Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Home Table of contents
Prepared August 2001 by John Sheridan, NCMS, (734) 995-4963, johns@ncms.org
The EPA has consolidated information about the shipbuilding industry and its hazardous waste emissions in their Profile of the Shipbuilding and Repair Industry (Publication#: EPA/310-R-97-008).
This publication contains a synopsis of current scientific toxicity and fate information for the top chemicals that shipbuilding facilities self-reported as released to the environment based upon 1995 Toxics Release Inventory data. The following quotation from this publication provides insight on reporting techniques and interpretation already in place.
Quote
Management
of Chemicals in Waste stream
The
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) requires facilities to report information
about the management of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) chemicals in waste and
efforts made to eliminate or reduce those quantities. These data have been
collected annually in Section 8 of the TRI reporting Form R beginning with the
1991 reporting year. The data summarized below cover the years 1993-1996 and is
meant to provide a basic understanding of the quantities of waste handled by the
industry, the methods typically used to manage this waste, and recent trends in
these methods. TRI waste management data can be used to assess trends in source
reduction within individual industries and facilities, and for specific TRI
chemicals. This information could then be used as a tool in identifying
opportunities for pollution prevention compliance assistance activities…
Table
4 shows that the TRI reporting shipyards managed about six million pounds of
production related wastes (total quantity of TRI chemicals in the waste from
routine production operations in column B) in 1995. From the yearly data
presented in column B, the total quantities of production related TRI wastes
increased between 1994 and 1995. This is likely in part because the number of
chemicals on the TRI list nearly doubled between those years. Production related
wastes were projected to decrease between 1996 and1997…
If
it is assumed that the proportions of production related wastes managed onsite
and off-site using the methods shown in columns D-I were reported correctly, the
data would indicate that about 60 percent of the TRI wastes are managed off-site
through recycling, energy recovery, or treatment (columns G, H, and I,
respectively) in 1995. Only about one percent of the wastes were managed
on-site. The remaining portion of TRI chemical wastes (about 44percent), shown
in column J, were released to the environment through direct discharges to air,
land, water, and underground injection, or was disposed off-site.
Unquote
The obvious source of data is the Federal EPA RCRA data. All states follow the federal EPA RCRA rules, which are mature.
It was noted that Maine, Louisiana, Oregon, and Texas (and perhaps others) require annual reporting of hazardous waste generation (Federal RCRA requirements are biennial).
In addition to hazardous waste reporting, Oregon was one of the early states (since 1989) to become involved in pollution prevention programs through facility planning. Their Toxics Use and Hazardous Waste Reduction Plan requires an Annual Progress Report by large quantity generators of hazardous waste or large toxics users. This plan has since been emulated by many other states.
The following paragraphs provide information on the status of the selected state hazardous waste programs. States are presented in alphabetical order. Information about significant state databases is presented in a table. Other states are covered in narrative format.
| Alabama | Florida | Mississippi | Virginia |
| California | Louisiana | Oregon | Washington |
| Connecticut | Maine | Texas |
Alabama law parallels federal law regarding hazardous waste. The Alabama program is managed by Hazardous Waste Program, Division 14, where producers and transporters of hazardous waste are regulated. No reporting or state data beyond the federal TRI data was found.
California[20]
|
|
|
Are there data beyond Federal TRI data? |
Yes.
California licenses transporters, and maintains a database of manifests.
The database is called HAZNET. It may not be publicly available. |
|
For what years is data available? |
Since 1994 |
|
Data for both small and large facilities? |
Yes. If the originator has an EPA ID, or if the transporters are licensed, then data are collected. Thus, almost all facilities are represented. |
|
Data easily aggregated to SIC? |
Yes. Originators are reported by SIC code and EPA ID#. |
|
Are data in similar units? |
Manifest data are recorded using CA state waste codes and RCRA waste codes where appropriate |
Connecticut
|
|
|
Are there data beyond Federal TRI data? |
Yes. In
addition to a RCRA database, Connecticut maintains a database of hazardous
waste manifests. |
|
For what years is data available? |
Data is available back to 1984. An ongoing data quality assessment effort has improved recent data. |
|
Data for both small and large facilities? |
Yes. The database addresses large quantity generators, small quantity generators, and temporary permit holders who transport their waste. |
|
Data easily aggregated to SIC? |
No. SIC codes are not used, but a company name and EPA ID# are used. A correspondence table could be created. |
|
Are data in similar units? |
There are limitations. Only one EPA waste code per manifest is used. Otherwise, standard codes are employed. |
Florida does license transporters of hazardous waste, but does not maintain a database of manifests. Florida does have a “Small Quantity Waste Generator” program that is administered by most counties. This program features a five-year reporting cycle, and was not judged[22] useful in responding to this search. Florida industry does comply with the EPA rules regarding the biennial hazardous waste report.
Louisiana
|
|
|
Are there data beyond Federal TRI data? |
Yes.
Louisiana maintains data that is now (starting this year) consistent with
federal EPA guidelines. Title
33 of LA law describes hazardous waste reporting requirements in
detail. Louisiana requires annual reporting of hazardous waste generation.
In every odd year, Louisiana forwards their data to the EPA. |
|
For what years is data available? |
Since 1992. In every odd year, Louisiana forwards their data to the EPA. |
|
Data for both small and large facilities? |
No. Until their law change this year, data for small facilities was maintained locally in paper. With the law change, small facilities need no longer report. |
|
Data easily aggregated to SIC? |
Yes. Data is reported by originators and easily classified. |
|
Are data in similar units? |
Yes. EPA waste codes are used where appropriate. |
Maine
|
|
|
Are there data beyond Federal TRI data? |
Yes. Maine
licenses transporters, and maintains a database of manifests. The quality
of this effort is a source of pride within their organization. |
|
For what years is data available? |
Since 1993. |
|
Data for both small and large facilities? |
Yes. Waste from all size facilities that is transported is part of the data. |
|
Data easily aggregated to SIC? |
Yes. Originators are identified on the manifests. |
|
Are data in similar units? |
Maine requires that manifests use EPA waste codes where appropriate. |
Mississippi complies with TRI. No reporting or state data beyond the federal TRI data was found
Oregon[25]
|
|
|
Are there data beyond Federal TRI data? |
Yes. Oregon has a thorough Hazardous Waste Program. Every year hazardous waste generators are required to fill out an Annual Hazardous Waste Report. Oregon’s plan is distinguished from federal requirements by its increasd frequentcy of reporting, reporting by small quantity generators, and some more specific shipment information required. |
|
For what years is data available? |
Since 1994. |
|
Data for both small and large facilities? |
Yes. This report is required of all large quantity generators and small quantity generators. |
|
Data easily aggregated to SIC? |
Yes. Originators are identified. |
|
Are data in similar units? |
Data reporting requirements are addressed in the Waste Report cited above. |
In addition to hazardous waste reporting, Oregon was one of the early states to become involved in pollution prevention programs through facility planning. Their Toxics Use and Hazardous Waste Reduction Plan requires an Annual Progress Report by large quantity generators of hazardous waste or large toxics users. This plan has since been emulated by many other states.
The Hazardous Waste Reporting Forms booklet is most informative. It contains all the hazardous waste codes.
Texas
|
|
|
Are there data beyond Federal TRI data? |
Yes. The Texas
Natural Resources Conservation Commission enters all
information submitted by industrial and hazardous waste transporters,
receivers, generators and one time shipments into a database that tracks
industrial and hazardous waste generation and management activities in the
state of Texas. Generators report annually. Receivers report monthly. |
|
For what years is data available? |
Good data exist at least five years back. |
|
Data for both small and large facilities? |
Yes. Waste from all generators is maintained by the state. |
|
Data easily aggregated to SIC? |
Yes. Originators are identified. |
|
Are data in similar units? |
Data reporting requirements are addressed here. Texas uses EPA waste codes. |
Virginia[27]
does license transporters of hazardous waste, but has not maintained data. All
their data is placed in the federal EPA RCRAINFO data. Virginia has a new
database program, entitled CEDS, which will consolidate all state DEQ data.
However, this system is only one year old, and not judged useful for our
purpose.
Washington[28]
|
|
|
Are there data beyond Federal TRI data? |
Yes.
Washington Dept.
of Ecology maintains a database of hazardous waste generation. WAC
Ch 173-303 provides dangerous waste regulations. |
|
For what years is data available? |
Good data exist eight years back. |
|
Data for both small and large facilities? |
No. Waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators is not maintained by the state. |
|
Data easily aggregated to SIC? |
Yes. Originators are identified. |
|
Are data in similar units? |
Washington uses EPA waste codes where appropriate. |