Non-Hazardous Waste In e-Manifest

Is there non-hazardous waste in e-Manifest? If so, is it really a sizable amount and can we use this data for market and trend analysis? Why would non-hazardous waste data be in EPA’s e-Manifest system?

Yes. Non-hazardous waste currently accounts for nearly 11 million tons and is 46% of total tonnage in e-Manifest. Over 2 million manifests from more than 120,000 shippers annually have shipped non-hazardous waste in e-Manifest.

---

---

In this article we will review what states report non-hazardous data into e-Manifest, a deeper dive into that data, a look at loads and container types used for non-haz, leading non-haz destination facilities and more.

Non-Hazardous Waste in e-Manifest By State

The volumes of non-hazardous waste in e-Manifest are dominated by 3 states. These three states have reported millions of tons of non-hazardous waste into the e-Manifest system.

Non-Hazardous Waste Heat Map (Shippers Last 12 Months)

Top 3 States for Non-Hazardous Waste In e-Manifest

Percent of Non-Hazardous Tonnage (By State)

California, Texas and Illinois account for over 78% of the tonnage in e-Manifest.

State Non-Hazardous Containers

If we look at the number of containers shipped by State, we get the same 3 states but a much different range of percentages. The three states sums up to be only 59.4% of total non-hazardous containers compared to nearly 80% of the tonnage.

We see California with 41.4%, Texas with 11.8% and Illinois with 6.2% of total containers.

Percent of Non-Hazardous Containers (By State)

Average Non-Hazardous Container Weight By State

California and Texas only differ by about 4% in total tons shipped but differ by nearly 30% in the container quantity shipped. In the chart below we show the average container weight per state.

Chart of Non-Hazardous Waste Containers, Tons and Average Container Weight By State (All e-Manifest)

STATE TOTAL CONTAINERS TOTAL TONS AVG CONTAINER WEIGHT (LB) 1 CA 4,695,023 3,363,585 1,433 2 TX 1,341,241 2,935,032 4,377 3 IL 701,634 2,190,291 6,243 4 OH 363,882 80,458 442 5 MA 306,511 353,871 2,309 6 NJ 253,105 139,271 1,100 7 FL 252,159 34,440 273 8 NC 222,602 119,721 1,076 9 PA 215,001 53,327 496 10 IN 204,242 294,227 2,881 11 NY 196,496 164,752 1,677 12 WA 189,356 36,653 387 13 MI 184,541 56,185 609 14 OR 125,688 15,141 241 15 VA 115,768 19,665 340 16 CO 115,267 25,391 441 17 MO 114,530 167,610 2,927 18 LA 110,667 196,051 3,543 19 GA 107,683 14,801 275 20 WI 95,545 29,157 610 21 NV 95,403 38,191 801 22 TN 95,295 12,641 265 23 MD 85,641 48,482 1,132 24 AR 83,943 10,049 239 25 MN 80,729 14,269 353 26 AZ 76,045 15,096 397 27 SC 72,596 17,459 481 28 CT 71,495 60,011 1,679 29 AL 70,631 46,549 1,318 30 KY 62,947 10,004 318 31 UT 61,490 20,382 663 32 IA 61,277 92,601 3,022 33 KS 54,659 13,750 503 34 OK 52,296 11,194 428 35 NH 46,152 30,282 1,312 36 NE 45,457 5,855 258 37 WV 32,471 24,181 1,489 38 RI 32,185 33,886 2,106 39 MS 29,759 9,317 626 40 PR 29,027 3,414 235 41 NM 28,348 6,631 468 42 DE 25,258 8,045 637 43 ME 24,217 9,521 786 44 VT 23,354 5,638 483 45 HI 15,164 2,772 366 46 DC 12,483 2,006 321 47 ID 12,342 1,540 250 48 AK 10,913 1,650 302 49 MT 6,502 1,318 405 50 SD 6,443 1,232 382 51 ND 6,329 1,592 503 52 WY 5,585 3,606 1,291 53 GU 3,246 2,029 1,250 54 VI 1,281 796 1,244 55 MP 181 28 309 56 AS 1 0 300

California’s Container Count Appears Very High Compared To Texas and Illinois

We would expect to see more non-bulk containers from California because of population and differences in industry but not over 3 million more containers compared to Texas.

With California including many non-hazardous wastestreams into e-Manifest, we would expect their average container weight to be around Illinois or Texas. This is based on the premise that non-hazardous streams are more often shipped in bulk than hazardous wastes.

These bulk shipments would raise the average container weight compared to containerized hazardous waste. Also, many used oil (which is reported as haz waste into e-Manifest in CA) wastestreams are also bulk.

Reviewing Data By Container Type In e-Manifest

e-Manifest gives us the ability to analyze waste volumes by container type. EPA has a set list of container type codes that are used when shipping on a hazardous waste manifest. We can look at the container types used to see if loads were bulk or if there are other abnormalities.

You can see EPA’s data table for container types here: Nationally-Defined Values – Container Type

National Numbers For Non-Hazardous Container Types and Loads

Ever lied awake at night and wondered how many metal drums containing non-hazardous waste have shipped in e-Manifest? No? Good.

We’ll take a look this question and delve into what load and container types are being logged into e-Manifest.

Nearly 1.3 Million Non-Hazardous Bulk Loads Are Recorded in e-Manifest

Non-Hazardous Bulk Loads in e-Manifest

Based on the chart in the next section, if we add together container types CM, TT, DT, TC and HG, we find nearly 1.3 millions non-containerized bulk loads are recorded in e-Manifest.

Total Containers, Tons and Average Weight For All Container Types in US

CONTAINER TYPE CODE TOTAL CONTAINERS TOTAL TONS AVG CONTAINER WEIGHT (LB) DM 2,632,283 386,732 293.8 DF 2,507,724 177,185 141.3 BA 2,496,300 206,737 165.6 CF 1,718,698 153,652 178.8 CM 633,176 3,099,792 9,791.2 TT 536,105 4,220,733 15,745.9 CY 347,361 3,726 21.5 TP 262,886 203,704 1,549.8 CW 144,251 48,804 676.7 DT 111,019 2,269,707 40,888.6 HG 1,965 109,894 111,851.4 TC 864 60,363 139,729.1 DW 605 307 1,014.7

Over 2.6 million metal drums containing non-hazardous waste have been logged so far in e-Manifest. You can now sleep well tonight. You’re welcome.

Container Types Used Top 3 States

Let’s take a look at the container types used for non-hazardous waste in our top 3 states. In the below chart we see the total number of containers, per container type, per state.

Non-Hazardous Waste Container Types – Top 3 States (Chart)

California Non-Hazardous Waste

Let’s take a deeper look into California non-hazardous waste. Starting with, what is up with the “YUGE” amount of bags (“BA” ) being used in California.

WTBA? (What The BA?!)

What the heck is going on in California with the huge usage of bags for waste? This seems to be why the container count in California is disproportionately higher than its tonnage would suggest.

Asbestos Waste

…if we filter out asbestos from our chart our container count from bags goes from roughly 2.3 million to 37 thousand!!

A quick review of the data showed that the vast majority of the “BA” shipments in California were shipped containing asbestos.

Asbestos Waste Chart (BA Only)

The purple bar shows the number of manifests containing asbestos, the green the total quantity of containers and the orange bar the total tons.

Non-Hazardous Waste Container Types (Asbestos Filtered Out)

if we filter out asbestos from our chart our container count from bags goes from roughly 2.3 million to 37 thousand!! Take a look at the updated chart below.

This chart is definitely more proportional and easier to visually compare with the asbestos containers filtered out. California ships more non-bulk containers than any other state in every category except portable tanks (TP.)

Are The Asbestos Container Numbers Inflated?

There are some records that may inflate the numbers. There are six manifests that contain over 1000 bags (one containing 5000.) However, these abnormalities barely move the needle when filtered out…and who knows maybe they used sandwich bags :p

Asbestos Bag Averages

If we look at the chart below we see the averages for these elusive and mysterious bags:

CODE MANIFESTS TONS CONTAINERS AVG CONT. WEIGHT (LB) AVG CONT. PER MANIFEST AVG LB PER MANIFEST BA 69,653 168,728 2,268,490 148.76 32.57 4844.81

Nearly 70,000 shipments (manifests) and nearly 170,000 tons of material is a very sizable wastestream. These bags are not “supersack” sized bags that are commonly used with the “BA” code…maybe something a bit closer to a 15 gallon pail when trying to equate volume.

Breakdown of California Non-Hazardous Waste By Container Type

The below chart takes a deeper look into the types of loads shipping in California.

California All Container Types, Manifests, Tons, Container Quantity Chart

CODE MANIFESTS TONS CONTAINERS AVG CONT. WEIGHT (LB) AVG CONT. PER MANIFEST AVG LB PER MANIFEST CM 63,328 1,115,926 176,923 12,615 3 35,243 DT 57,667 899,711 58,086 30,979 1 31,204 TT 83,279 796,144 87,048 18,292 1 19,120 BA 77,290 181,936 2,305,932 158 30 4,708 DM 274,501 114,681 855,425 268 3 836 HG 1,635 88,552 1,635 108,321 1 108,321 DF 223,903 50,134 714,066 140 3 448 CF 100,103 47,585 345,639 275 3 951 TP 17,202 47,268 45,077 2,097 3 5,496 TC 462 37,282 462 161,393 1 161,393 CW 5,873 8,068 21,182 762 4 2,747 CY 7,718 864 127,718 14 17 224 DW 14 7 38 375 3 1,018

California Non-Hazardous Destination Facilities

To wrap up our dive into non-hazardous waste in California, let’s look at where the waste finally ends up.

California Destination Facility Map

Top 25 Non-Hazardous Destination Facilities for California Shippers

DESTINATION NAME DEST CITY DEST STATE TOTAL TONS TOTAL CONTAINERS TOTAL MANIFESTS 1 CLEAN HARBORS BUTTONWILLOW LLC BUTTONWILLOW CA 479,987 58,050 36,190 2 WORLD OIL RECYCLING COMPTON CA 435,859 84,888 58,568 3 CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT INC KETTLEMAN KETTLEMAN CITY CA 379,263 42,299 25,870 4 ECDC ENVIRONMENTAL L.C. EAST CARBON UT 324,989 17,505 17,485 5 LA PAZ COUNTY LANDFILL PARKER AZ 254,905 827,334 37,078 6 SOUTH YUMA COUNTY LANDFILL YUMA AZ 197,984 69,873 14,177 7 US ECOLOGY NEVADA, INC BEATTY NV 192,275 217,379 53,843 8 AZUSA LAND RECLAMATION CO INC AZUSA CA 148,295 469,696 18,404 9 COPPER MOUNTAIN LANDFILL WELLTON AZ 123,872 7,577 7,137 10 RECOLOGY HAY ROAD VACAVILLE CA 85,366 606,722 15,521 11 AGRITEC INT DBA CLEANTECH ENVIRONMENTAL IRWINDALE CA 68,451 51,529 24,024 12 BUTTERFIELD STATION LANDFILL MOBILE AZ 58,333 3,273 2,554 13 ALTAMONT LANDFILL & RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY LIVERMORE CA 53,825 283,538 13,163 14 SAFETY-KLEEN OF CALIFORNIA INC NEWARK CA 45,134 3,592 3,580 15 YUMA YES WASTE TRANSFER FACILITY YUMA AZ 43,273 278,694 80,042 16 CLEAN HARBORS LOS ANGLES LLC LOS ANGELES CA 36,146 99,709 7,170 17 HAZMAT TSDF INC, FORMER FILTER RECYCLING SERVICES INC RIALTO CA 26,708 25,305 8,102 18 AA SYDCOL LLC YUMA AZ 24,371 79,540 17,664 19 CROSBY & OVERTON LONG BEACH CA 23,777 36,101 11,966 20 CLEAN HARBORS SAN JOSE SAN JOSE CA 22,603 80,415 27,183 21 CALIFORNIA OIL TRANSFER LLC RIVERBANK CA 22,131 5,349 4,960 22 CLEAN HARBORS GRASSY MOUNTAIN KNOLLS UT 20,335 38,760 11,068 23 CLEAN HARBORS OF WILMINGTON WILMINGTON CA 20,049 124,440 39,427 24 US ECOLOGY VERNON INC LOS ANGELES CA 19,678 44,941 21,037 25 WORLD OIL TERMINALS – VERNON VERNON CA 15,768 238 238

Texas Non-Hazardous Waste

Let’s take a look at non-hazardous waste shipping from the “Lone Star State.” We have an article detailing Texas hazardous waste and why it led the nation in year over year volume decline. You can read that article here.

Breakdown of Texas Non-Hazardous Waste By Container Type

Texas Container Types, Manifests, Tons, Container Quantity Chart

CODE MANIFESTS TONS CONTAINERS AVG CONT. WEIGHT (LB) AVG CONT. PER MANIFEST AVG LB PER MANIFEST CM 89,495 1,382,235 199,606 13,850 2 30,890 TT 63,636 1,227,788 172,603 14,227 3 38,588 DT 8,134 171,228 10,012 34,205 1 42,102 DM 36,695 61,172 364,544 336 10 3,334 TP 8,211 59,213 84,457 1,402 10 14,423 CF 33,234 22,960 181,290 253 5 1,382 DF 35,667 17,726 209,178 169 6 994 CW 3,160 8,544 20,231 845 6 5,408 BA 10,314 6,796 36,996 367 4 1,318 TC 74 2,010 74 54,332 1 54,332 HG 20 1,336 20 133,643 1 133,643 CY 3,140 1,166 33,518 70 11 743 DW 20 193 393 982 20 19,290

Texas Non-Hazardous DM Shippers

For those of you who think about metal drums while trying to go to sleep, the below chart is for you. Here we plot the largest shippers of non-hazardous DMs in Texas.

Texas Destination Facilities

Texas Destination Facility Map

Top 25 Non-Hazardous Destination Facilities for Texas Shippers

NAME CITY STATE TOTAL TONS TOTAL CONTAINERS TOTAL MANIFESTS 1 US ECOLOGY WINNIE WINNIE TX 458,436 26,880 21,576 2 SEABREEZE LANDFILL (SEABREEZE RECOVERY INC) ANGLETON TX 252,627 94,758 16,529 3 BLUE RIDGE LANDFILL FRESNO TX 249,851 15,134 12,457 4 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF TEXAS INC – COASTAL PLAINS RECYCLING & DISPOSAL FACILITY ALVIN TX 235,711 26,162 13,360 5 GULF WEST LANDFILL TEXAS ANAHUAC TX 218,769 16,236 14,404 6 BFI GOLDEN TRIANGLE LANDFILL BEAUMONT TX 145,798 120,359 10,288 7 US ECOLOGY TEXAS ROBSTOWN TX 139,666 135,706 21,330 8 INTERGULF PASADENA TX 134,924 15,870 7,079 9 BEALINE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PASADENA TX 128,576 11,752 5,743 10 BFI ITASCA GARDENS ITASCA TX 105,913 33,160 7,700 11 WESTERN WASTE OF TEXAS LLC – NEWTON COUNTY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE COMPLEX DEWEYVILLE TX 81,901 6,564 5,655 12 IESI TURKEY CREEK LANDFILL ALVARADO TX 76,408 27,314 5,400 13 LONESTAR ECOLOGY PASADENA TX 67,367 9,759 3,503 14 WESTERN WASTE INDUSTRIES – CONROE INDUSTRIAL NON HAZARDOUS LANDFILL CONROE TX 62,272 4,299 3,352 15 LIQUID ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS GILLHORN PROCESSING HOUSTON TX 55,505 3,205 3,139 16 FORT BEND REGIONAL LANDFILL NEEDVILLE TX 47,921 12,350 3,246 17 LA GLORIA RANCH LANDFILL EDINBURG TX 42,890 991 964 18 TM DEER PARK SERVICES DEER PARK TX 37,824 1,851 1,849 19 TEXCOM GULF DISPOSAL LLC CONROE TX 25,668 1,125 1,125 20 COVEL GARDENS LANDFILL AND RECYCLING CEN SAN ANTONIO TX 24,052 3,264 1,467 21 CLEAN HARBORS DEER PARK DEER PARK TX 22,986 93,974 8,825 22 DELTA WATER PROCESSING HOUSTON TX 22,911 1,155 1,154 23 BFI SOUTHWEST LANDFILL CANYON TX 21,831 8,549 1,982 24 ABILENE ENVIRONMENTAL LANDFILL ABILENE TX 20,782 43,857 1,989 25 CHARTER WASTE INC ODESSA TX 20,576 6,953 1,458

Illinois Non-Hazardous Waste

Rounding up our look at the top 3 states for non-hazardous waste, we will look at Illinois.

In our article “State Analysis – Year Over Year Trends“, we learned that Illinois led the country in total tonnage decrease in e-Manifest. Why did that decrease occur?

Illinois Quarterly Non-Hazardous Waste Volumes

Why Are Illinois Non-Hazardous Waste Volumes Down Over 50% in e-Manifest?

Why are volumes down more than 50%? Is this due to Covid, decline in the economy or some specific industry…or something else?

Illinois Non-Hazardous Special Waste Manifest

The drastic decline in non-hazardous waste volume in e-Manifest is primarily due to a change in state regulatory paperwork requirements not any economic or industrial factor

Effective July 26, 2019, Illinois allowed the use of the Illinois Non-Hazardous Special Waste Manifest for non-hazardous special waste, in lieu of the Federal Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest. This change means these wastes no longer have to be submitted into e-Manifest.

The drastic decline in non-hazardous waste volume in e-Manifest is primarily due to a change in state regulatory paperwork requirements not any economic or industrial factor.

More information:

Bill HB2764 – Bill authorizing IEPA to use a new manifest for non-hazardous special waste.
IEPA Special Waste Page
IEPA Special Waste Manifest Example

Breakdown of Illinois Non-Hazardous Waste By Container Type

OK. Now let’s take a look at the various container types managed in Illinois. The below chart looks at all non-hazardous containers in e-Manifest from IL.

Illinois Container Types, Manifests, Tons, Container Quantity Chart (All e-Manifest)

CODE MANIFESTS TONS CONTAINERS AVG CONT. WEIGHT (LB) AVG CONT. PER MANIFEST AVG LB PER MANIFEST TT 65,558 1,279,506 140,584 18,203 2 39,034 DT 13,165 690,510 20,836 66,281 2 104,901 CM 11,571 149,422 15,199 19,662 1 25,827 DM 37,340 31,110 221,257 281 6 1,666 TP 2,536 21,333 25,635 1,664 10 16,824 DF 31,435 13,307 148,479 179 5 847 CF 17,114 10,701 93,987 228 5 1,251 CW 1,761 7,319 19,906 735 11 8,312 BA 5,157 2,393 10,876 440 2 928 TC 19 760 19 80,036 1 80,036 CY 1,413 658 8,108 162 6 932 HG 12 63 13 9,693 1 10,501 DW 6 15 36 860 6 5,161

Container Types and Bulk Loads After New Manifest Enactment

The below chart compares Q1/Q2 for 2019 when special waste loads were going into e-Manifest and Q1/Q2 2020 where they are no longer submitted.

A very dramatic decrease in the amount of tank trucks reported into e-Manifest after the IL manifest was enacted.

Illinois Non-Hazardous Destination Facilities

To finish up our analysis, let’s take a look at destination facilities receiving waste from Illinois shippers.

Illinois Destination Facility Map

Top 25 Non-Hazardous Destination Facilities for Illinois Shippers

NAME CITY STATE TOTAL TONS TOTAL CONTAINERS TOTAL MANIFESTS 1 LARAWAY RDF JOLIET IL 603,789 18,650 12,842 2 CID RECYCLING & DISPOSAL FAC CALUMET CITY IL 209,719 8,111 4,506 3 WATER INTEGRATED TREATMENT SYSTEMS LLC DOLTON IL 165,246 20,711 14,705 4 OWENSBORO/DAVIESS COUNTY REG. (RWRA MAX RHOADS WWTP) OWENSBORO KY 130,195 5,847 5,847 5 FOX RIVER RECLAMATION ELGIN IL 96,481 3,519 3,511 6 PRAIRIE HILL RDF MORRISON IL 79,660 3,663 1,207 7 ROCK RIVER WATER RECLAMATION ROCKFORD IL 73,076 3,257 2,458 8 BEAVER OIL CO INC HODGKINS IL 67,073 4,883 4,560 9 COVANTA ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS LLC MILWAUKEE WI 27,175 13,446 2,221 10   PORTAGE IN 32,644 24,448 3,097 11 ERC MIDWEST LLC WEST ALLIS WI 43,719 7,533 1,324 12 NORTH MILAM RDF EAST SAINT LOUIS IL 41,638 2,422 2,384 13 LIQUID ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS CHICAGO IL 37,631 4,778 3,135 14 MACOMB WWTP MACOMB IL 31,243 1,280 309 15 GLENBARD WASTEWATER AUTHORITY GLEN ELLYN IL 29,395 1,017 1,007 16 SANITARY DISTRICT OF DECATUR DECATUR IL 28,964 1,274 1,274 17 KANKAKEE RIVER METRO AGENCY KANKAKEE IL 28,392 1,603 1,367 18 BURLINGTON WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY BURLINGTON WI 24,523 1,042 764 19 CARUS DISPOSAL AREA 3 OTTAWA IL 23,934 3,522 3,490 20 HEARTLAND RECYCLING LLC FOREST VIEW IL 23,201 12,397 2,528 21 INDIAN CREEK LANDFILL 2 HOPEDALE IL 23,102 1,221 1,219 22 SANGAMON CO WATER RECLAMATION DIST SPRINGFIELD IL 22,078 1,036 847 23 GREATER PEORIA SANITARY DIST PEORIA IL 20,920 972 971 24 PERRY RIDGE LANDFILL INC DUQUOIN IL 17,744 3,235 1,112

Why Is Non-Hazardous Waste In e-Manifest?

Why exactly is non-hazardous waste in EPA’s e-Manifest system? Below are the primary reasons:

1. Shipped with other hazardous waste
2. Destination submitted unrequired data into e-Manifest
3. Federal requirement (like TSCA-regulated PCBs)
4. Required by state regulations

Shipped With Other Hazardous Waste

Non-hazardous wastes shipped with other hazardous waste on the same manifest will appear in e-Manifest, if submitted by the destination. It is common for non-hazardous waste to be shipped with hazardous waste on the same manifest to simplify shipping. These non-hazardous wastes are reported with the other hazardous waste line items they shipped with.

Destination Submitted Unrequired Data Into e-Manifest

The e-Manifest system does not determine whether a manifest should be submitted or not. If the destination fully completes all required fields and submits the data, the data will be available in e-Manifest.

A common example of manifests being submitted into e-Manifest that are not required would be manifests from VSQGs. Unless the state requires VSQGs/CESQGs to use a manifest or a manifest was required because of certain episodic events, a manifest and submittal into e-Manifest is not required. See EPA’s FAQ’s – Scope #18

Many destination facilities submit these VSQG manifests even though they are not required to do so.

Other Federal Requirement

EPA may require the use of a hazardous waste manifest for specific non-RCRA regulated wastes. PCB wastes are the only example that we are aware of for this at present. The EPA TSCA regulations overseeing PCB disposal require the use of a hazardous waste manifest. This requirement means the manifest must be submitted into EPA.

Required By State Regulation

As already discussed, some states require the use of a hazardous waste manifest for specific state-regulated wastes. State regulations are the largest driver in what non-hazardous waste records appear in e-Manifest.

State regulations are the largest driver in what non-hazardous waste records appear in e-Manifest.

Would You Like More Information?

If you would like more information about Concertive and how we can help your company, please contact us.