIS QUESTION IS ASKED ONLY IF THE RESPONDENT REWRTS HAVING NO ON-SITE FACILITIES 

IN THE PRIOR WESTIDYS. ITS PURPOSE IS TO MINIMIZE THE CHANCES OF FAILING TO IDENTIFY AN ELIGIBLE 

ESTABLISHMENT. THIS IS ACCCWPLISHED BY LETTING THE RESPOWDEYT DESCRIBE WHAT IS DONE AT HIS/HER 

ESTABLXSH~ENT .> 

[IF THE RESPOWSE 10 OUESTIOW C3 IS *No* 

- OR 

THE RESPONSES TO WESTIONS Dla, D2a, D3a, AND 068 

ARE "NO", "REFUSED", UR "DON'T UIW, 

THEN ASK THE FOLLOVING WESTIONS, OTHERUISE 

SKIP.10 SECTION D6, PAGE 16.1 

I 

1 13 
What do you do with the industrial process Subtitle D waste generated at your 

establishment? / 

3 CDON'T READ THE CHOICES TO THE RESPONDENT; LET THE RESPONDENT ANSUER AND UATCH THE 

RESPONDENT'S ANSUERS TO THE CHOICES LISTED BELOW. 

BEFORE WING BACK TO RE-ASK QUESTIONS. 

INSTRUCTIONS, PROCEED AS FOLLWS. 

THE EARLIEST SECTION INDICATED 01, 02, 03, OR 04) AND PROCEED THRWGH IT AND ALL 

NBSEWENT SECTIONS ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTIONS THERE.] 

CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY. GET & ANSWERS 

IF ANY OF THE RESPONSES CIRCLED HAVE "GO BACK TO" 

ASK QUESTION D5b IF CaDE 11 IS CIRCLED. THEN GO BACK TO 

DSa. 

<NOTE TO REVIEUER: THE SKIPS UILL TAKE PLACE AUTOMATICALLY IN THE CAT1 SYSTEM.> 

Recycle or incinerate on-site .......................................... 01 

On-site landfill [GO BACK TO SECTION Dll........................ ....... 02 

E 

. ,I 

E 

On-site surface inpomdnmt tW BACK TO 

SECTION DZI... ........................................................ 03 

tin-site land application rnit CM) BACK TO 

SECTION 031 ......................................................... .Q4 

'On-site waste pile [GO BACK TO SECTION DCI ............................. 05 

Treat in tank (only), then discharge to POTU surface 

uaters (e.g., Lakes, strerm, rivers) der WPDES............... ..... 06 

[PROBE TO MKE SURE TANK IS NOT SURFACE 

IMPOUNDMENT. REFER TO ATTACHMENT 1 WHICH DEFINES 

SURFACE IWPOUNDMENT AND DIFFERENTIATES IT FROl A 

TANK. IF THE RESPONDENT ACTUALLY TREATS UASTES 

IN A SURFACE IWWUWPHENT, GO BACK TO SECTION 02.1 

E 

d .... Store in pnd, then discharge to POTU surface 

uater urbcr NPDES [W BACK TO SECTION DZI........................ 07 

send off-site.. ........................................................ Oa 

No non-hazardars uaste, all uaste is hazardous ......................... 09 

............................................. I Other mmugarnt practice 91 

Describe 

-~ ~ 

Refused [SKIP TO QUESTION DScl ............................-............-7 

Don't lLnov [SKIP TO OUESTION DScl. ...................................... 8 I 

14 
I 

1 

D5b. At any tim in the past, did you operate any of the following Subtitle D units that have 

since permanently closed? 

[CODE "NO" IF THE RESPONDENT NEVER HAD THE FACILITY. IF THE RESPONDENT GIMS ANY "YES" 

ANSWERS, PROBE TO BE WRE HE/SHE IS NOT REFERRING TO TEMPORARILY CLOSED UNITS.] 

Dan1 t 

% Refused 

Surface i~ts ..................................... 1 2 -7 -8 

Larid application mits................................... 1 2 -7 -8 

Uastc piLC+. ............................................. 1 2 -7 -8 

LMdfills..;............................................. 1 2 -7 -8 

[SKIP TO SECTION G, PAGE 191' 

0%. ~1s there anyone else at your establishmnt who knows how i-trial process waste is 

managed at your establishnmt? What is his/her 

[SKIP TO SECTION G, PAGE 193 

NW 

Tit le/Posi t ion 

Telephone 

15 
Dba . 

CLOSURE OF FACILITIES 

At any time in the past, did you operate any of the following Subtitle D units that have 

since permsmntly closed? 

[CODE "NO" IF THE RESPONDENT NEVER HAD THE FACILITY. IF THE RESPONDENT GIVES ANY "YES" 

ANSUERS, PROBE TO BE SURE HE/SHE IS NOT REFERRING TO TEWGRARILY CLOSED UNITS.] 

Don't 

---- Yes No Refused Knou 

Surface irrpovdnnts. .................................... 1 2 -7 -8 

Land application units................................... 1 2 -7 -8 

Waste piles .............................................. 1 2 -7 -8 

Landfills.................................... ............ 1 2 -7 -8 

16 
1 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

E. GENERAL 

Under RCRA, any generator that generates less than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous waste is 

excluded fra hararw waste regulations. 

<NOTE TO REVIEVER: CUESTIOIS El AND E2 A!% ABWT SMLL PUAYTITY GENERATOR UASTES.> 

El. 

EZ. 

Does your establishment generate hazardas waste in quantities less than 100 kilograms per 

month? 

Yes lCOWTIHUE WITH QUESTION EU.......................................l 

NO [SKIP.TO WlESTIgl E31 .......... ...................... .............. Z 

Refused [SKIP TO QUESTIONS E31.......................................-7 

Don't kno~ ISKIP.TO OUESTION U1...............................-.....-8 

uhich of the waste managant facilities we have discussed receive any hazardous wastes 

fraa your establishment? [READ THE FOLLWING RESWWSES AND ENMJOE THE AWSVERS.1 

Don1 t 

& Refused KnoU 

Do any of the 1-fills? ..................... 1 2 . -7 -8 

Do any of the surface inpomdnmts?. ......... 1 2 -7 -8 

Do any of the lend application vlits? ........ 1 2 -7 -8 

Do any of the weste piles? ................... 1 2 -7 -8 

€3. I am going to list three general waste type categories- Each of these uastes can be ctassificd as 

hazardous, but under certain conditions, such as lw concentrations, these wastes can be placed in 

Subtitle D units. 

we.have discussed. 

Please tell m if you dispose any of these wastes in any of the Subtitle D units 

Yes no Refused Don't Know 

Halogenated Solvcnts..................................l 2 -7 -8 

Non-Hslogemted Solvcnts.............................l Z -7 -8 

net.is ............................................... 1 z -7 -8 

17 
EL. [ASK ONLY IF V4ETALS11 = 1 IN OUESTION E3.1 

which of the follouing nine mtalS are in the wastes that go inKO your Subtitle D units? 

& Refused Don't Knou 

Arscnic...................l 

Bariun..... ................................ 1 

CaCmiun....................................l 

Chromiun..... .............................. 1 

Lead.................'...l 

Uercury....................................l 

Seleniun.................,,..........:.......l 

.. Silver.....................................l 

Thalli un.:.... 1 

". 

-7 

-7 

-7 

-7 

-7 

-7 

-7 

-7 

-7 

-a 

-a 

-a 

-a 

-a 

-a 

-a 

-a 

-8 

\ 

18 
I 

F. Confirm Mait Qutstiomsire Ruioimt 

Ye may mil a more detailed qucrtiorrmire to your establishmnt that rcquests additional information 

about the Subtitle 0 waste mmganmt mits at your estnblishmnt. This cpmtiomaire will provide €PA with 

inportant infonation for its Congressiorully-mted evaluation of the effectiveness of its guidelines for 

the managanmt of m-hazardous wste vdcr Srrbtitle D of the Resource Conservation ntd Recovery Act. 

information you would provide is therefore very iaportant. 

The 

F1. Are you the appropriate person to receive ad ccrnplcte this qucstimire? 

Yes 

No 

Refused [SKIP TO OUESTICN F3.3...,..................-? 

Don’t KW [COWTIWE UITH WESTIOW F2.1.................................-8 

[COWTINW WITH PCIESTICN FZ.l................. ...... 1 

[SKIP TO PUESTIW F3.1. .............................................. 2 

FZ. Way I plensc verify your nmne, address wd @arc wr? 

e-: UT1 WILL AUTOMATICALLY DISPLAY Ow THE WOIlITOR THE WAIIE, ADDRESS, AND PHONE AS ANSUERED 

* IN PtlESTION El.> 

[READ THE RESPONSE TO WESTION El, FOR VERIFICATIOII.OR CORRECTION. 

CORRECTIONS. SKIP TO PART G..] 

WKE ANY NECESSARY 

F3. Uho is the appropriate person? Way I have his/hcr 

Address 

G. 

19 

Closiq 

Thank yw very nuch for your time and coogration. 
t 

I 

I 

t 

I' 

I 

D 

I 

I 

I 

I- 

[ 

I 

ET 30 1986 

Dear Facility Manager: 

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted 

by Congress in 1976, provides for a national program to protect 

human health and the environment by requiring proper management 

of the industrial, commercial, residential, and other wastes 

produced in the United States. Under RCRA, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has developed many regulations and 

standards for the management of these wastes. 

Two of the major categories of wastes regulated under 

RCRA are hazardous wastes and solid or "Subtitle D" wastes. 

Simply put, Subtitle D wastes are those wastes that are not 

regulated as hazardous under RCRA. EPA promulgated criteria 

for classifying facilities and practices for disposal of 

Subtitle D wastes in 1979 (40 CFR Part 257). Since that time, 

EPA has concentrated on the development of extensive regulations . 

for hazardous wastes. Your facility may have already notified 

the Agency that it handles hazardous wastes. 

Recently, however, Congress amended RCRA (under the 

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984) to requir@ EPA 

to study these current criteria for managing Subtitle D 

wastes. Your facility has been selected at random from a 

list of facilities that may handle Subtitle D wastes to be 

part of a telephone survey EPA is conducting to gather information to use in this study. 

Within a few weeks, we will call you to ask a series of 

questions about any Subtitle D landfills, surface impoundments, 

wastes piles, and land application units that you may have 

on site. We have enclosed a short list of questions that we 

plan to ask you. Please read the questions and the definitions 

of terms included with them. PLEASE DO NOT MAIL in your 

responses to the questions. If you do not handle any Subtitle D 

wastes at your establishment, you will only need to indicate 

this when the interviewer calls. 

EPA has contracted with Westat, Inc. of Rockville, Maryland 

to administer this survey for us. A telephone interviewer from 

Westat will actually make the telephone call. The interviewers 

have been specially trained to answer any questions you may 

have and help you respond to the questions. 

,, B-2 
Your cooperation in responding to our telephone interviewer 

will greatly assist us. 

report on the study results by November 1987. 

revise the existing criteria by March 31, 1988, for facilities 

that may receive certain types of wastes (household hazardous 

waste or small quantity generator hazardous waste). 

mation you provide will be used in the Report to Congress and 

will be used as we consider revisions to the Federal requirements. 

Congress has required us to submit a 

EPA must also 

The inforWe are requesting your response to our telephone call under 

the mandatory provisions of Section 3007(a) of RCRA. We have 

enclosed some important information about Confidential Business 

Information with this letter. Please read this carefully to help 

you prepare for our call. The data you provide to us will be 

used in aggregated fork and will not be identified by source 

in our Report to Congress or other publications. 

EPA greatly appreciates your assistance with this study 

and looks forward to your response. If you have any questions 

about the survey? please call the Questionnaire Assistance 

Center toll-free (800-638-8985) and ask for the EPA Subtitle D 

Specialist. If you have any questions on regulatory issues or 

Subt$tle D, call the RCRA-Superfund Hotline (800-424-9346 or 

202-382-3000). If these>numbers are busy, you may contact 

Jim Craig of my staff at 202-382-2791. 

Again, we appreciate your assistance and cooperation. 

Enclosures 

B-3 
I 

t 

E: 

h 

I 

1" 

I' 

APPENDIX B 

COPY OF LETTER AND LIST OF QUESTIONS 

SENT TO RESPONDENTS PRIOR TO THE INTERVIEW 

B-1 
ADDENDUM: Confidential Business Information 

This addendum addresses information requested in the 

accompanying letter which you may regard as Confidential 

Business Information (CBI). 

You may not withhold information from the Administrator 

or his authorized representatives because it is Confidential 

Business Information (CBI). However, if you designate information as CBI, EPA may disclose that information only to the 

extent permitted by and in accordance with its regulations 

concerning confidentiality of business information at Title 40 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), - Part 2, Subpart B. 

You may, if you desire, assert a claim of CBI covering all 

or part of the informationbfurnished to EPA. You should make 

any claims by specifically indicating to the telephone interviewer that the information is claimed CBI. You also have the 

option of providing the information to us in writing. If you 

do not claim confidentiality when you furnish the information 

to EPA, we may make the information available to the public 

without further notice to ydu. 

Section 3007(b) of RCRA and implement-ing regulations 

(40 CFR $2.305(h).) authorize EPA to disclose-information 

obtained under Section 3007 to EPA contractors and subcontractors performing work in connection with RCRA notwithstanding the fact that the information might otherwise be entitled 

to confidential treatment. Westat, Inc. of Rockville, Maryland, 

will conduct the telephone interviews and tabulate the data 

for EPA (Contract Number 68-01-7290, subcontractor to ICF, 

Inc.). As such, you will be providing the information directly 

to the subcontractor, Westat. EPA will also transfer the data 

submitted in this survey to the contractors and subcontractors 

listed on the following page. Contractors and subcontractors 

will be given access to the data you submit no sooner than 10 

days after you receive this letter. During that time, you may 

submit any comments on the transfer of such data to the above 

referenced contractors to Jim Craig at U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, 

SW (WH-5651, Washington, D.C. 20460. 

This addendum constitutes notice of EPA’s intent to disclose information obtained pursuant to this survey, including information claimed as CBI, to the above referenced contractors 

and subcontractors. EPA has determined that such disclosure 

is necessary for these contractors and subcontractors to carry 

out work required by the contract or subcontract. EPA will 

notify these contractors and subcontractors that the information transferred to them may be entitled to confidential 

treatment, that they are also bound by the provisions of 

40 CFR Part 2, and that any knowing and willful disclosure of 

suchnformation may subject them and their employees to the 

penalties in Section 3007(b)(2) of RCRA. 
1 -2- 

List of Contractors and Subcontractors to whom EPA will 

transfer Subtitle D Industrial Facilities Survey Results: 

1. ICF, Incorporated of Washington, DC (EPA Contract 

Number 68-01-7290) and its subcontractors Westat, 

Inc. of Rockville, MI); DPRA of Manhattan, KS; Temple, 

Barker, and Sloane, Inc. of Lexington, MA; Pope-Reid 

Associates of St. Paul, MN; and Sobotka and Company, 

Inc. of Washington, DC. 

ICF, Inc. I Temple, Barker, and Sloane, Inc., and 

Sobotka and Company, Inc. will have access to the 

data for economic and risk analyses. 

Westat, Inc. (see text of addendum). 

DPRA will have access to the data in order to provide 

data retrieval services to EPA analysts. 

Pope-Reid Associates will have access to the data 

for engineering cost analysis. 1 

2. NUS, Inc.. of Gaithersberg, MD (EPA Contract Number 

68-01-7310) will have access to the data for assessment 

of current regulations and to assist in development of 

new regulatory options. 

I 

I 

3-5 
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

INDUSTRIAL SUBTITLE D FACILITY STUDY 

List of Questions- in Telephone Survey 

October 20,1986 

DO NOT MAIL TO EPA I 

WE WILL CALL YOU 
1. 

us. ENVIRONMENTAL PMSTECTION AGENCY 

IhDUSTRIAL SUBTITLE D FACILITY STUDY 

LIST OF QUESTIONS IN TELEPHONE SURVEY 

INTRODUCTION 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is evaluating Subtitle D (solid waste) 

landfills, surface impoundments, land application units, and waste piles in response to the 

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). These Amendments modified the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), under which EPA sets Federal 

standards and guidelines for Subtitle D waste disposal facilities. Subtitle D facilities are those 

that are regulated as hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA. To improve our information 

base, EPA is conducting a study of how RCRA Subtitle D wastes are managed. 

We will telephone you soon and ask some questions concerning the management of 

industrial process residuals, wastes, and wastewater generated at your establishment. The 

questions relate to wastes managed in Subtitle D landfills, surface impoundments, land 

application units and waste piles. We are mailing them to you in advance, to give you the 

opportunity to review them and, if you wish, ascertain the answers. I 

PLEASE DO NOT MAIL THIS INSTRUMENT TO EPA. 

Wait for the phone call, which will be made by a professional telephone interviewer, who 

will go through the questions with you and help you answer them. 

If you have any general auestions about the survey, call the Questionnaire Assistance 

Center at the toll-free number (800) 638-8985 and ask for the EPA Subtitle D Specialist. 

If you have any questions about renulatorv issues or Subtitle D, call the RCRA-Superfund 

Hotline at 800-424-9346 or 202-382-3000. 

This questionnaire applies to Subtitle D landfills, surface impoundments, land application 

units, and waste piles. Do'm include units that are regulated under Subtitle of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS FOR TERMS WHXCH WILL HELP YOU 

TO UNDERSTAND THE QUESTIONS: 

1 
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTXON AGENCY 

INDUSTRIAL SUBTITLE D FACILITY STUDY 

LIST OF QUESTIONS IN TELEPHONE SURVEY 

DEFINITIONS 

DISPOSAL is the discharging, depositing, injecting, dumping, or placing of solid waste into or 

on any land. 

FACILm is an area of land with additional structures, equipment, and improvements used for 

treating, storing, or disposing of waste. A facility may consist of one or more treatment, 

storage, or disposal units. Units found at a facility are as follows 

o A bndfiu is a disposal facility where wastes are piaced in or on the land with the 

intention of leaving them in permanently. Wastes placed in landfills are generally solids 

but can include residuals, sludges, or liquids in containers. 

1 

0 A Ddw ImDoundment is a natural or man-made depression in the ground formed 

mainly of earthen materials. Wastes maybe treated, stored, or disposed in a surface 

impoundment on a temporary or permanent basis. Other common names for surface 

improvements are ponds, pits, or lagoons. Surface impoundments can hold liquid, semisolid or solid residuals, wastes, arid wastewaters. 

0 A Land ADolication Unir is an area of land where wastes are applied onto or into the soil. 

Other common names for land application units are land treatment, land farming, and 

land spreading. Wastes placed in land application units are solid, semi-solid, or liquid 

residuals, wastes, and wastewaters. 

o AWeP iIe is a noncontainerized mass of solid, nonflowing waste material. It may or 

may not be contained by a fence, wall, cover, or some otlier structure. Waste piles may 

be used for treatment or storage. 

JrALQG ENATED SOL VENT is any solvent containing any of the following related nonmetallic 

elements - fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine. and astatine. 

HAZARDOUS WAS"€ is waste that is regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. It is a solid waste I 

and exhibits the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and/or EP toxicity. The 

regulatory definition of hazardous waste is found at 40 CFR 261.3. 

NONHALOGENATED SOLVENT is any solvent 

iodine, or astatine. 

NPDES is the 'National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System' program which regulates 1 

permitting for the discharge of pollutants from any point source in the waters of the United 

containing any fluorine, chlorine, bromine, .I 

States. 

ONSITE means any facility that is located within the property boundaries of an industrial 

establishment. 

2 
US. E"lNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

INDUSTBIAL SUBTITLE I) FACILITY STUDY 

LIST OF QUESTIONS IN TELEPHONE SURVEY 

DEFINITIONS 

POW refers to a "Publicly-owned treatment works" and means any device or system used to 

treat municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. A POW is usually owned by a 

state or municipality. 

RESIDUAL is any material left over at the end of an industrial process'that is not sold as a 

product. Residuals can include solids, liquids and sludges. NOTE ThL differs from the way 

EPA has used the term residual in hazardous waste surveys. 

RCRA is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, the federal statute that regulates 

the treatment, storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous waste. 

SOLID WAn includes any solid, liquid, semi-solid .or contained gaseous material resulting 

from industrial or commerciai operations, as well as from community activities. Wastes not 

considered solid wastes are materials found in domestic sewage; irrigation return flows; 

industrial discharges which are point sources subject to permits under Section 402 of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control AcS in situ mining wastes; and Atomic Energy Commission source, 

special nuclear, or by-product material. 

STORAGE is the temporary holding of waste, after which it is treated, disposed, or stored 

elsewhere. 

TREATMENT is any process that changes the chemical, physical, or biological character of a 

waste. 

WASTE is any material that results fro= a production or treatment process and is Ilot sold as a 

product. This includes wastes that art managed in waste piles and surface impoundments even 

if they are eventually recycled. 

WASTEWATER is any water that is used in the industrial process but is not part of the product 

after the industrial process is complete. Wastewater includes water that has been used to clean 

equipment and in a boiler blow down but wastewater cxr;lvdes non-contact cooling water. 
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

INDUSTRIAL SUBTITLE D FACILITY STUDY 

LIST OF QUESTIONS IN TELEPHONE SURVEY 

LANDFILLS I 

0 How many active Subtitle D landfills do you have? 

gurrently using or JemDorarily not using, but plan to yse aaa in in the future.) 

("Active" refers to units you are 

IF YOU HAVE ACTIVE LANDFILLS, SKIP TO THE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT 

SECTION 

o What is the approximate $oral area covered by this/these landfill(s)? 

o In 1985, what. was the mroximate tota 1 Quantity of waste placed in this/these landfill(s)? 

o What is the fotal desinn caDacity of this/these landfill(s)? Please exclude any cover or fill 

material from the estimated design capacity. (Total design capacity is the maximum 

amount of waste that the landfills are designed to accept.) 

o What is the total remaining design capacity? (How much more wa can be placed in the e 

landfills?) 

o Does this landfill/do any of these landfills receive wastes from off-site? 

(Yes/No) 

o Are any of the off-site wastes from households or residences? 

(Yes/No) 

4 
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTlON AGENCY 

XNDUSIXXAL SUBTITLE D FACILITY STUDY 

LIST OF QUESTXONS IN TELEPHONE SURVEY 

SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS 

The following QU~S~~O~S concern your surface impoundments. In your answers, please 

include pits, ponds and lagoons used to collect runoff, as well as those that receive wastes from 

industrial processes. Dcludc any surface impoundment used to treat, store, or 'dispose nnly 

domestic sewage sludge or noncontact cooling water. 

o How many active Subtitle D surface impoundments do you have? ('Active' refers to units 

you are wrrently using or &emDorarily not using, but plan to i in the future.) 

IF YOU HAVE ,4CllVE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, SKIP TO THE LAND 

APPLICATION UNIT SECTION 

o How many'of these surface impoundments are used nnly to backup the other surface 

impoundments during heavy rains, or to contain unusual volume surges in process 

wastewater? . 

o What is the approximate @tal su dace a rep of this/these surface impoundment(s), 

including the back-up units? 

/, 

o In 1985, what was the approximate @tal am~~nt of wasteS entering this/these surface 

impound men t( s)? 

o What is the approximate @tal caDac ity of this/these surface impoundment(s), that is, the 

maximum volume of waste they are designed to hold? 
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

INDUSTFtIAL SUBTITLE D FACILITY §IUDY 

LIST OF QUESTIONS IN TELEPHONE SURVEY 

LAND APPLICATION UNI=FS 

o How many active Subtitle D land application units do you have? CActive" refers to units 

you are Surrently using or &mDorarily * not using, but plan to in the future.) 

IF YOU HAVE UL 

SECTION 

WVE LAND APPLICATION UNITS, SKIP TO THE WASTE PILE 

o What is the approximate of this/these unit(r)? 

o In 1985, what was the totahUUSY of waste managed in this/these land 

application unit(s)? 

6 
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROT$CnON AGENCY 

INDUSTRIAL SUBTITLE D FACILITY STUDY 

LEX OF QUESTIONS IN TELEPHONE SURVEY 

WASTE PILES 

o How many active Subtitle D waste piles do you have? ("Active" refers to units you are 

using or . not using, but plan to in the future.) 

- 

IF YOU HAVE I30 Am VE WASTE PILE, SKIP TO ?HE GENERAL SECIION 

0 What is the approximate of the ground currently covered by this/these waste 

pile(s)? 

o In 1985, what was the of waste placed in this/these waste 

pile(s)? 

I 

o How is the waste managed after temporary storage in this/these waste pile(s)? 

o Does this/Do any of these waste pile(s) receive wastes from off-site? 

(Yes/No) 

o Are any of these off-site wastes from households or residences? 

(Yes/No) 

7 
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY a 

m INDUSTRIAL SUBTITLE D FACILITY STUDY 

LIST OF QUESTIONS IN TELEPHONE SURVEY 

GENERAL I 

o At any time in the past, did you operate any of the following Subtitle D units that have I since permanently closed? (ANSWER "NO" IF YOU NEVER HAD THE UNIT.) 

Surface impoundment3 

Land application units 

Waste piles 

Landfills 

(Yes/No) 

(Y=/No) 

(Yes/No) 

(Yes/No) 

IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY LANDFILLS, SURFACE IMPOUNDMENIS, LAND 

APPLICATION UNITS, QR WASTE PILES, YOU WILL NOT HAVE TO ANSWER ANY OF 

THE REMAINING QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION. 

Under RCRA, any generator that generates less than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous 

waste is exempt from hazardous waste regulations. 

o Does your establishment generate hazardous waste in quantities less than 100 kilograms 

per month? i 

(Yes/No) 

o Do any of the waste management units in the previous question receive hazardous wastes 

in quantities less than 100 Kilograms per month from your establishment? 

Do any of the landfills? 

Do any of the surface impoundments? 

Do any of the land application units? 

Do any of the waste piles? 

Yes/No) 

(Yes/No) 

(YWW 

(Y es/No) 

8 

I 

I 

I 
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECnON AGENCY 

INDUSTRIAL SUBTITLE D FACILITY STUDY 

LIST OF QUESTIONS IN TELEPHONE SURVEY 

GENERAL 

0 Three general waste type categories are listed below. Each of these wastes can be 

classified as hazardous, but under certain conditions, such as low concentrations, these 

wastes can be placed in Subtitle D units. Do you place low concentrations of these wastes 

in any of the Subtitle D units we have discussed? 

Halogenated Solvents not regulated 

as hazardous (Yes/No) 

Non-Halogenated Solvents not regulated 

as hazardous (Yes/No) 

Metais not reguiated as hazardous (Yes/No) 

o (ANSWER ONLY IF "METALS = YES IN PREVIOUS QUESTION) If you do place low 

concentrations of metals in Subtitle D units, are any of the following included? 

Arsenic 

Barium 

Cadmium 

Chromium 

Lead 

Mercury 

Selenium 

Silver 

Thallium 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR 'TIME AND COOPERATION. 

9 
APPENDIX C 

INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC ESTIMATES 
INDUSTRY 

ORGANIC CHEMICALS 

PRICURY IRON AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER 8 AG. CHEW. 

ELEC. POUER GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS MFR. 

INORGANIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLAM 8 CWC. 

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIMARY NONFERROUS METALS 

FOm AND KINDRED PRDOUCTS 

UATER TREATMENT 

PETROLEW REFINING 

RUBBER AND WISC. PRCOUCTS 

TRANSPORTATIOM EQUIPMENT 

SELECTED CHEW. & ALLIED 

TEXTILE MANUFACTURING 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PROO. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIWTES 

OF THE WUnBER OF ESTABLISHWENTS 

THAT MANAGED SUBTITLE D UASTE 

IN 1985 

cy 

ESTAB 

518 

2,151 

653 

1,314 

705 

1,302 

.11,765 

5,136 

3,133 

14,551 

718 

1,598 

11 * 128 

8,274 

1 ,m 

5 ;760 

1 ,- 

STANDARD 

ERROR 

36 

a7 

65 

101 

29 

93 

316 

1 76 

lbc 

375 

92 

112 

276 

278 

101 

21 1 

122 

CDEFFICIENT OF 

VAR I AT 1oW 

(CV) 

0.069 

0.041 

0.100 

0.077 

0.042 

0.072 

0.027 

0.031 

0.0a 

0.026 

0.128 

0.070 

0.025 

0.034 

0.057 

0.037 

0.074 
INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIMATES 

OF THE NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS 

THAT MANAGED SUBT.ITLE D YASTE IN 

LAND-BASED UNITS IN 1985 

1 NDUSTRY 

ORGANIC CHEMICALS 

PRIMARY IRON AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER & At. CHEH. 

ELEC. POYER GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS WFR. 

INORGANIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS 8 CDNC. 

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIMARY NONFERROUS METALS 

FOOO AND KINDRED PRODUCTS 

UATER TREATMENT 

PETROLEUM REFINING 

RUBBER AND MlSL PROOUCTS 

. TRANSPORTATION EOUIPMENT 

SELECTED CHEH. & ALLIED 

TEXT 1 LE MNUFACTUR ING 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PROD. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

# 

ESTAB 

122 

573 

200 

396 

108 

395 

4,= 

498 

436 

2,721 

389 

459 

244 

415 

97 

520 

67 

STANDARD 

ERROR 

20 

54 

37 

52 

10 

so 

261 

67 

74 

227 

73 

69 

56 

74 

22 

77 

30 

CV 

0.161 , 

0.095 

0.187 

0.133 

0.093 

0.127 

0.060 

0.1% 

0.170 

0.W 

0.188 

0.151 

0.228 

0.178 

0.32 

0.149 

0.448 

c-3 \ 
INDUSTRY 

ORGANIC CHEMICALS 

PRIMRY IRON AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER 8 AG. CHEM. 

ELEC. POWER GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS MFR. 

I NORGAWIC CHEW1 CALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS 8 CONC. 

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIMARY NONFERROUS METALS 

FMO AND KINDRED PRODUCTS 

UATER TREATMENT 

PETROLELM REFINING 

RUBBER AND MISC. PROOUCTS 

TRANSPORTATION EOUIPMENT 

SELECTED CHEM. 8 ALLIED 

TEXTILE MANUFACTURING 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PROD. 

INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIMATES 

OF THE NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS THAT MANAGED 

NBTITLE D UASTE IN LANDFILLS 

IN 1985 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

\ 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

# 

ESTAB 

13 

176 

30 

126 

28 

81 

1,153 

180 

90 

189 

69 

41 

36 

56 

19 

25 

9 

STANDARD 

ERROR 

0 

28 

16 

22 

10 

4 

110 

. 20 

13 

63 

33 

1 

17 

31 

0 

9 

4 

cv 

0.000 

0. I62 

0.520 

0.177 

0.351 

0.053 

0.121 

0.109 

0.143 

.o 

0.333 

0.483 

0.024 

0 -466 

0.548 

0.000 

0.361 

0.428 

TOTAL 2.321 168 0.072 
INDUSTRY 

ORGANIC CHEMICALS 

PRIMARY IRON AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER 8 AG. CHEM. 

ELEC. POUER GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS MFR. 

INORGANIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS 8 CONC 

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIWRY NONFERROUS METALS 

FWD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS 

YATER TREATMENT 

PETROLEUM REFINING 

RUBBER AND MISC. PROOUCTS 

TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT 

SELECTED CHEM. 8 ALLIED 

TEXT1 LE MANUFACTURING 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PROD. 

INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIMATES 

OF THE NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMEUTS THAT MANAGED 

SUBTITLE D, WASTE IN SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IU 1985 

# 

ESTAB 

88 

185 

113 

322 

a0 

345 

1,977 

302 

188 

1,713 

331 

32 1 

126 

121 

53 

388 

27 

STANDARD 

ERROR 

16 

28 

22 

48 

2 

50 

186 

31 

14 

1 78 

70 

55 

39 

18 

4 

56 

7 

cv 

0.1n 

0.153 

0.195 

0.149 

0.021 

0.145 

0.094 

0.103 

0.236 

0.104 

0.213 

0.171 

0'.308 

0.151 

0.083 

0.145 

0.253 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

TOTAL 298 0.045 

I 

c-5 
INDUSTRY 

ORtiClNlC CHEMICALS 

PRlWY lRW AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER 8 At. CHEM. 

ELEC. POWER GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS MFR. 

INORGANIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, 'GLASS a CONC. 

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIMARY NONFERROUS METALS 

FMD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS 

UATER TREATMENT , 

PETROLEUM REFINING 

RUBBER AND MISC. PROOUCTS 

TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT 

SELECTED CHEH. & ALLIED 

TEXTILE MANUFACTURING 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PROD. 

INDUSTRY SPECIFSC ESTIMATES 

OF THE NUMBER OF ESTABLISHHEITS THAT MANAGED 

WBTITLE D UASTE IN LAND APPLICATION UNITS 

IN 1985 

.1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

a 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

1s 

16 

17 

1 

ESTAB 

24 

53 

95 

34 

15 

16 

188 

75 

a 

1.375 

102 

45 

16 

10 

15 

65 

0 

STANDARD 

ERRROR 

9 

27 

34 

22 

0 

2 

62 

31 

1 

171 

40 

.23 

10 

6 

2 

32 

0 

CV 

0.385 

0.511 

0 -359 

0 -630 

0.021 

0.140 

0.331 

0.417- 

0.127 

0.125 

1 

0.397 

0.514 

0.610 

0.624 

0.161 

0.498 

NA 

C-6 
INDUSTRY 

ORGANIC CHEMICALS 

PRIMRY IRON AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER B AG. CHEM. 

ELEC. POUER GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS MFR. 

INORGANIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS & CONC 

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIMARY NONFERROUS METALS 

FODD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS 

WATER TREATMENT 

PETROLEUM REFINING 

RUBBER AND MlSC. PRODUCTS 

TRANSPORTATION EOUIPMENT 

SELECTED CHEM. 8 ALLIED 

TEXTILE MANUFACTURING 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PROD. 

INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIMATES 

OF THE NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS THAT MANAGED 

SUBTITLE D WASTE IN WASTE PILES 

IN 1985 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

# 

ESTAB 

37 

3% 

30 

98 

23 

60 

2,082 

163 

261 

340 

44 

136 

108 

307 

39 

59 

13 

STANDARD cv 

ERROR 

13 0.33 

u 0.132 

7 0.019 

31 0.314 

7 0.305 

193 0.093 

51 0.316 

61 0.233 

85 0.250 

24 0.514 

40 0.291 

39 0 -359 

73 0.236 

22 0.563 

15 0.U9 

29 0.683 

c-7 ‘I 
INDUSTRY 

OQWIC CHEHIULS ' 

PRIWY IRON AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER 8 At. CHEH. 

ELEC. POVER GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS HFR. 

IYORGANIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, CUSS 8 CONC. 

. PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIMRY NONFERROUS METALS 

FOOD AND KINDRED PROOUCTS 

YATER TREATMENT 

PETROLEUM REFINING 

RUBBER AND HISC. PRWJCTS 

TRANSPORTATIW EOUIPHENT 

SELECTED CHEM. 8 ALLIED 

TEXTILE WNUFACTURING 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PROD. 

INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIUATES 

OF THE TOTAL YNT OF SUBTITLE D UASTE 

WYAGED IN LAND BASED UNITS IM 1985 

(Metric Tons) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

TOTAL 

AnaJNT 

53,s 12 ,US 

1,182,309,731 

150,S65 .a2 

992,978,970 

164,099,853 

836,114,OcL 

565,430,803 

2,1u7,000,866 

60,973,032 

339,561,224 

53, i96,152 

1S3,301,676 

21,998,316 

11,517,432 

57,260,949 

230,709,380 

2,940,590 

STANDARD 

ERROR 

93,795 

550,697,223 

30,568 

66,846,842 

215,560 

7,454 * 689 

130,983,268 

212,100,225 

9,8SO,OSO 

34.167.3 10 

22.776.41 9 

UO ,763 

5,307,a21 

1,516,883 

181,102 

66,739,337 

749,761 

cv 

0.002 

0 .ab 

0.000 

0.067 

0.001 

0.009 

0.762 

0.104 

0.162 

0.101 

0.426 

0.004 

0.241 

0.132 

0.003 

0.289 

0.255 

C-8 
INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIMATES 

OF THE NUMBER OF 

SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS IN 1985 

INDUSTRY 

ORGANIC CHEMICALS 

PRIMRY IRON AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER & AG. CHEM. 

ELEC. POUER GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS MFR. 

INORGANIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS & CONC. 

WLP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIWRY NONFERRWS METALS 

FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS 

UATER TREATMENT 

PETROLEUM REFINING 

RUBBER AND MISC. PRODUCTS 

TRANSPORTATION EOUIPMENT 

SELECTED CHEM. & ALLIED 

TEXTILE WNUFACTURING 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PRm. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

1 UNITS STANDARD 

ERROR 

17 0 

202 29 

31 16 

155 23 

32 10 

120 4 

1,257 158 

259 23 

111 14 

194 63 

121 66 

61 1 

77 40 

63 31 

21 0 

28 9 

9 4 

cv 

0.000 

0.116 

0.503 

0.1&7 

0.307 

0.036 

0.126 

0.089 

0.130 

0.324 

0. 549 

0.021 

0.519 

0.493 

0.000 

0 -322 

0.428 

c-9 

1 

1 

i 

1 

1 
INDUSTRY 

ORGANIC CHEWICALS 

PRlMRY IRON AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER a AG. CHEH. 

ELEC. POWER GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS MFR. 

lNORGANIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS 8 CONC. 

WLP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRlMRY NONFERROUS METALS 

FWD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS 

UATER TREATMENT 

PETROLELM REFINING 

RUBBER AND HISC. PRODUCTS 

TRANSPORTATION EWIPWENT 

SELECTED CHEM. 8 ALLIED 

TEXTILE MANUFACTURING 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PROD. 

INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIMATES OF THE 

TOTAL AcKxllT OF SUBTITLE 0 UASTE 

MANAGED IN LANDFILLS IN 1985 

(Metric Tons) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

WASTE STANDARD 

WNT ERROR 

238.575 0 

3,352,467 50,503 

5,263,323 26 

48,590,046 21,112,712 

i7.539 

2,927.324 13,124 

6,883,106 1,048,590 

5,338,781 ,190,987 

1,250,125 212,753 

.3,268,486 2,495.T16 

143,099 44 I 036 

246,952 97s 

472,520 388.697 

1 55,926 9,820 

101,953 0 

62,655 35.830 

8.460 1 ,ow 

CV 

0.000 

0.015 

0 -000 

0 -435 

0.024 

0.004 

0.152 

0.036 

0.170 

0.764 

0.308 

0.004 

0.823 

0 -063 

0.000 

0.572 

0.119 

6 

c-IO 
1 NDUSTRY 

ORGANIC CHEMICALS 

PRIMARY IRON AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER & At. CHEH. 

ELEC. POMR GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS MFR. 

INORGANIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS & CONC. 

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIMARY NONFERRDUS METALS 

FOOO AND KINDRED PRWUCTS 

WATER TREATHENT 

PETROLEUM REFIWIWG 

RUBBER AND MIX. PRWUCTS 

TRANSPORTAT1OH EOUIPMENT 

SELECTED CHEH. & ALLIED 

TEXTILE t4ANUFACTURING 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PRW. 

INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIMATES OF THE 

NUMBER OF SUBTILE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS 

IN 1985 

1 

2 

3 

4. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

# UNITS 

262 

383 

274 

7,220 

292 

1,039 

3,153 

918 

648 

4,166 

659 

915 

176 

287 

219 

74 1 

102 

STANDARD 

ERROR 

27 

31 

22 

185 

6 

97 

302 

89 

76 

540 

139 

118 

46 

41 

13 

100 

29 

CV 

0.103 

0.080 

0.081 

0. I52 

0.022 

0.09L 

0 096 

0.097 

0.168 

0.130 

0.211 

0.129 

0.262 

0.142 

0.060 

0.135 

0.287 

TOTAt 15,253 700 0.046 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

E 

8 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

i 

C-ll 
INDUSTRY SPECI-FIC ESTIMATES Of THE TOTAL 

AMUNT OF SUBTITLE D UASTE MANAGED IN 

SURFACE lMWUNDMENTS IN 1985 

(METRIC TONS) 

INDUSTRY 

ORUNIC CHEMICALS 1 

PRIMARY IROll AND STEEL 2 

FERTILIZER B AG. CHEH. 3 

ELEC. POWER GENERATION 4 

PLASTICS AND RESINS HFR. 5 

INORGANIC CHEUICALS 6 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS 8 CONC. 7 

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 8 

PRIMARY NONFERROUS METALS 9 

FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS 10 

UATER TREATUENT . 11 

PETROLELN REFINING 12 

RUBBER AND HISC. PRODUCTS 13 

TRANSPORTATION EOUIPHENT 14 

SELECTED CHEM. 8 ALLIED 15 

TEXTILE WANUFACTURING 16 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PROD. 17 

UASTE STANDARD CV 

AWlLlNT ERROR 

51,569,927 n, 020 0.001 

1,123,316,673 550,697,231 0.469 

140,233,882 10;963 0.000 

943,332,487 63,302,011 0.067 

161,128,104. 215,469 0.001 

795,522,720 

550,152,617 

2,032,198,342 

51,416.8E 

266, &LO, 157 

45,204,232 

152,623,325 

21,424 ,867 

10,717,220 

56,763,690 

229 , 936,643 

2,921,928 

7,445,937 

430,882,086 

211,994,614. 

9,807,563 

3i,os4,a24 

22,019,408 

6LO.798 

5,272,322 

1,513,709 

181.082 

~,735,a78 

748,956 

0.009 

0.783 

0.104 

0.191 

0.116 

0.487 

0.004 

0.246 

0.141 

0.003 

0.290 

0.256 

TOTAL 6,685,303,690 737,537,377 0.110. 

......................................................................................... I. 
INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIMATES OF THE 

NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D LAND APPLICATION 

UNITS IN 1985 , 

INDUSTRY 

ORGANIC CHEMICALS 

PRIMARY IRON AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER 8 At. CHEH. 

ELEC. PWER GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS HFR. 

INORCANIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS 8 CONC. 

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIMARY NONFERROUS METALS 

FOM AND KINDRED PRODUCTS 

UATER TREATMENT 

PETROLEUM REFINING 

RUBBER AND UISC. PRODUCTS 

TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT 

~ 

SELECTED CHEH. 8 ALLIED 

TEXTILE MANUFACTURING 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PROD. 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

# UNITS 

27 

76 

160 

c3 

17 

24 

309 

139 

9 

3,128 

147 

114 

16 

11 

17 

72 

0 

STANDARD 

ERROR 

9 

43 

67 

22 

0 

3 

132 

31 

1 

1,085 

57 

69 

10 

6 

2 

32 

0 

cv 

0.342 

0.568 

0.419 

0.511 

0.019 

0.129 

0.428 

0.225 

0.113 

0.347 

0.392 

0.607 

0.610 

0.569 

0.142 

0.450 

NA 

I 

C-13 
INDUSTRY 

ORUNIC CHEMICALS 

PRIRARY IRON AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER 8 AG. CHEH. 

ELEC. POYER GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS MFR. 

INORGANIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS 8 CONC. 

WLP AWD’PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIMARY NOWFERROUS METALS’ 

FmD AWO KINDRED PRODUCTS 

UATER TREATWENT 

1 

PETROLEUH REFINING 

RUBBER AND HISC. PROOUCTS 

TRANSPORTATION EOUIPMENT 

SELECTED CHEH. 8 ALLIED 

TEXTILE WANUFACTURING 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PROO. 

INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIMATES OF THE TOTAL 

WWT OF SUBTITLE D UASTE HANAGED IN 

LAND APPLIUTIOW UNITS IN 1985 

(Metric Tons) 

1 

UASTE STANDARD cv 

AHMINT ERROR 

1,660,572 17,368 0.010 

2 68,932 972 0.014 

3 686,728 28,514 0.012 

4 300,637 292,629 0.973 

5 150,518 139 0.001 

6 97,959 9,725 0.099 

7 L6.W 32 , 299 0.701 -., 

8 8,128,977 1,700,242 0.209 

9 339,098 0 0.000 

10 69,034,641 10,842,914 0.157 

11 8,140,583 5,013,571 0.616 

12 359,888 1,347 0.004 

13 47,148 1,045 0.022 

14 264 42 0.160 

15 388,676 2,630 0.007 

16 

17 

0.788 

‘0 0 0.000 

693, an ’ 5u ,853 
INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIHATES OF THE 

NFBER OF SUBTITLE 0 

WASTE PILE UNITS IN 1985 

INDUSTRY 

ORGANIC CHEMICALS 1 

PRIWRY IRON AND STEEL 2 

FERTILIZER 8 At. CHEI. 3 

ELEC. POWER GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS HFR. 

INORGANIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS 8 CONC. 

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIMARY NONFERROUS METALS 

FOOO AND KINDRED PROoUCTS 

UATER TREATMENT 

PETROLEUM REFINING 

RUBBER AND MISC. PROOUCTS 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

X UNITS STANDARD cu 

ERROR 

79 33 0.412 

w 46 0.100 

50 1 0.011 

110 

32 

98 

2,528 

232 

312 

540 

48 

158 

123 

31 

7 

8 

244 

'71 

63 

164 

24 

40 

42 

0.282 

0.229 

0.077 

0.096 

0.308 

0.202 

0.303 

0.697 

0.250 

0.346 

1 

1 

8 

1 

1 

1 

C-15 
1 NDUSTRY 

ORCANIC CHEMICALS 

PRIHARY IRON AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER L AG. CHER. 

ELEC. PMR GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS MFR. 

INORGANIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS 8 CWC. 

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIMRY NONFERROUS METALS 

FMD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS 

UATER TREATMENT 

PETROLEUM REFlNlNG 

RUBBER AND MISC. PRODUCTS 

TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT 

SELECTED CHEU. 8 ALLIED 

TEXTILE MANUFACTURING 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PROD. 

INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTICUTES OF THE TOTAL 

AFKUNT OF SUBTITLE D YASTE WNAGED IN 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

UASTEPILES IN 1985 

(Cletric Twrs) 

UASTE 

AMYJNT 

43,771 

5,571,660 

L,381,910 

755,800 

2,743,691 

37,566,#&2 

a.u8,9a? 

1,334,766 

7,966,935 

4 17,940 

8,238 

71.51 1 

53,481 

64.023 

6,630 

16,210 

10,201 

STANDARD 

ERROR 

16,502 

96,251 

52 

90,473 

21 1 

331,197 

2,610,073 

334,929 

122.42a 

294, 460 

4,879 

10,414 

33,766 

92,560 

1,218 

5,n7 

3,623 

cv 

0.3?7 

0.017 

0.000 

0.120 

0.000 

0.009 

0.313 

0.251 

0.015 

0- 705 

0.592 

0.146 

0.631 

0.144 

0.164 

0.353 

0.355 

C-16 
INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIMATES OF THE 

TOTAL CAPACITY OF LANDFILLS THAT RECEIMD 

SUBTITLE D UASTE IN 1985 

(Hetric Tons) 

INDUSTRY 

ORGANIC CHEMJCALS 

PRIMARY IRON AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER 8 At. CHEH. 

ELEC. POWER GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS WFR. 

INORGANIC CHEHICALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS 8 CONC. 

PULP AND PAPER lNDUSTRY 

PRIMARY NONFERROUS METALS 

LF 

CAP 

5,712,538 

55,504,959 

135,684,370 

908,608,127 

2,018,633 

62,879, k% 

8,076,304,364 

98,597,663 

19,509,124 

STANDARD 

ERROR 

0 

1 ,424,548 

284 

623,491,960 

71,008 

1 ;125,356 

77,136,067,310 

5,686,567 

3,394,575 

cv 

0.000 

0.026 

0.000 

0.466 

0.035 

0.018 

0.884 

0.058 

0.174 

FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS 10 21,598,047 9,988,m 0.462 

UATER TREATWAENT 11 3,067,690 457,598 0.149 

PETROLEUM REFINING 12 8,363,884 126,285 0.015 

~ RUBBER AND MISC. PRODUCTS 13 16,777,972 11,037,806 0.658 

TRASPORTATlON EOUIPHENT 14 6,668,541 1,682,191 0.222 

SELECTED CHEW. 8 ALLIED 15 2,778,118 0 0.000 

TEXTILE MANUFACTURING 16 633,256 0 0.000 

I 

1 

1 

1 

8 

8 

U 

1 

1 

C-17 
1 NDUSTRY 

ORtANlC CHEMICALS 

PRIMARY IRON AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER B AG. CHEU. 

ELEC. POVER GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS MFR. 

INORtANIC CHEHlCALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS 8 CONC. 

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIMARY NONFERRUJS METALS 

FOOO AND KINDRED PRODUCTS 

UATFR TREATWAENT 

PETROLEW REFINING 

RUBBER AND MISC. PRODUCTS 

TRASPORTATION EWIPWENT 

SELECTED CHEM. 8 ALLIED 

TEXTILE MANUFACTURING 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PROD. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

INWSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIMATES OF THE 

TOTAL REMINING CAPACITY OF LANDFILLS THAT 

RECEIVED SUBTITLE D UASTE IN 1985 

(Metric Tons) 

LF 

REWINING CAP 

3,646,324 

38,973,221 

57,531,527 

794,871,388 

1,375,750 

7,811,737 

7,761,826,121 

208.L88.203 

12,562,191 

11,889,258 

1,620,095 

2,146,oai 

5,143,002 

1,821,128 

2,985,997 

M2,473 

108,9q0 

STANDARD 

ERROR 

0 

961,648 

115 

422,940,674 

68,147 

562,503 

6,937,684,916 

3,702,782 

2,658,761 

6,489,449 

404.47a 

124.614 

3.237.282 

215,945 

0 

366,922 

17,890 

CV 

0.000 

0.025 

0.000 

0.532 

0 -050 

0.072 

0.894 

0.018 

0.212 

0.546 

0.250 

0.058 

0 -629 

0.119 

0.000 

0.554 

0.164 
INDUSTRY 

GROW 

ORGANIC CHEMICALS 1 

PRIMARY IRON AND STEEL 2 

FERTILIZER 8 AG. CHEM. 3 

ELEC. PMR GENERATION 4 

' INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIMATES OF THE 

TOTAL CAPACITY OF SURFACE IMWUNDMENTS THAT 

RECEIVED SUBTITLE D WASTE IN 1985 

(Metric Tons) 

PLASTICS AND RESINS MFR. .5. 

INORGANIC CHEMICALS 6 

SI 

CAP 

7,753,366 

c6 ,139,466 

11,622,789 

s ,725,587 

a99.605.612 

STANDARD cv 

ERROR 

308,947 0.040 

9,912,350 0.215 

4, 480 0.000 

30,215,698 o.oia 

67,300 0.012 

2,908,782 0.003 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS 8 CONC. 7 22,963, 815.532 21,485, 241 , 746 0.936 

PUlP AND PAPER INDUSTRY a 300,200,707 21,536,279 0.072 

PRIMARY NONFERROUS RETALS 9 2,214,663,(Uo 43,365,123 0.020 

FOOO AND KINDRED PROOUCTS 10 149,752 ,041 34,321,676 0.229 

WATER TREATMENT 11 419,926,297 278,284,271 0.663 

PETROLELM REFINING 12 33,136,849 882.095 0.027 

RUBBER AND MISC. PROOUCTS 13 604,466 296,810 0.491 

TRANSPORTAT10N EOUIPHENT 14 1,213,565 166,130 0.137 

SELECTED CHEM. B ALLIED 15 2,580,537 61 ,?90 0.024 

TEXTILE RANUFACTURING 16 5,942,275 497,271 0.084 

TOTAL 2a.783.424.773 a.~87,150.~1 0.747 

c-19 
I. 

ORGANIC CHEMICALS 

PRIMRY IROY AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER 8 AG. CHEW. 

ELEC. WVER GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS CIFR. 

INORliAKIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS 8 CONC. 

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIMRY NOWFERROUS METALS 

FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS 

UATER TREATMENT 

PETROLELM REFINING 

RUBBER AND MISC. PRU)UCTS 

TRANSPORTATION EWIPMENT 

SELECTED CREH. 8 ALLIED 

TEXT I LE. MKUF ACTUR I It 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PRQ). 

lNDUS,TRY 

;RW 

1 

,2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

\ 

IltDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTICUTES OF THE 

TOTAL SURFACE AREA OF LAM APPLICATIOIl UNITS THAT 

RECEIVED SUBTITLE D UASTE IN 1985 

(Acres3 

w 

SURFACE AREA 

1,060 

153 

654,129 

276 

981 

935 

2,736 

16,976 

233 

199,sn 

7.745 

=,a 

258 

98 

383 

2,121 

0 

STANDARD 

ERROR 

47 

22 

628,439 

111 

1 

42 

2.37 

4,fW 

4 

67,188 

2,011 

230,7&6 

23 

6 

0 

1 94 

0 

cv 

0.045 

0.143 

0.961 

0.404 

0.001 

0 -045 

0.151 

0.2?7 

0.018 

0.337 

0.260 

0.975 

0 .OBI 

0.062 

0.001 

0,091 

NA 
ORGANIC CHEMICALS 

PRIMARY IRON AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER & AG. CHEH. 

ELEC. PMR GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS HFR. 

INORGANIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS & CONC. 

PULP AND PAPER IWDUSTRY 

PRIMARY NONFERROUS METALS 

FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS 

UATER TREATMENT 

PETROLEW REFINING 

RUBBER AND MISC. PRODUCTS 

TRANSPORTATION EOUlPnENT 

SELECTED CHECI. & ALLIED 

TEXTILE MANUFACTURING 

INDUSTRY 

GROUP 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

.6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIMATES OF THE 

TOTAL SURFACE AREA OF UASTE PILE UNITS THAT 

RECEIVED SUBTITLE D UASTE IN 1985 

(Acres) 

UP 

SURFACE AREA 

468 

590 

1,220 

139 

5oL 

2,259 

1,926 

359 

4,452 

u4 

7 

106 

1 

91 

2 

' 10,694 

10 

STANDARD 

ERROR 

3 

' 37 

0 

19 

1 

16 

508 

29 

2.4n 

278 

3 

20 

1 

11 

0 

10,501 

4 

CY 

0.006 

0.063 

0.000 

0.138 

0.001 

0.007 

0.264 

0.081 

0.556 

0.627 

0.381 

0.191 

0.422 

0.124 

0.116 

0.982 

0.369 
INDUSTRY 

OC(GAN1C CHEMICALS 

PRlMRY IROFl AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER g At. [HEM. 

ELEC. PWER GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS MFR. 

INORtrANIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS 8 CONC. 

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIMARY NOWFERROUS METALS 

FOQ, AND KINDRED PROOUCTS 

UATER TREATMENT 

PETROLEW REFINING 

RUBBER AND HI%. PRODUCTS 

TRANSPORTATION EWIPHENT 

SELECTED CHEM. 8 ALLIED 

TEXTILE MANUFACTURlNG 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PROD. 

INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIMTES OF THE 

NUnBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS THAT MANAGED 

SUBTITLE D UASTE USING ALTERNATIM UASTE 

WAGEMENT PRACTICES OTHER THAN 

LAND-BASED UNITS IN 1985 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

.7 

8 

9 \ 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

SIZE 

n 

ESTAB 

3% 

1,578 

453 

918 

597 

908 

7,397 

4,638 

2,997 

11,830 

328 

1,139 

10 ,w 

7,859 

1,674 

5,240 

1,578 

STANDARD COEFFIKIENT OF 

ERROR VARl AT 1 ON 

34 0..oss 

91 0.057 

59 0.131 

94 

30 

90 

317 

179 

164 

375 

67 

107 

278 

279 

101 

214 

122 

0.102 

0.050 

0.099 

0.043 

0,039 

0.055 

0.032 

0.205 

0.094 

0.026 

0.036 

0.060 

0,041 

0.077 

c-22 

~- 
INDUSTRY 

ORGANIC CHEMICALS 

PRIMARY IRON AND STEEL 

FERTILIZER 8 AG. CHEH. 

ELEC. POUER GENERATION 

PLASTICS AND RESINS HFR. 

INORGANIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS 8 COEIC. 

WLP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIUARY NONFERROUS METALS 

FMD AND KINDRED PROOUCTS 

UATER TREATHENT 

PETROLEUM REFINING 

RUBBER AND HISC. PRODUCTS 

TRANSPORTATION EWIPHENT 

SELECTED CHEW. 8 ALLIED 

TEXTILE MANUFACTURING 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PROD. 

UEIGHTED AND UNUEIGHTED iNDUSTRY SPECIFIC 

ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF CLOSED 

SUBTITLE D UNITS IN 1985 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

I .UNITS 

(WEIGHTED 

124 

322 

122 

152 

112 

357 

1137 

396 

340 

915 

78 

264 

252 

342 

100 

249 

95 

# UNITS 

(UNVEIGHTEU 

89 

182 

76 

107 

109 

234 

282 

1s 

147 

133 

21 

213 

63 

161 

83 

77 

30 

TOTAL 5356 2191 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

-1 

I 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

C-23 
UEIGHTED AND UNUEIGtHTED INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIHATES OF THE 

WBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS THAT GENERATED HAURDW UASTE 

Ill QW(T1TIES LESS THAU 100 KG/W 

INDUSTRY 

ORUWlC CHEMICALS 

PRXCURY IRW AND STEEL 

FEffTILIZER 8 AG. CHEM. 

ELEC. POMR GENERATIOW 

PLASTICS AND RESINS MFR. 

INWGAUIC CHEMICALS 

STONE, CLAY, GLASS & COWC. 

PULP AND FAPER INDUSTRY 

PRIMffY NOFlFERRDUS METALS 

FMD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS 

UATER TREATMENT 

PETROLEW REFINING 

RUBBER AND MISC. PRODUCTS 

TRANSPORTATION EOUlPClENT 

SELECTED CHEM. & ALLIED 

TEXT1 LE MNUFACTUR ING 

LEATHER AUD LEATHER PROD. 

Ill 1985 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

1 ESTABLISWEWTS 

CUE I GHTED 1 

13 

182 

45 

224 

19 

122 

1,266 - 

169 

148 

896 

111 

1% 

48 

53 

31 

207 

12 

# ESTABLISWEWTS 

(UNWEIGHTED) 

13 

62 

30 

107 

12 

45 

193 

-73 

35 

113 

30 

57 

11 

19 

7 

47 

4 
WEIGHTED AND UNUEIGHTED INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ESTIMATES OF THE 

NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS THAT RECEIVED SOG UASTE 

IN SUBTITLE D UNITS IN 1985 I 

ORGANIC CHEHICALS 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 

PRIHARY IRON AND STEEL 2 14 7 9 4 20 1 5 I 

FERTILIZER BAG. CHEW. 3 1 1 I 4 0 0 

ELEC. POMR GENERATION 4 1 1 15 11 1 1 5 

PLASTICS AND RESINS WFR. 5 0 0 4 4 0 0 

INORGANIC CHEMICALS 6 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 

0 I 

STONE, CLAY, GLASSS 8 CONC- 7 26 8 42 16 30 1 62 I 

m 

l1 I 

12 0 0 27 4 0 0 '1 

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY 8 6 6 35 15 1 1 1 

PRIMARY NONFERROUS METALS 9 10 3 10 3 0 0 4 

FMX) AND KINDRED PRCDWTS '10 1 1 81 14 35 5 

WATER TREATHENT If 0 0 10 7 5 I 0 

PETROLEOH REFINING 

RUBBER AND HISC. PROOUCTS 13 10 1 10 1 0 0 10 

TRANSPORTATION EOUIPHENT 14 0 0 1 1 0 0 ' 1I 

SELECTED CHECI. 8 ALL8IED 1s 0 0 3 2 0 0 22 

TEXTILE WNUFACTURING 16 0 0 50 9 0 0 0 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PRDD. 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 69 28 309 99 91 13 135 I 

I 

C-25 
MEMO 

TO: Ann Crook, RTI 

FROM: Carol Bristow, DPRA 

RE: Subtitle D Industrial Faciltiy Survey 

DATE: September 30, 1994 

Enclosed please find the following: 

0 2 disks with the PKZIPed .DBF file 

labelled 

e the output from the SAS CONTENTS procedure, with all of the variables 

For variables that were missing, the following codes were used: 

-6 not applicable 

-7 refused 

-8 don't know 

-9 not actd 

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (703) 841-8025. 
. / 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

8 4 

i 0 

Y( 

EI 

H 

Y 

a 

8 

0 

E 

a 

PP 

a 

u 

0 

d 

tm 

I 

I 

I 

.. 

m " 

a 

PI 

p1 OQ 

: 

r(Q, 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

m 

0 

JJ 

1 

3 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

41 

UI 

I 
m 

a! 

d 

0 

m 

CI 

0 L, 

e 

m 

Q, 

9 

0 

d 

.. 

I 

I 

I 

UI 

li 

01 

WI 

di 

HI UI VI 

I 
E 

a 

E 

6 

c 

D 

0 

cn 

E 0 

U 

I 

IR 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

.I I 

I rll 

9: 

ill I 

I 

I 

I 

g; 

01 

VI, 

6i 

HI I 

t 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

m 

c 

B 

E 0 

Y io’ 

5 

s 

(z 

0 

PI 

Y 

N 

H 

m 

I 

I drmwmwwwmmmm~w~~roomcymmwwcom~ 

01 om0 9 

ill cy I 

I 

-- 

I -- -1 ~ ---