What is a Hazardous Waste?

Hazardous waste is a waste with properties that make it potentially dangerous or harmful to human health or the environment. The universe of
hazardous wastes is large and diverse. Hazardous wastes can be liquids, solids, or contained gases. They can be the by-products of
manufacturing processes, discarded used materials, or discarded unused commercial products, such as cleaning fluids (solvents) or
pesticides. In regulatory terms, a hazardous waste is a waste that appears on one of the four RCRA1 hazardous wastes lists (the F-list, K-list,
P-list, or U-list) or that exhibits one of the four characteristics of a hazardous waste - ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. However,
materials can be hazardous wastes even if they are not specifically listed or don't exhibit any characteristic of a hazardous waste. For
example, "used oil," products which contain materials on California's M-list, materials regulated pursuant to the mixture or derived-from rules,
and contaminated soil generated from a "clean up" can also be hazardous wastes.
I. Listed Wastes
By regulation, some specific wastes are hazardous wastes. These wastes are incorporated into five lists.
These five lists are organized into four categories:
The F-list (non-specific source wastes): This list identifies wastes from many common manufacturing and industrial processes, such as
solvents that have been used for cleaning or degreasing. Since the processes producing these wastes occur in many different industry
sectors, the F-listed wastes are known as wastes from non-specific sources. (Non-specific meaning they don't come from one specific industry
or one specific industrial or manufacturing process.) The F-list appears in the hazardous waste regulations in 22CCR Section 66261.31.
The K-list (source-specific wastes): This list includes certain wastes from specific industries, such as petroleum refining or pesticide
manufacturing. Also, certain sludges and wastewaters from treatment and production processes in these specific industries are examples of
source-specific wastes. The K-list appears in the hazardous waste regulations in 22CCR Section 66261.32.
The P-list and the U-list (discarded commercial chemical products): These lists include specific commercial chemical products that have
not been used, but that will be (or have been) discarded. Industrial chemicals, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals are example of commercial
chemical products that appear on these lists and become hazardous waste when discarded. The P- and U-lists appear in the hazardous waste
regulations in 22CCR Subsections 66261.33(e) and (f).
M-listed Wastes (discarded mercury-containing products): This list includes certain wastes known to contain mercury, such as
fluorescent lamps, mercury switches and the products that house these switches, and mercury-containing novelties. For additional information
see DTSC's mercury web page.
II. Characteristic Hazardous Wastes
Wastes may be hazardous wastes if they exhibit any of the four characteristics of a hazardous waste (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and
toxicity) as defined in Article 3 of Chapter 11 of the hazardous waste regulations (Sections 66261.21 to 66261.24).
These four characteristics are:
Ignitability Ignitable wastes can create fires under certain conditions, undergo spontaneous combustion, or have a flash point less than
60C (140F). Examples include waste oil and used solvents. The characteristic of ignitability is defined in section 66261.21 of the hazardous
waste regulations. Test methods that may be used to determine if a waste exhibits the characteristic of ignitability include the Pensky-Martens
Closed-Cup Method for Determining Ignitability, the Setaflash Closed-Cup Method for Determining Ignitability, and the Ignitability of Solids
(U.S. EPA Test Methods, SW-846 Methods: 1010, 1020, and 1030, respectively.). 22CCR 66261.21.
Corrosivity Corrosive wastes are materials, including solids, that are acids or bases, or that produce acidic or alkaline solutions. Aqueous
wastes with a pH less than or equal to 2.0 or greater than or equal to 12.5 are corrosive. A liquid waste may also be corrosive if it is able to
corrode metal containers, such as storage tanks, drums, and barrels. Spent battery acid is an example. The characteristic of corrosivity is
defined in section 66261.22 of the hazardous waste regulations. Test methods that may be used to determine if a waste exhibits the
characteristic of corrosivity are pH Electronic Measurement and Corrosivity Towards Steel (U.S. EPA Test Methods, SW-846 Methods: 9040
and 1110 respectively.). 22CCR 66261.22.
Reactivity Reactive wastes are unstable under normal conditions. They can cause explosions or release toxic fumes, gases, or vapors
when heated, compressed, or mixed with water. Examples include lithium-sulfur batteries and unused explosives. The characteristic of
reactivity is defined in section 66261.23 of the hazardous waste regulations. There are currently no test methods available for reactivity.
Instead wastes are evaluated for reactivity using the narrative criteria set forth in the hazardous waste regulations. 22CCR 66261.23.
Toxicity Toxic wastes are harmful or fatal when ingested or absorbed (e.g., wastescontaining mercury, lead, DDT, PCBs, etc.). When toxic
wastes are disposed, the toxic constituents may leach from the waste and pollute ground water. The characteristic of toxicity is defined in
section 66261.24 of the hazardous waste regulations. It contains eight subsections, as described below. A waste is a toxic hazardous waste if
it is identified as being toxic by any one (or more) of the eight subsections of this characteristic.
22CCR 66261.24.
1. TCLP: Toxic as defined through application of a laboratory test procedure called the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP U.S. EPA Test Method 1311). The TCLP identifies wastes (as hazardous) that may leach hazardous concentrations of toxic substances into
the environment. The result of the TCLP test is compared to the Regulatory Level (RL) in the table in subsection 66261.24(a)(1) of the
hazardous waste regulations. This criterion does not apply to wastes that are excluded from regulation under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.
2. Totals and WET: Toxic as defined through application of laboratory test procedures called the "total digestion" and the "Waste Extraction
Test" (commonly called the "WET"). The results of each of these laboratory tests are compared to their respective regulatory limits, the Total
Threshold Limit Concentrations (TTLCs) and the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentrations (STLCs), which appear in subsection 66261.24(a)(2)
of the hazardous waste regulations.
3. Acute Oral Toxicity: Toxic because the waste either is an acutely toxic substance or contains an acutely toxic substance, if ingested. As
stated in subsection 66261.24(a)(3), a waste is identified as being toxic if it has an acute oral LD50 less than 2,500 mg/kg. A calculated oral
LD50 may be used.
4. Acute Dermal Toxicity: Toxic because the waste either is an acutely toxic substance or contains an acutely toxic substance, if dermal
exposure occurs. As stated in subsection 66261.24(a)(4), a waste is identified as being toxic if it has an dermal LC50 less than 4,300 mg/kg. A
calculated dermal LD50 may be used.
5. Acute Inhalation Toxicity: Toxic because the waste either is an acutely toxic substance or contains an acutely toxic substance, if inhaled.
As stated in subsection 66261.24(a)(5), a waste is identified as being toxic if it has an dermal LC50 less than 10,000 mg/kg. U.S. EPA Test
Method, SW-846 Methods: 3810, Headspace (formerly Method 5020) may be used to "test out" (for volatile organic substances).
6. Acute Aquatic Toxicity: Toxic because the waste is toxic to fish. A waste is aquatically toxic if it produces an LC50 less than 500 mg/L
when tested using the "Static Acute Bioassay Procedures for Hazardous Waste Samples. This test procedure is available at:
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/upload/HWMP_bioassay_report.pdf

7. Carcinogenicity: Toxic because it contains one or more carcinogenic substances. As stated in subsection 66261.24(a)(7), a waste is
identified as being toxic if it contains any of the specified carcinogens at a concentration of greater than or equal to 0.001 percent by weight.
8. Experience or Testing: Pursuant to subsection 66262.24(a)(8), a waste may be toxic (and therefore, a hazardous waste) even if it is not
identified as toxic by any of the seven criteria above. At the present time, only wastes containing ethylene glycol (e.g.,
spent antifreeze solutions) have been identified as toxic by this subsection.
III. Used Oil: In California, waste oil and materials that contain or are contaminated with waste oil are usually regulated as hazardous wastes if
they meet the definition of "Used Oil" even if they do not exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste. The term "used oil" is a legal
term which means any oil that has been refined from crude oil, or any synthetic oil that has been used and, as a result of use, is contaminated
with physical or chemical impurities. Other materials that contain or are contaminated with used oil may also be subject to regulation as "used
oil" under Part 279 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. http://www.epa.gov/epahome/cfr40.htm
IV. Mixture & Derived-From Rules: When evaluating materials that are mixtures or that are residuals resulting from processing other
materials, you should check to see if the hazardous waste mixture-rule or derived-from rule applies. The hazardous waste mixture and
derived-from rules are located in 22CCR Section 66261.3. There are also additional mixture rules specifically for mining wastes and for used
oil. These rules are intended to ensure that mixtures and residuals containing hazardous wastes are regulated in a manner that is protective of
human health and the environment.
V. Contained-In Policy: Environmental media (soil, groundwater and surface water) are not normally considered wastes.
However, when environmental media are excavated (and stored or transported) for disposal at another location, the
environmental media may be regulated as hazardous waste if it contains hazardous waste, including both listed and
characteristic hazardous wastes. For example, soil contaminated with lead is often a hazardous waste because the lead
"contained-in" the soil is a hazardous waste.
Impact of waste management practices on health
Introduction
There is a large body of literature on the potential adverse health effects of different waste management options,
particularly from landfill and incineration. There is little on potential problems resulting from environmental exposures from
composting and very little on recycling. Although much research has focused on the health of the general population,
particularly those living near a waste disposal site, occupational health problems of the workforce involved in waste
management are also important to consider.
Much of the health literature on the toxicity of the individual substances highlighted above relates to occupational or
accidental exposure and thus generally to higher levels of exposure than those expected from waste disposal methods.
Many of the substances, such as cadmium, arsenic, chromium, nickel, dioxins and PAHs are considered to be carcinogenic,
based on animal studies or studies of people exposed to high levels. Evidence that these substances cause cancer at
environmental levels, however, is often absent or equivocal. In addition to carcinogenicity, many of these substances can
produce other toxic effects (depending on exposure level and duration) on the central nervous system, liver, kidneys, heart,
lungs, skin, reproduction, etc. For other pollutants such as SO2 and PM10, air pollution studies have indicated that there may
be effects on morbidity and mortality at background levels of exposure, particularly in susceptible groups such as the elderly.
Chemicals such as dioxins and organochlorines may be lipophilic and accumulate in fat-rich tissues and have been
associated with reproductive or endocrine-disrupting endpoints.
Landfill sites
One of the mostly widely known and publicized landfill sites is that of Love Canal in New York State. Large quantities of toxic
materials, including residues from pesticides production, were deposited in the 1930s and 1940s, followed by the building of
houses and a school on and around the landfill in the 1950s. By the mid 1970s, chemicals leaking from the site were
detected in local streams, sewers, soil and indoor air of houses. This site and the subsequent studies of the health of the
population in the vicinity fuelled public opinion on the problems of waste disposal practices and raised public concern more
generally.
Since then there have been many studies of populations living near landfill sites, frequently carried out near one specific site
in response to public concern. These studies have varied in design and include cross-sectional, case-control, retrospective
follow-up and ecological (geographical comparison) studies (see Chapter 2). The last of these have often been initiated after
apparent clusters of specific diseases have been reported near a site. In addition, several large studies have been carried out
investigating health outcomes near hundreds of sites.
There have been several comprehensive reviews of epidemiological studies 912.
Birth defects and reproductive disorders
Reproductive effects associated with landfill sites have been extensively researched and include low birth weight (less than
2500 g), fetal and infant mortality, spontaneous abortion, and the occurrence of birth defects. Vianna and Polan 13 and
Goldman et al14 both found increased incidence of low birth weight in the populations around the Love Canal site, the former
during the period of active dumping (19401953) and the latter among house owners (although not among those renting)
from 1965 to 1978. A similar increase in the proportion of low birth weight babies was found in those living within a radius of
1 km of the Lipari Landfill in New Jersey, particularly in 197175 following a period of heavy pollution of streams and a
nearby lake from leachate from the site15. Trends in low birth weight and neonatal deaths were found to correspond closely
with time and quantities of dumping at a large hazardous waste disposal site in California, with significantly lower birth
weights in exposed areas than control areas during the periods of heaviest dumping 16. It should be noted that exposed areas
were defined according to the number of odour complaints rather than any more objective measure.
The results from these single site studies for low birth weight contrast with results from two large multiple site case-control
studies in the USA17,,18. These used residence as an exposure measure and found no association with low birth weight.
However, a geographical study of adverse birth outcomes associated with living within 2 km of a landfill site between 1982
and 1997 in Great Britain found a significantly excess risk, which increased during operation or after closure compared with
the risk before opening19. An interesting finding from this study was that 80% of the population in Great Britain live within 2
km of an operating or closed landfill site.
The results of studies of congenital malformations are less convincing than those of low birth weight. In the two US multiple
site studies, one17 found a small increase (1.5-fold) in heart and circulatory malformations but no increased risk for other
malformations. The other18 found no association, although the response to the questionnaire used to collect data was

relatively poor (63%) and it is unclear how congenital malformations were defined. The UK study 19 found significantly
elevated risks for several defects, including neural tube defects, hypospadias and epispadias, abdominal wall defects and
surgical correction of gastroschisis and exomphalos, although there was a tendency for there to be a higher risk in the period
before opening compared with after opening of a landfill site, for several anomalies. A similar finding was also reported in
the analysis of congenital malformation rates among the population living near the Welsh landfill of Nant-y-Gwyddon where
nearly double the risk was found in exposed areas both before and after the site opened. However four cases, a nine-fold
excess, of gastroschisis, were observed after the site opened 20. A study of 21 European hazardous waste sites found that
residence within 3 km of a site was associated with a significantly raised risk of congenital anomaly, with a fairly consistent
decrease in risk with distance away from the sites. Risk was raised for neural-tube defects, malformations of the cardiac
septa and anomalies of great arteries and veins 21. A study by the same group showed similar increases in chromosomal
anomalies, even after adjustment for maternal age22.
The studies of congenital malformations described above have generally used residential proximity as a measure of
exposure. A similar study was carried out in New York State but also attempted to investigate associations with off-site
migration of chemicals and certain categories of chemicals present at the sites 23. A small (12%) statistically significant risk of
congenital malformations was associated with maternal proximity to a site which increased with off-site chemical leaks.
Significant associations were found for pesticides with musculoskeletal system defects, metals and solvents with nervous
system defects, and plastics with chromosomal anomalies. However, a case-control study to follow-up these findings which
established the probability of low, medium or high exposure for four potential pathways of exposure (groundwater ingestion
and inhalation, air, vapour, particulates) found no increased risk for mothers assigned a medium or high exposure 24.
Cancer
Several geographical comparison studies have investigated cancer mortality and incidence around waste sites. Increased
frequency of cancers in counties containing hazardous waste sites was found in two US studies 25,,26, particularly for
gastrointestinal, oesophageal, stomach, colon and rectal cancer. These studies are, however, limited by a lack of chemical
release data. No increase in cancer rates or the frequency of chromosome changes was found in relation to the Love Canal
site27,,28. Two reports29,,30 of cancer incidence among persons living near the Miron Quarry site, the third largest in North
America found increased incidence of cancers of the liver, kidney, pancreas and non-Hodgkins lymphomas. Once again no
measurements of exposure were available, and there was a relatively short period from first exposure (1968) to cancer onset
(19791985).
Studies of self-reported health symptoms
Many of the studies investigating health outcomes other than birth defects and reproductive orders and cancers have been
community health surveys and have relied on the self-reporting of symptoms through interviews or questionnaires. These
are comprehensively reviewed by Vrijheid10. The health problems investigated include respiratory symptoms, irritation of the
skin, nose and eyes, gastrointestinal problems, fatigue, headaches, psychological problems and allergies. It has been
suggested that evaluation of a relationship between these symptoms is complicated by confounding by stress, public
perception of risk, odours and nuisance related to the site, and recall bias. For example, a survey 31 found that residents who
indicated they were worried about pollution reported more symptoms than those who were not worried, both in the exposed
and control areas.

Disposal Options and Problems

Disposal options for hazardous waste include landfills, injection wells , incineration, and bioremediation , as well as several others. The
greatest concern with the disposal of hazardous waste in landfills or injection wells is that toxic substances will leak into surrounding
groundwater. Groundwater is a major source of drinking water worldwide and once it is contaminated, pollutants are extremely difficult and
costly to remove. In some instances, it is impossible to remove groundwater contamination. The ideal disposal method is the destruction and
conversion of hazardous waste to a non-hazardous form. New technology for hazardous and mixed low-level radioactive waste conversion
includes a high-temperature plasma torch that converts low-level radioactive wastes to environmentally safe glass. Conversion to
environmentally safe substances can be very expensive for some types of hazardous wastes and technically impossible for others, creating the
need for alternative disposal methods.

The most common form of hazardous waste disposal in the United States is landfilling. Hazardous waste landfills are highly regulated and are
required to include clay liners, monitoring wells, and groundwater barriers. The 1984 Hazardous Solid Waste Amendments require the
monitoring of groundwater near landfills for thirty years. Injection wells may be used to inject hazardous waste deep into the earth, but
problems result with aquifer contamination and the ultimate fate of the hazardous waste after injection is unknown.

Incineration may be an effective way to convert hazardous waste into a nonhazardous form while greatly decreasing its volume. The waste is
burned and converted into carbon dioxide, water, and inorganic by-products. The problems associated with incineration are high capital and

operating costs, and the disposal of ash, which may contain hazardous substances. In addition, incinerating wastes can cause mercury and
dioxin air pollution. Bioremediation may also be used in situ or ex situ to convert hazardous wastes to nontoxic by-products using
microorganisms and natural degradation processes. Biodegradation requires very long treatment times and it may be difficult to control or
enhance natural degradation processes. Phytoremediation, the process by which plants absorb and in some cases degrade hazardous
substances in the environment, is being investigated as an emerging cleanup technology. For example poplar trees have been shown to break
down the herbicide atrazine, mustard plants will remove lead from soil, and the alpine pennycress plant will take large amounts of heavy
metals and also uranium from soil.

When hazardous waste is to be transported off-site for disposal, the waste generator prepares a shipping document called a manifest. This
form must accompany the waste to its final destination and is used to track the waste's movements from "cradle to grave."
Toxic waste sites may cause health problems for millions
Exposure to lead and chromium particularly problematic for people living in three developing countries
Living near a toxic waste site may represent as much of a health threat as some infectious diseases, a study in three developing countries finds.
Researchers analyzed 373 toxic waste sites in India, Indonesia and the Philippines, where an estimated 8.6 million people are at risk of exposure to lead,
asbestos, hexavalent chromium and other hazardous materials. Among those people at risk, the exposures could cause a loss of around 829,000 years of good
health as a result of disease, disability or early death, the team reports May 4 in Environmental Health Perspectives.
In comparison, malaria in these countries, whose combined population is nearly 1.6 billion, causes the loss of 725,000 healthy years while outdoor air
pollution claims almost 1.5 million healthy years, according to the World Health Organization.
Although scientists have known for years about the risks of pollutants at toxic waste dumps, no one had quantified the health effects in this way, says study
coauthor Kevin Chatham-Stephens, a pediatrician at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.
For developing countries, I think theyve only touched the tip of the iceberg, says William Suk, a microbiologist and public health expert at the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Morrisville, N.C. That scares the hell out of me.
In 2010, researchers with the Blacksmith Institute, a nonprofit environmental health organization, identified the toxic waste sites, such as lead battery
recycling centers and former tanneries. For each site, the investigators determined the main pollutant; whether the pollutant is in the water, soil or air; and
how many people might regularly come into contact with the polluted area.
Chatham-Stephens and colleagues plugged those data into a computer program that estimates how much of a material should be in the human body given a
particular exposure. The team then used another program to estimate how many people should be afflicted with particular diseases or disabilities linked to a
toxic material. Lead, for example, can cause mild mental retardation in children, anemia and cardiovascular disease. The researchers determined the number
of lost healthy years by weighting each disease based on its relative severity.
Lead and hexavalent chromium, a carcinogen, accounted for more than 99 percent of the lost healthy years. The team estimates that the three countries could
house an additional 5,000 toxic waste sites that werent studied, affecting another 35 million people. In total, they suggest, the studied and unstudied toxic
sites could result in more than 4.3 million lost healthy years.
Almost 65 percent of the affected people are children and women of child-bearing age, Chatham-Stephens says, providing cause for concern: In utero and
early childhood are the stages of life that are most vulnerable to toxic insults.
In a related study, the team looked at 200 toxic waste sites in 31 developing countries. Nearly 780,000 kids younger than age 4 who live near these sites may
be exposed to lead. The team determined that exposures could be high enough to cause mild mental retardation in 6 out of every 1,000 kids, ChathamStephens reported May 6 at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting in Washington, D.C.
The results are sobering, says Howard Hu, a physician and epidemiologist at the University of Toronto. The next step, he says, is to directly measure the
level of toxicants in people living near these sites and the diseases that affect them. He also points out that the study only considered one pollutant per site
and only eight materials total, so future work should try to look at more toxicants and how they interact to influence health.

The actual health impacts could be even higher, Suk notes, because many people living near these sites may also suffer from nutritional deficiencies and
infectious diseases. Having a weakened immune system may make these individuals more vulnerable to environmental threats, he says.