Laserfiche WebLink
3. The breakdown by product type of the household hazardous waste <br /> total tonnage was based on the percentage composition of HHW as <br /> discussed in the Marin County, California and New Orleans, <br /> Louisiana studies (W.L. Rathje, et al . , July 1987) . <br /> 4. To convert household hazardous waste quantities to waste groups, <br /> assumptions were made based on several studies by Rathje et al . : <br /> For example, for household maintenance and cleaning products, the <br /> following assumptions were made: <br /> ehald . tenance Products: 30 percent oil -based paints; <br /> 60 percent stains, varnishes, paint strippers, adhesives, thin- <br /> ners, 10 percent caustic paint remover. <br /> Hous Qjc _Cleaners: 80 percent drain openers, oven cleaners, rug <br /> and toilet bowl cleaners, scouring powders, ammonia, and acid. <br /> 20 percent wood and metal cleaners and polishes. <br /> 5. Finally, the percentage breakdowns for particular types of house- <br /> hold wastes (household cleaners, automotive products, etc. ) were <br /> assigned to one of 17 waste groups. Waste group assignment was <br /> based on the conversions developed by DHS, which are presented in _ <br /> Table 5-14. <br /> 5.5 SURVEY OF WASTE GENERATORS <br /> To obtain a profile of hazardous waste practices among the major <br /> generators, the County Department of Public Works surveyed 35 compa- <br /> nies that were among the top generators in 1985 and 1986. The 35 com- <br /> panies accounted for 80 percent of the average of manifested hazardous <br /> waste quantities in 1985 and 1986. Presented in Appendix A is a _ <br /> sample letter sent to these firms. <br /> 5.6 WASTE GENERATION TABLES <br /> PJ9 9390502D.00D 5-13 Rev. 1 11/08/88 <br />