[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Underground Injection of Hazardous Waste



Hello

I usually don't comment on issues like this.  I don't  know enough about the
safeness or lack of safeness involved with injecting hazardous waste
underground. Not a geologist.

However I don't understand the business or economic sense of it. Even if it
is cheap to dispose of this way, you would assume the waste chemical will be
replaced by new chemical for whatever process it is used in. That's pretty
expensive.

I'm not a chemist either but at least 3 or 4 of the less complex chemical
compounds Ethylene glycol, NMP, Methanol, n-butyl alcohol are highly
recyclable either in new product or through energy recovery ,even in dilute
concentrations. There are probably others on the list.

Or conversely you can concentrate solutions to make them valuable.

Even the acids are valuable. Several technologies that could recover the
acids.

Even if the "injecting" companies are incapable, sorry, don't want to deal
with the wastes, there are other companies that specialize in recovering-not
treating used chemical solutions.

Maybe this is a good Common Sense Initiative area the regulators can work on
with the "injectors".  Would be nice to know the stuff is not going in to
the ground and might eliminate the need for those pesky regulations.

Good luck.

Jack


Phillip (Jack) Annis
Waste Reduction and Recycling Specialist
UWM-CCE-UW-Extension
161 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 6000
Milwaukee, WI 53203

Telephone 414-227-3371
Fax 414-227-3165
Email pannis@facstaff.wisc.edu


-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-p2tech@great-lakes.net [mailto:owner-p2tech@great-lakes.net] On
Behalf Of Kirsten Sinclair Rosselot
Sent:	Wednesday, August 04, 1999 2:14 PM
To:	cooperre@flash.net; p2tech@great-lakes.net
Subject:	Re: Underground Injection of Hazardous Waste

More than 200 million pounds of TRI-reported compounds were reported as
injected to Class I wells in 1996.  A very small number of facilities is
responsible for the majority of TRI-reported injection, which clearly shows
that there are many facilities making use of alternatives to injection.
Injection varies by region -- where it's allowed, it's used, because it's
cheap.

TRI compounds reportedly injected in quantities greater than a million
pounds are (with quantities injected in millions of pounds):
acetamide, 1.2
acetonitrile, 23
acrylamide, 5.7
acrylic acid, 5.2
acrylonitrile, 3.6
ammonia (really weird reporting requirements), 24
n-butyl alcohol, 2.5
tert-butyl alcohol, 1.0
cyanide in cyanide compounds, 3.5
cyclohexanol, 3.6
N,N-dimethylformamide, 1.2
ethylene glycol, 7.7
formaldehyde, 9.4
formic acid, 11
methanol, 24
N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, 2.9
nitrate compounds, 39
nitric acid, 17
phenol, 2.0

===============================
Kirsten Sinclair Rosselot, P.E.
Process Profiles
P.O. Box 8264
Calabasas, CA 91372-8264

rosselot@ix.netcom.com

http://www2.netcom.com/~rosselot

(818) 878-0454

----------
Juna Z. Snow
List Manager
Waste Management & Research Center
listman@wmrc.hazard.uiuc.edu
217.333.8945