~S7-OL&
Wednesday
August 12, 1987
Part. II
40 CFR Part 268 ' |-." ': '' ''.. ' :
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Land Disposal Restrictions; Caiilfornia List
Constituents; Notice of Availability and
Request for Comments
-------
29992 Federal Register / Vol.'52, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 1987 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268
[SWH-FRL-32409]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Land Disposal Restrictions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Data Availability and
Request for Comment.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency is today presenting data and
information relating to issues initially
noticed for public comment in the
December 11,1986 "California list" land
disposal restrictions proposal (51FR
44714). This information relates to the
issues of \vhether or not to lower the
prohibition levels for California list
metal-bearing and cyanide-containing
wastes, what the lower prohibition
levels might be, what treatment
standard would be appropriate for these
wastes, and whether sufficient national
capacity exists to treat these wastes to
achieve such standards. This notice
provides treatment data corroborating
that existing treatment technologies can
achieve the suggested prohibition levels
for Califormia list metal and cyanide
wastes. In addition, the notice includes
estimates on the volume of metal and
cyanide wastes that would require
alternative treatment capacity, and
requests additional data and comments
on the volumes of wastes that would be
affected if EPA lowers the prohibition
levels. Furthermore, the Agency is
seeking comment on existing treatment
capacity and on the time needed to
develop new capacity.
This action relates to the requirements
of section 3004(d) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
which directs EPA to substitute more
stringent concentration levels where
necessary to protect human health and
the environment. The information and
comments we receive will be used to aid
the Agency in developing final
regulations to implement land disposal
prohibitions for California list metal and
cyanide wastes.
Today's notice also solicits comment
on the issue of appropriate pocedures
for processing requests for § 268.44
variances from the treatment standard.
DATE: Comments on this notice of data
availability and request for comment
must be received on or before October
13,1987.
ADDRESSES: The public must send an
original and two copies of their
comments to EPA RCRA Docket (S-212),
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Place the Docket Number F-87-LDR6-
FFFFF on your comments. The OSW
docket is located at: EPA RCRA Docket
(LG-100) 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460- The docket is
open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, except for Federal
holidays. The public must make an
appointment to review docket materials.
Call at 475-9327 for appointments. The
public may copy a maxium of 50 pages
of material from any one regulatory
docket at no cost. Additional copies cost
$.20/page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information about this
notice, contact the RCRA Hotline, Office
of Solid Waste (WH-562), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460,.
(800) 424-9346 (toll free) or (202) 382-
3000 in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area. .
For information on specific aspects of
this notice, contact: William B. Fortune,
or Stephen R. Weil, Office of Solid
Waste (WH-562B), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 382-4770.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On December 11,1986 (51 FR 44714),
the Agency proposed to codify the
statutory levels for the California list
wastes as set forth in section 3004(d) of
the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act .
(RCRA). In this proposal, the Agency . ,
also requested comments and, data on
an alternative approach that would
support lowering the restriction levels
for those metals for which Extraction
Procedure (EP) toxicity characteristic
levels exist. In addition, the Agency
requested comment on whether the
statutory levels should be lowered for
hazardous wastes containing the
constituents (nickel, thallium, and
cyanides) not covered by the EP toxicity
characteristic. 51 FR 44722.
Most of the comments submitted in
response to the proposed rule supported
codifying the statutory levels,
particularly for metal-bearing wastes.
These commenters indicated that EPA.,
should not lower the prohibition levels
unless it can be demonstrated that the
statutory limits are not protective of
human health and the environment. :
Commenters asserted that prohibiting
| the California list metals at EP toxicity.
levels (levels at which wastes cannot be
managed in Subtitle D facilities) would
indicate that Subtitle C landfills do not .
provide additional protection beyond
Subtitle D landfills. ...
A number of commenters, however,
urged the Agency to substitute more -.
stringent prohibition levels for I
California list metal-bearing wastes. The
commenters asserted that the statutory
levels are 10,000 times the National
Interim Primary Drinking Water
Standards (NIPDWS), and as such, are
not protective of human health and the
.: environment. The commenters further
claim that the affected units receiving
these wastes are, at least in some cases,
unlined surface impoundments (liquids
cannot be disposed in landfills) which
are not'significantly more protective
than Subtitle D facilities. Several of
these commenters stated that EPA has
available data that support setting lower
levels (e.g., data in delisting petition
i files). They also asserted that it is
technologically possible to treat metal-
bearing wastes to lower levels, and
further, that there is substantial unused
capacity for treatment of both metal-
and cyanide-bearing California list
wastes.
In today's notice, the Agency is
requesting further comment on lowering
the statutory levels for the liquid
hazardous wastes containing the
California list metals to levels 100 times
the NIPDWS in the filtrate of these .
wastes (i.e., levels found in the liquid
portion by running the Paint Filter r
Liquids Test), and is providing more -
information on the substantive basis for
such a decision. The Agency also is
making available data that could
support prohibition levels for nickel,
thallium, and cyanide, for which no
drinking water standards exist. Should
the Agency promulgate prohibitions
based on these findings, it would also be
necessary to promulgate treatment
standards under RCRA section 3004(m).
Therefore, the Agency is also presenting
data that indicates that metal-bearing
and cyanide-containing California list
wastes can be treated to achieve the EP
or analogous levels (for those
constituents for which there are no EP
toxicity levels). In addition, the Agency-
is seeking comment on'available
alternative treatment and volumes of
wastes that could be affected should the
Agency finalize a rule lowering
prohibition levels and establishing
treatment standards. -':>l -"ir> '''
-------
Register /
Wednesday, August 12, 1987 / Proposed Rules
29993
II. Establishing More Stringent
Concentration Levels ' : ..
'A. Rationale for Lowering the
Prohibition Levels , , ,
Section 3004(d)(2) of RCRA indicates
that EPA "shall substitute more
stringent concentration levels" for those
in the statute "when necessary to
protect human health and the
environment". As mentioned earlier, the
Agency proposed to codify the statutory
levels, and at the same time solicited
comment on whether it should substitute
more stringent concentration levels. 51
FR 44718.
Some commenters suggested that EPA
has to'make a quantified demonstration
that the statutory levels are riot
protective in order to lower the levels.
As indicated'in the December 11,1986
proposed rule (51 FR 44718), the statute
and legislative history suggest that the
decision in many ways is as much a
question of policy as a question of fact.
The levels in the California list were
adopted essentially for reasons of
administrative convenience H. Rep. No.
198,,98th Cong., 1st Sess., 35 (1983). The
legislative history states that: ;
[TJhese hazardous wastes and specified
concentration levels were selected primarily <
because the State of California has conducted,
a rulemaking procedure and begun
implementing .restrictions on these wastes; '','.'.
The specified concentration levelsloiooO-
times the Interim Primary Drinking Water '
Standardsare a conservative starting point
for the analysis. The'specified concentrations
are not intended to be binding on the Agency.
(S. Rep. No. 284 at 17) _.-.',?-.,.
the legislative history further expresses
concerns that the statutory levels are !
too high, and authorizes the Agency to
substitute more stringent levels, when
deemed necessary. This language
suggests that the decision in some ways '
involves the .choice of a starting point,
largely a policy choice. The Senate
report indeed emphasizes (in the context
of making any land disposal restriction '
determinations) the Agency's general r
discretion: to prohibit hazardous wastes:
[T]he Agency should riot start from the : :
point of having to justify the imposition;of a
'land .disposal restriction; The'presumption is ;
that land dis'pbsal is the least preferred " . '
management method.:This makes the '.':.;'.''
; Agency's decisibn farsimpler than if the Act; ;
were neutral as to different management
options. The Agency should not start'from an
assumption that it must begin a new research '.'.
effort or regulatory analysis beforaariy :'«>./;
determinations can be made. (S. Rep. No. 264
'' ''
' Not only,does section :3Q04(d) clearly .
allow;the Agency to substitute more ":;
stringe'nt levels, but' a further indicatipri
in'the .statutory structure confirming the
Agency's discretion to do so is that any
such decision could be characterized as
an action taken under the independent
authority of section 3p04(g). Such a
decisionan-Agency choice of the order
in which to implement its delegated
authorityis largely discretionary. In
any case, the existence of the overlap
with section 3004(g) indicates that
disputes over the Agency's choice in
lowering levels is in many ways a
semantic battle over the means used to'
achieve the result, a situation where
there is particular deference afforded to
the Agency's choice. CAM v. NRDC,lQ5
; S.Ct. 1105, 1112 (1985).
In consideration of this statutory
language and legislative historyv the
Agency requested comment on lowering
the statutory levels to the EP toxicity
characteristic or similar levels (which
are 100 times the NIPDWS or analogous
levels as opposed to 10,000 times these
. concentrations). 51 FR 44716.
Furthermore, a change in these levels is
supported by the statutory findings of -
the inherent uncertainties and lack of
safety of land disposal (see RCRA '
sections 1002(b){7) and 3004(d)(l)(A)), ,
and that the only land disposal units
that can receive :untreated prohibited .
waste and be deemed protective of /" /
. human health arid the environment for
purposes of the land disposal ' ,
re^tricHof^prqgramare thpse::sa|is"fyihg ~
. the; statutory "no migratioii" 'staiidard
(section 3g04(d)(l)); Wjien one further ".
considers that these constituents are
highly mobile (since they are contained '
in liquids), indefinitely persistent'
(except for cyanides), and very toxic " "v
(see section 3004(d)(l)(c», it appears
that the statutory prohibition levels ;
require further eyaluatipn.
Commenters on the December 11,:1986
proposed rule stated that more stringent"
levels are needed to protect human'
health and the environment. Their
reasoning was that, as liquids,, these '-
yvastes would be managed in-surface,
impoundments since there are already
prohibitions oil the disposarof liquids in
landfills (a ;statutqry,proyisipn under
RCRA section 3004(c), codified 6ri: July ,
,15,1985, prohibits the placemeht of bulk
-,or non-cpritairierized'liquid hazardous: /
Jwaste or free liquids'contained iri;'" ' ''. ~
hazardous waste in any landfill). ;' ''-'- ;
Surface impoundments generally pose a
greater potential for migration out of a :.
unit"than do other larid disposal units" "
because of the higher liquid head and
larger volume of liquids within these "'
units. Moreover, many currently :
/'operating'interim status surface :_. . ,"
impoundments are unlined or' :
.iriadequately iined-ahd thus, the. ;v -: ;-
ppteritial for downward seepage of- "-; '
contaminated-fluids into ground'w'ater is
high. A mpdisling analyses used to !
evaluate the^benefits of proposed leak
detection re
and eyamde) arid^^^is^todky-making , V
Available.data;tipjuppcirl'tfeseearlier*, :
' '
-------
29994
Federal Register / Vok 52, No. 155 /Wednesday. Augusi 12, 1987 / Proposed
the current EP toxieity concentrations,
y quid wastes that exceed these
concentration levels-are defined as.
hazardous and, therefore, are prohibited
from disposal in a sanitary landfil or
other type of Subtitle D facility. Most
commenters who. urged the Agency to
lower the prohibition levels favored this
alternative. For the California-list
pollutants foe which there i&no
NIPDWS, namely nickel, thallium, and
cyanides, levels, at IQd times a minimum
health level would also.be appropriate.
51FR 44722. tSee section III which
discusses- appropriate minimum health
levels for these contaminants.); The
Agency, therefore, is contemplating am
approach whereby California list
hazardous waste containing greater than
100 times the NIPDWS (or 100 times.
health based levels for nickel, thallium.
ond cyanides) would be considered
prohibited from land disposal (until
pretreatcd, disposed of. in a "no
migration" unit, or granted a variance);
[See Table IJ.
In taking this position* EPA again does
not believe that the statute requires a
hard-and-fast quantification that
substituted levels are needed-tot protect
humaahealth, and the environment. This
is because Congress has already
determined that, for purposes of the land
disposal restrictions program, disposal
o£ untreated hazardous waste is only
protective in, "no migration" units.
Congress, also structured the Act in such-
a way that any substantial levels could
be characterized as a section 3004{g),
rule justifiable by reference io the
factors in section 3D04(g)(2),, which do
not require quantified showings. Rather,:
what is involvied is a determination of
an appropriate regulatory starting point.
The Agency's tentative view is that
given the high degree of toxieity and
highly mobile form of the California list
metals and cyanides* it may be
necessary to prohibit these wastes, at
concentration levels which normally
define liquid waste containing these
constituents as hazardous.
California list syanide and metal
waste must be liquids, oc contain free
liquids. EPA has interpreted this
statutory language to mean thatihe
waste must fail the Paint Filter Liquids
Test (PFLT), and that in determining if
such a liquid waste is prohibited,, one
measures the constituent concentration
level in the filtrate from the waste. 52,FR
25765. EPA is contemplating using this
same approach for purposes of
determining compliance with lower
prohibition levels (since the Agency is
construing the same statutory language).
The Agency is, not defining prohibition;
levels by reference- to concentration
levels in the EP extract from these
wastes. In addition,, commenters to the
proposed rule, urged the agency, to avoid
use of a simulated leach, test (in- the case.
of the proposal,: the Toxieity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure') to
determine if a waste was prohibited. On
the one hand many commenters felt
such a test inappropriate because it did
not suitably model all environmental
conditions. Other commenters believed
the test is insufficiently aggressive
because oi a dilution: feature
incorporated in the- test protocol, which:
is also part of the EP toxieity test.
Although the Agency does not
necessarily agree: with these
commenters,, they do point up' reasons:
why use of an extraction feature; in
.determining. which wastes are
prohibited might not represent as
reasonable regulatory/starting point..
TABLE 1.HEALTH-BASED LEVELS
AND SUGGESTED- PROHIBITION' LEV-
ELS FOR CALIFORNIA LIST METALS
AND CYANIDES (MWLj
Constituent
Arsenic; .
Cadmium.
Chromium ...
Lead.
Mercury .. ....
Nickel
Selenium ...
Thallium
Cyanide
NIPDWS
Oi05>"
0.01ft
Q.OS
0.05,
Q.BQ2.
-
. 0.01 .
_
-
Alterna-
, ' tive
health-
based!
level'
, _
' -
_
-
: ' ''-
: 0.5
_
O'.OOS
; 0.2
Suggest-
ed
prphibf-
tsbn level'
(fa PFLT
filtrate),
; : 5.0;
: - t..or
fr.O-
! 5.0.
0.2.
5QJQ
: 1.0
o.a
20;0
'These levels represent Reference Dose
(Rf D) values which, are based upon data pre-
sented in Section' lilt
HI. Proposed Health-Based Levels for
Nickel, Thallium, and Cyanide
Today's notice outlines a possible
Agency-approach with respect to
lowering the prohibition levels for
California list liquid hazardous wastes
containing metals and cyanides to a
concentration that equals 100 times the
National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Standards (NIPDWS). NIPDVyS
exist for all these constituents identified
in these California list waste streams,
except nickel, thallium and cyanide.
In the absence of NIPDWS for nickel
and thallium,, the Agency indicated, on
December 11,1986 (51 FR 44722) that, by
analogy, one approach would be to use
a level that is 100 times less than the
statutory requirements. The; statutory
levels for nickel, and thallium had been
developed by multiplying, the Ambient
Water Quality Criteria (A.WQG)/ for
these constituents by a factor of 10,000
(the apparent rationale used by the
State of California). The AWQC,
however,, are -guidance numbers and not
enforceable standards R-ke the NIPD:WS,.
Hence,, prohibition levels developed
which are. based on these criteria; may
not be protective olhuman; health, fa;
today's notice,-the Agency? considers
using s level that is 100 times a.-health-
based number, known as a; Reference)
' Dose- This section makes available;
results from, studies considered.in
developing the Reference Dose values
for these constituents., Copies of the:
studies discussed fas this section are
available For inspection in the public-
docket,
A Reference Dose (RfD) is- an estimate
(with an uncertainty of one orderof
magnitude or more) of a lifetime daily
dose of a- substance1 which is likely to be
without significant risk to human,
populations. The RFD' is estimated' by ;
dividing the highest test does of a
substance which causes no adverse
effect (N0AEL: No observed adverse
effect level) in appropriately conducted
animal studies (human studies may also
be used if appropriate); by a scaling
factor (uncertainty factor) that converts
an apparently-safe daily; dose for
laboratory animal's to a presumed safe
daily dose for humans. The RfD may
also: be derived from the lowest
observed adverse; effect level; (LOAEL)
in a similar manner. The RfDs would
represent the minimum health level
upon which prohibition; concentrations-
for nickel, thallium and cyanide could.
be based,
A. Nickel
1. Reference Dose Determination
The Agency has. not established a
drinking water standard for nickel' at the
present time. However; the Agency has
developed a lifetime Health Advisory
based on a NOAEL of 5mg/Itg/d.ay from
a 2-yearrat feeding study (Ambrose et
al., 1970). Health Advisories are not
legally enforceable Federal standards,
- but are usefutas informal guidance for
protecting public health in cases of
emergency spills or contamination
situations. In the Ambrose et aL study
(1976), rats, were fed a diet,eontaining.0v,
100,: 1000, or 2500 ppm nickel sulfata CO,
5, 50, or 125 mg/kg/day); for 2. years.
Body weights-were reduced significantly
in both male and female rats fed 2,500
ppm nickel (p < 0.05); when compared to
the controls.. At 1000, ppm, body weights
were also reduced in both sexes'. Heart-
to^body weight ratios were significantly
-------
VoL 5
Rules,
29995
higher and liver-to-body weight ratios
signtifiearitly lower (p< 0.05) in the 1000
and 2500 ppm groups. No significant
effects were reported at 100 ppm (5mg/
kg/day)..Therefore, the NOAEL-
identified in this study was 5 mg/kg/day
(100 ppm). In this study, rat survival was
poor, particularly in control rats«>f both
sexes (44/50); this-raises some concern
about the interpretation of the results.
However, a subchronic study by
American Biogenics Corp. (ABC, 1986)
also found 5mg/kg/day to be a NOAEL
which supports the chronic NOAEL
(Ambrose et ak, 1976).
In addition to the above rat chronic
feeding study, there are other chronic
studies available in mice, rats and dogs.
In the chronic study in mice (Schroeder
e,t aL, 1964), where animals were fed a
diet devoid of cadmium and low in other
elements, no significant effects were
observed at 5 ppm (0.85mg/Ni/Kg/day)
nickel in, drinking water. In the study
with rats (Schroeder et aL, 1974), 5 ppm
nickel (0.41 mg/kg/day);in drinking '--
water for life led to a significant .
reduction in body weight of both male
and female rats compared to controls;
life span was not affected but
histopathology revealed an increased .
incidence (p< 0.025) of focal
myocardial fibrosis (13.3%) in the
experimental group compared to the
control. However, results of both the
above studies are difficult to interpret
because the studies used single doses
and. also because the diets were
deficient in other essential minerals. In
the 2-year dog study (Ambrose et al.,
1976), in which animals were fed a diet
containing 0,100,100& or 2500 ppm
nickel fO. 3, 29 or 70 mg/kg/day), the
NOAEL identified was 29 mg/kg/day
-(1000 ppm) based on decreased body
and liver weights.
Nickel has also been tested for its
reproductive toxieity. In the 3-generatibn
ratTeproduction study (Ambrose et aL,
1976), rats fed a diet containing 0, 250,
500 or 1000 ppm nickel sulfate (0,12.5,25
or 50 mg/kg/day) showed increased
stillbirths in the first generation, and
decreased pup body weight at 50 mg/
kg/day (1000 ppm). Increased stillbirths
were also observed in the control group.
This study had some statistical design
limitations, such as small sample size
with the use of pups rather than litters
as the unit for comparison. Also, the fact
that nickel was administered in the diet
caused problems .when applying these
data to drinking water situations.
Schroeder et'al., (1971) repOrfed a 3-
generation reproduction study in rats
administered 5 ppm nickel HI drinking
water (0.43 mg/kg/day). In this study,
neonatal mortality was increased
significantly (p < 0.025), iri all
generations of exposed rats compared to
controls," the number of runts were
increased significantly in the first (Fi) fp
< 0.025} and third (F3) (p < 0.0001)
generations. Average litter size was
reduced somewhat in the F3 generation.
The results of this study, however, are
difficult to interpret because only 5 pairs
of animals were used for mating and the
diet was found deficient in trace
essential metals (in particular the
essential element chromium). Also the
results of this study are not
reproducible. '
Because of the various problems with
the available nickel studies (as
mentioned earlier), the Agency
conducted two studies to determine the
effects of nickel on rats. The first study
. was a 2-generation reproduction study
in rats (RTl, 1987) which included a 90-.
day subchronic non-breeder Satellite
group. The second was a subchronic
gavage study in rats (ABC, 1986). '
In the 2-generation reproduction study
(RTI, 1987), nickel chloride was
administered in drinking water to made
and female'CD rats (30/sex/group) at
dose levels of 0, 50.250 and 500 ppm (0,
7.3, 30.8, and 51.& mg/kg/day, estimated)
for 90 days prior to breeding. (Ten rats/
sex/group comprised a satellite
subchronic non-breeder group.) At the
500 ppm dose level there was a
significant decrease in the Po maternal
body weight along with absolute and
relative liver weights. No adverse effect,
was noted at the 250 ppm level or lower
lor the Po breeders of the non-breeder
satellite. Histopathology was performed
on liver, kidney, lung, adrenals, pituitary
and reproductive organs to make this,
assessment " :
In the Fla generation (postnatal days
1-4) at the 500 ppm dose level, the
number of live pups/litter was
significantly decreased, pup mortality
was significantly increased, and average
pup body weight was significantly
decreased in comparison with controls;
Similar effects were seen in Fib litters
of Po dams exposed to 500 ppm nickel.
In the Fib litters of the 50 and 250 ppm
dose groups, increased pup mortality
and decreased live litter size was seen.
However, these effects seen with Fib
litters are questionable because the
room temperature tended to be 10°F
higher than normal at certain times
(gestation-postnatal days) along with
much lower levels of humidity. As.
evidenced in the literature, temperatures
which are 10°F above the normal during
fetal development, cause adverse effects
(Edwards, 1986). Therefore, the-above
results seen at the 50 and 250 ppm dose
cannot be-considered as genuine
adverse effects:
Fib males and females were randomly
mated tin postnatal day 70 and their
offspring (F2a; and F2b) were evaluated
through postnatal day 21. This phase
included teratological evaluations of F2b
fetuses. Evaluation of the data indicated
that the 500 ppm nickel dose caused
significant body weight depression of
both mothers and pups, and increased
neonatal mortality during the postnatal
development/The intermediate dose,
250 ppm nickel, produced transient
depression of maternal weight gain and
water intake during gestation of the F2b
litters. The SO1 ppm nickel caused a
significant increase in short ribs (11%).
However, since this effect was not seen
in the two higher dose groups, the
reported incidence of short ribs in the 50
ppm group is not considered to be of
biological significance.
In the subcbironic study (ABC, 1986),
nickel chloride in water (0, 5, 35 and 100
mg/kg/day). was administered by
gavage to, both male and female CD rats
(30 animals/sex/group). The data
generated in this study included clinical
pathology, opltthalmological
evaluations, serum biochemistry, body
and organ weight changes and ,
.histopathological evaluations of selected
organs (heart, kidney, liver).
Clinical signs of foxicity, such as
lethargy ataxia, irregular breathing, cool
body temperature, salivation and
discolored extremities, .were seen
primarily in the 100 mg/kg group; these
signs were.lessi severe in animals of the
35 mg/kg group. The.5 mg/kg groups did .
riot show any significant clinical signs of
toxicity. Also, there Was 100% mortality
in the high-dose group; 6/30 males and
8/30 females died in the mid-dose group
(35 mg/kg/day). Histopathological
evaluation indicated that 3/6 dead
males and 5/8 deadfemales were due to
gavage errors. Body weight and food
consumption values were consistently
lower than controls for the 35 and 100
mg/kg dosed niales. Female rats in both
high-dose groujps had lower body
weights than controls but food *
consumption was unaffected by the test.
article. At sacrifice, kidney, liver and
spleen weighfsfor 35 mg/kg treated
males and rigM kidney weights for 35
mg/kg treated females were
significantly lower than controls. Based
on the results obtained in this study, the
5 mg/kg/day nickel dose was a NOAEL,
whereas the 35lmg/kg/day was a
LOAEL for decreased body and organ
weights. [.'.' ;.;'- : .-
Thus, it can be seen that the chronic
NOAEL of 5 mg/kg/day derived from
the Ambrose efc al. (1976) study is
-------
29996 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 1987 /Proposed R"les
supported by the subchronic study by
ABC, 1986. Using this chronic NOAEL of
5 mg/kg/day, in uncertainty factor of
100 (10 for the uncertainty in the
interspecies conversion and 10 for
uncertainty in the sensitive human
subpopulations) and a modifying factor
of 3, the RfD calculated is 0.02 mg/kg/
day (the modifying factor is another
uncertainty factor, the size of which
depends on the assessment of scientific
issues not explicitly addressed by the
conventional uncertainty factors). The
modifying factor of 3 is used because of
Inadequacies in the reproductive studies
(RTI, 1987; Ambrose et. al. 1976). During
the gestation and postnatal development
of Fib litters in the RTI (1987) study.
temperatures were about 10 *F higher
than normal at certain times which
makes evaluation of this part of the
reproductive study impossible. In the
Ambrose et. al. (1976) study, there were
some statistical design limitations, such
as small sample size and use of pups
rather than litters as the unit for
comparison.
Based on the above RfD of 0.02 mg/
kg/day, the concentration of nickel per
liter of water consumed by an adult
weighing 70 kg and drinking 2L water
per day is 0.7 mg/L. This assumes that
100% of the exposure for nickel is via
drinking water. However, it has been
shown that the nickel intake from diet is
between 350-500 ug/day. Therefore, the
Agency apportioned the reference dose
assuming an average intake of 400 ug/
day from diet. The resulting
concentration of nickel in drinking water
would be 0.5 mg/L.
2. Proposed health-based prohibition
level
Based on the above apportioned RfD
of 0.5 mg/L, the Agency would consider
promulgating a health-based prohibition
level for nickel of 50 ihg/L in the filtrate
from a waste. This value is^derived
using the assumptions discussed in the
May 19,1908, FR notice (45 FR 33119)
which promulgated the Extraction
Procedure Toxicity Characteristic.
B. Thallium
1. Reference Dose Determination
There is no drinking water standard
for thallium at the present time. The
Agency's Reference Dose Workgroup
had verified RfDs for various thallium
compounds which ranged from 4 X10~4
X 10"4 mg/kg/day.The RfDs were
based on a study by Downs et. al, (1960)
in which rats were fed diets containing
varying concentrations of thallium
acetate for 15 weeks. The NOAEL (No
Observed Adverse Effect Level) for
thallium indentified in this study was 5
ppm (0.39 mg/kg/day) based on alopecia
and increase in kidney weght.
The above study, however, was not
adequately performed. There were too
few animals per dose group, mortality
was very high100% in the 50 ppm
group by week 5,100% in the 30 ppm
group by week 9, and 40% in the control
group by week 15, which made
interpretation of survival in remaining
dose groups difficult. At the 15 ppm
level the mortality was % males and Vs
females and at the 5 ppm level (the
NOAEL) % males and % females. The
Agency, therefore, had thallium sulfate
tested in a rat subchronic study by the
Midwest Research Institute (1986), This
study was carried out according to the
EPA Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Toxicity Testing Guidelines (40
CFR 798.2650) and is available for
review in the docket to this rulemaking.
In this study, Sprague-Dawley rats (20/
sex/group) were treated by gavage with
an aqueous solution of thallium acetate
at concentrations of 0,0.01,0.05 or 0.25
mg/kg/day. The NOAEL identified in
this study is 0.25 mg/kg/day. Applying
an uncertainty factor of 1000 [10 for
uncertainty in the subchronic NOAEL
(no chronic studies available), 10 for
uncertainty in the interspecies coversion
and 10 for uncertainty in the sensitive
human subpopulations], the RfD is
calculated to be 2.5 x 10~4 mg/kg/day.
Based on this RfD, the concentration of
thallium per liter of water consumed by
an adult weighing 70kg and drinking 2L
water per day is 0.9 x 10" 2 mg/L. This
assumes that 100% of the exposure to
thallium is via drinking water. The
Agency may revise this number if there
are relative source contribution data
which document human exposure from
other sources such as food, air and.
possibly the occupational environment.
2. Proposed health-based prohibition
level
Based on the above RfD of 0.009 mg/L
the Agency would consider
promulgating a health-based prohibition
level for thallium of 0.9 mg/L in the
filtrate from a waste. This value is
derived using the assumptions discussed
in the May 19,1980, FR notice (45 FR
33119) which promulgated the Extraction
Procedure Toxicity Characteristic.
C. Cyanide
1. Reference Dose Determination
There is no drinking water standard
for cyanide. The Agency has a life-time
health advisory based on a RfD of 0.02
mg/kg/day. The Agency had verified the
RfD based on a study by Howard and
Hanzel (1955) in which rats were fed
diets, for 104 weeks* that had been
fumigated with HCN. The average CN.
concentrations in food were estimated
based on the food consumption and
body weight. The daily estimated intake
of CN was 4.3 and 10.8 mg/kg/day. ,
Using the NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day, an
uncertainty factor of 100 (10 for
uncertainty in the interspecies
conversion and 10 for uncertainty in the
human subpopulations) and a modifying
factor of 5 (to account for the apparent
tolerance to cyanide when it is digested
with food rather than when it is .
administered by gavage or by drinking
water), the RfD calculated was 0.02 mg/
kg/day.
The interpretation of data from the.
Howard and Hanzel (1955) study is
difficult because of the route of
administration (in the diet rather than in
water) and the manner in which the .
delivered dose was measured (the CN
concentration was estimated based .on
levels measured at the beginning and
end of each food preparation period and
by assumption of a first-order rate of,
loss during the intervening period). The
Agency, therefore, conducted a
subchronic study (IIT Research Institute,.
1987), according to the EPA TSCA
Toxicity Testing Guidelines (40 CFR
798.2650). The data is available in the
docket to this rulemaking.
In this study, Sprague-Dawley rats
(20/sex/dose) were administered CuCN
in a 1.5% carboxymethylcellulose (CMC)
vehicle by gavage at dose levels ninety
to of 0, 0.5, 515 or 50 mg/kg/day for
ninety-three days. The vehicle control
group received CMC only. The untreated
control group received neither vehicle
nor CuCN, but otherwise was handled in
a manner similar to that of treatment
groups. The NOAEL identified in this
study is 5 mg/kg/day based on
; significant decreases in the body weight
and body weight gain, in serum SCOT
level, and in organ weights (kidney,
spleen and brain). Based on the NOAEL
and using an uncertainty factor of 1000
(10 for uncertainty in the subchronic
NOAEL, 10 for uncertainty in the .
interspecies conversion and 10 for
uncertainty in the sensitive,human
subpopulations) the RfD calculated 0.005
, mg/kg/day.
Using this RID, the concentration of
cyanide per liter of water consumed by >
an adult weighing 70 kg and drinking 2L
water per day is 0.2 mg/L. This assumes
that 100% of the exposure for CN is via
drinking water. This number may
change if there are relative source
contribution data from other sources '
such as food, air and possible ,'
occupational exposure.
-------
. I ;
Jederal Ttegtrtg^Vot. 52. No. 155 / Wednesday. August 12, 1987 / Proposed Rules
29997
2. Proposed health-based prohibition
level ''..'.'' !'.
Based on the above verified RfD of 0;2
mg/L, the Agency is considering .
promulgating a health-based prohibition
level -for cyanide of 20 mg/L in the
filtrate from a waste. This value is
derived using the assumptions discussed
in the May 19, i960, PR notice [45 PR
33119) which promulgated the Extraction
Procedure Toxicity Characteristic.
D. References , ,
(1) Ambrose, A.M., et al, 1976, Long
term toxicologic assessment of nickel iff
rats and dogs. jour. Food ScL Technol,
13:181; ,
(2) American Biogenics: Corporation.
l986.Ninety day gavage study in albino
rats using nickel. Draft final report.
Sponsored by the Office of Solid Waste,
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC..
(3) Downs, W.L., J.K. Scott, L.T,
Steadman and E.A. Maynard. 1960.
Acute and.subacute toxivcity studies of
thallium compounds. Am. Bid. Eiyg.
Assoc. 21: 399-406.
(4) Edwards, M.J. 1986^ Hyperthermia
as a Teratogen: A review of '
experimental studies and their clinical
significance. Teratogenesisj "
Carcinogenesis and Mutagenesis 6:563-
582. '' - -:-;-.
(5) Howard, J.W. and R.F. Hanzal.
1955. Chronic toxicity to rats of food
treated with Hydrogen cyanide. Agric.
Food Chem. 3: 325-329.; '--
(6) IIT Research Institute. 1987.
Ninety-day oral toxicity study of copper
cyanide (CuGN) in Sprague-Dawley rats.
Draft final report Sponsored by the
Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA, .
Washington, DC.
(7) Midwest Research Institute. 1986^
Subchronic [90-day] toxicity of thallium
(I) sulfate (Gas No, 7446-18-6) in
Sprague-Dawley rats. Draft final report.
Sponsored by the Office of Solid Waste,
U.S. EPA, Washington^DC.
(8) RTI. 1987. Two-generation .
reproduction and fertility study of nickel
chloride administered to CD rats in the
drinking water. Draft final report.
Sponsored by the Office of Solid Waste,
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
(9) Shroeder, H.A., J.J. Balasea, W.H.
Vinton, Jr. 1964. Chromium, lead,
cadmium, nickel and titanium in mice:
Effect on mortality, tumors and tissue
levels. J. Nutr. 83: 23'9-250.,
(10) Shroeder, H.A. and M; Mitchener.
1971. Toxte effects of trace elements on
the reproduction of mice and rats.Arch.
Environ. Health. 23:102.
(11) Shroeder, H.A., et al;1974. Life-
term effects of nickel in ratsVSurvival,
tumors, interactions with trace elements
and tissue levels. Jour. Nutr. 104:239.
IV. Establishing Treatment Standards
For California List Metals and Cyanides
Statutory Basis .for Es iablishmg
Treatment Standards
Section 3004fm) of RCRA states that
"simultaneously with the promulgation
of regulations" prohibiting the land
disposal of particular hazardous wastes,
EPA shall "promulgate regulations
specifying those levels or methods of
treatment, if any, which substantially -
diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents
from the waste so that short-term and
long-term threats to human health and
the environment are miriimiz.ed."
Therefore; should the Agency
promulgate more stringent prohibition
levels, it would also have an affirmative
responsibility to establish treatment
standards for these metal-bearing and
cyanide-containing wastes., ;
V. Treatment Technology Performance
Data Analysis . . . ,
Several commenters on the December
1-1,1986 proposed rule stated that
California List metal-bearing and
cyanideTcontaining wastes could be
treated below the statutory prohibition
levels, and a number of them indicated
that treatment at least to levels
comparable to the EP regulatory levels
were achievable for metals. Specifically,
^. th'ese commenters pointed to delisting
petitions.and Agency studies as sources
of data; supporting their positions. In
addition, one commenter provided
treatment data on California List metals.!
In response to the above-mentioned
comments, the Agency-performed a
series of treatment performance data
analyses. This section presents the
Agency's methodology, for performing
these analyses, all available treatment
data, a discussion of its limitations, and
the conclusions derived from the data.
Ar Data Analysis Methodology
1. Data Compilation
The Agency's initial activity was to
identify data sources germane to a re-
analysis of waste treatment of metals
and cyanides. This activity included (1)
analyzing delisting petitions, (2)
reviewing petitions submitted
subsequent to the original analysis
performed for the proposed rule, (3) ',
assessing Agency data collected in
support pf other regulatory programs, (4).
reviewing available literature,'and (5) '
analyzing data contained in comments
submitted in response to the proposed
rule. The Agency assembled air data on
metals and cyanide treatment regardless
of whether the wastes involved would
have been classified as a California List
.waste. _ ''[ v. ..-._ .'';, V "
Two criteria were used to edit the.
data. The First editing rule was that the
untreated waste concentration in
wastewafer fcir the California List
metals and cyanide had to be greater
than the EP regulatory.levels or health-
based prohibition levels! Similarly, :
leachates from untreateS wastes other
thaa wastewa ters had to have
concentrations greater than the EP
regulatory levels or health-based
prohibition leuels. If leachate data were
notavailable (For untreated wastes other
than wastewater,- the untreated waste
concentration" for the various metals and
cyanide had to be greater than 20 times
the EP.regulatpryJevels or health-based
prohibition le\rels. This second editing
rule reflects th.'e inherent dilution factor
of the EP Toxicity [or TCLE) test. For
example, if a raw sludge contained 800
nig/kg of nickel,: the EP Toxicity test
leaehate woulii have a maximum value
of 40 ing/1 (or Yzo of theyalue of .the',."
original composition). The 40 mg/1 value
assumes no treatment and 100 percent
leaching; of nickel from the waste, The ;
two editing rules were necessary to
ensure that all-data evaluated are
appropriate^foi: making a determination
of whether a waste can be treated to a
particular level: It is important to note
that for most of the delisting data,
leaehate valuei were not available for
the untreated wiastes'; in. these cases,
EPA included the raw wasteland treated
waste data setprovided that the
untreated waste concentration was
more than 20 times the EP regulatory
levels or health-based prohibition levels.
2. Data Analysis
For each trefiitment data point, the
Agency assessed the specific waste
characteristic data that would affect the
performance of the,technology used to .
treat the waste. Additionally, the .
Agency analyzed the pertinent design "--
and operating data associated with the
performance of the treatment
technology. The specific parameters the
Agency included in its analysis can be
found in the Applicable Technologies,
Section V(B). ! ,
The Agency notes that in analyzing
these data, it islunable to use the
methodology for deriving BOAT levels
outlined in the November 7,1986 solvent
rule (51 FR 40580-592): This
methodology presupposes a data set
from treating relatively well-defined
waste treatability groups. California List
wastes, however, area a much more
diverse set or w;astes, containing
numerous potential waste treatability
groups (51 FR 44727^ December 11,1986).
-------
29998
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 1987 / Proposed Rules
EPA is not able to establish discrete
treatability groups at this time for
California List wastes, and consequently
is unable to use the November 7
methodology in analyzing these data.
Nor is the Agency using these data to
derive treatment levels. The data are
instead being used as a means of
corroborating the Agency's engineering
judgment and commenters' assertions
that treatment standards reflecting EP
regulatory levels (or comparable levels
for nickel, thallium, and cyanides) are
achieveable.
As additional data are developed for
individual metal and cyanide waste
streams, the Agency will revise these
prohibition levels accordingly. This
could be done either pursuant to Section
30Q4(g) authority, or possibly through
analysis of data and other information
submitted in response to this notice.
Thus, treatment standards under
consideration in this notice will serve as
an interim measue until EPA re-
evaluates these wastes according to the
final schedule for land disposal
restrictions which was promulgated on
May 28,1986 (51FR19300). Should EPA
issue a final rule establishing the types
of treatment standards discussed here,
the Agency would thus characterize its
action as a type of interim BDAT (i.e., a
treatment standard, in the Agency's
judgment, attainable for a very wide
spectrum of California List wastes but
subject to later reevaluation as
individual waste treatability groups and
treatment performance on such
treatability groups become better
defined).
Finally, the Agency notes that the
treatment standards under
consideration for metal-bearing and
cyanide-containing wastes most likely
would be expressed as either
concentrations in the waste or treated
residue using the EP toxicity test or the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP). The Agency's use of
the El' toxicity test for purposes of
determining compliance will the
treatment standards would be
consistent with the analytical
methodology used for the data that the
Agency is examining and noticing for
comment. An alternative approach
would be to consider use of the TCLP
(Appendix I to Part 268-Land Disposal
Restrictions; 51 FR 40572, November 7,
1986). Currently, the Agency is
reviewing the TCLP to determine if it
produces results for these wastes that
approximate those from the EP toxicity
test. The Agency is requesting comment -
on the applicability of these possible
approaches for purposes of determining
compliance with the treatment
standards. -
B. Applicable Technologies
This section describes the technology
and its application, the chemical/
physical mechanisms by which
treatment is accomplished, the various
waste characteristics that affect
treatment, and finally the design and
operating parameters that are important
in optimizing treatment of a particular
waste.
The technologies presented below are
the technologies that we believe are
most applicable to the treatment of
California List metals and cyanide. They
are: chemical precipitation, stabilization,
chromium reduction, cyanide oxidation,
high temperature metal recovery,
filtration, sludge dewatering, and ion
exchange.
1. Chemical Precipitation
a. Description and Applicability.
Chemical precipitation refers to both the
primary step of forming a chemical
precipitate and follow-up operations
that separate the solid precipitate from
the liquid. Equipment required to
operate a chemical precipitation system
includes the following: a stirred reaction
tank, feed systems to introduce
treatment chemicals and/or flocculant
aids, a settling tank or clarifier, and
possibly filtration or centrifugation
equipment.
The chemical precipitation treatment
technology can be applied to a wide
range of wastewaters that contain
' California List metal wastes.
b. Basic Principle of Operation. The
basic operating principle of this
technology is to chemically convert
metal compounds from a soluble to an
insoluble form and then to remove the
precipitate by settling or other physical
separation.
The principal chemicals used to
convert soluble metal compounds to the
insoluble form are lime (Ca(OH)2),
caustic (NaOH), sodium sulfide (Na2S),
and, to a lesser extent, soda ash
(Na2CO3) and ferrous sulfide (FeS).
Removal of the chemical precipitate is
generally accomplished by gravity , .
settling, clarification, and/or filtration. .
c. Waste Characteristics Affecting
Performance. The level of metals
removal achieved by chemical
precipitation treatment may depend on a
number of waste characteristics, which
include:
The valence state of the metal;
Other rnetals present in the waste;
Whether the metal exists as a
complex;
High concentrations of dissolved
inorganic solids in solution (i.e.,
salinity);
Presence of oil and grease in the
waste; and the
Presence of surfactants in the .
waste.
As shown in Figure 1, for many metals
there is a specific pH at which the metal
is least soluble (other waste
characteristics including temperature
and pressure being equal). Also, many
metals are amphoteric, meaning that
there are both lower and higher pH
values at which the metal is more
soluble. As a result, when metals are
mixed, it is not possible to operate a
treatment system a,t a single pH value
that is optimum for all metal removals.
Certainly, improved treatment can result
from multiple precipitations at a number
of pH settings, but it may still be
difficult with some combinations of
metals and associated concentrations to
achieve close to Optimum performance.
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-M
-------
, Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 155 /Wednesday, August 12,1987 / Proposed Rules
29999
If
100
0.001
0.0001
0.01
Figure 1. . Solubilities of Rfletai Hydroxides as a function of pH
BILLING CODE 6560-50-0
-------
30000 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12. 1987 / Proposed Rules
Metal complexes consist of a central
metal ion surrounded by a group of
other organic or inorganic ions or
molecules. Examples of complexing
molecules are ammonia, amines,
methanol, and EDTA. The presence of
complexing ions or molecules in solution
will generally increase the solubility of a
metal by reducing the chemical potential
of the free metal ions to combine with
precipitating anions such as hydroxide.
When metal complexes are present in
solution, only a fraction of the total
dissolved metal is in free form (i.e.,
available for the precipitation reaction).
Wastes containing complexed metals
generally need to be treated at high pH
in order to break the complexes and
transform the metals to a less-soluble
form amenable to chemical
precipitation. The degree to which the
complexes can be broken may be
limited by the equilibrium conditions
that exist even at the higher pH.
High concentrations of inorganic
dissolved solids may interfere with the
precipitation reactions. Higher pH
values may be needed to achieve metals
removal in these cases.
The presence of oil and grease or
surfactants in the waste may also affect
the settling characteristics of the solids
by creating emulsions that require a long
settling time. Removal of these
constituents (for example, by thermal
emulsion breaking prior to the chemical
precipitation step should eliminate this
problem.
d. Design and Operating Parameters
Affecting Performance. The design and
operating variables that the Agency
evaluates for chemical precipitation
systems, to the extent possible, are:
The specific treatment chemical
used to effect precipitation;
pH;
Temperature;
Settling time;
* Feed rate to the settling tank;
and, if filtration is used;
Pore size; and
Feed rate to the filter.
(i) The type of reagent is important
because these chemicals affect the
solubility and settling characteristics of
the various precipitated metal
compounds.
(ii) The design and control of pH is
important because pH is used as a
surrogate for reaction completion. In
addition, sulfide reagents may cause
emission of toxic gases if pH is not
properly controlled. In a batch system,
control is less difficult than in a
continuous system. A continuous system
requires a fairly sophisticated automatic
control system in order to keep the pH
in a relatively narrow range. To the
extent possible, the Agency prefers to
have continuously recorded data to
ensure that the pH is maintained in the
proper range during the treatment
process.
(iii) Temperature has an effect on the
solubility of the chemical precipitate;
therefore, the Agency needs to have
data on temperature during the
treatment process. Unlike pH, the
temperature is inherently more stable
and data collection can be significantly
less frequent. Most chemical
precipitation processes are conducted at
ambient temperatures.
(iv) Design and control of settling time
is important because there are a number
of physical parameters that affect how
quickly a particle settles. These include
the density, shape, and size of the
particle.
(v) To ensure that the design settling
rate is being maintained during .
treatment, it is important to have feed
rate data.
(vi) Filtration can be used in
conjunction with settling or separately.
In either case, the Agency needs to
know the design pore size and the basis
for that determination.
(vii) The Agency also needs data on
flow rate to ensure that the operation of
the filter is within 'design specifications
during treatment.
2. Stabilization
a. Description and Applicability.
Stabilization refers to a broad class of
treatment processes that physically or
chemically reduce the mobility of
hazardous constituents in a waste.
Other terms that are sometimes used
synonymously for stabilization are
solidification and fixation. The
stabilization treatment system consists
of a feed system, a tank equipped with
mixing equipment, and a cure area.
This technology has wide application
to California List metal wastes. In most
instances, the technology is used where
the wastes of interest already contain a
significant percentage of solids, e.g.,
metal precipitates in a treatment sludge.
Stabilization can be applied to
wastewaters.
b. Underlying Principles of Operation.
The underlying principled stabilization
is, the binding of constituents of concern
into a solid that is resistant to leaching.
The mechanism by which this occurs
- depends upon the type of stabilization '
process. Two of the most common are
lime/pozzolan-based processes .and
Portland cement-based processes.
In portland cement systems, the waste
. is mixed in a slurry with anhydrous
cement powder, water, and, frequently,
pozzolanic additives. The cement
powder is a mixture of powdered oxides
of calcium, silica, aluminum, and iron
produced by kiln burning materials-rich
in calcium and silica at high ~
temperatures. The major mechanism of
stabilization in this system is the
formation of hydration products from
silicate compounds and water. A
calcium silicate hydrate gel forms. This
gel then swells and forms the cement
matrix composed of interlocking silicate
fibrils. At the same time, constituents
present in the" waste slurry, e.g.,
hydroxides of calcium and various
heavy metals, form the interstices of the
cement matrix. Metal ions may also be
incorporated into the crystal structure of
the cement matrix itself. A rigid mass
results from the interlocking fibrils and
other components during setting and
curing.
Lime/pozzolan. processes use the
finely divided, noncrystalline silica in -
pozzolanic material (e.g., fly ash) and
the calcium in lime to produce a
concrete-like solid of calcium silicate
and alumino hydrates. The waste
containment is achieved by entrapping
the waste in this pozzolan concrete.
matrix. In actual operation, the waste,
water, and a selected pozzolanic
material are mixed to a pasty
consistency. Hydrated lime is blended
into the mixture and the resulting moist
material is packed or compressed into a
mold and cured over a sufficient time
interval. .
, c. Waste Characteristics Affecting
Performance. The level of performance
for stabilization processes is measured
by the amount of constituents that can
be leached from the stabilized material.
There are two techniques currently
recognized by the Agency as measures
of leachability. The first is the
Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity Test
(40 CFR 261); the second is the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) (51FR 40643, November 7,1986).
Several waste characteristics affect
performance. In the lime/pozzolan
system and in the portland cement
system, oil, grease, and very fine
insoluble materials (i.e., 74 x 10~6 meter
particle size) can weaken bonding
between waste particles and cement by
coating the particles. The presence of
certain inoganic compounds (e.g.,
sodium b orate and calcium sulfate) will
also interfere with the cementitious
-reactions, prolonging setting and curing
time and weakening bond strenght.
Soluble salts of copper, lead,
manganese, tin, and 'zinc may cause
large variations in setting and curing
time and reduce the dimensional
stability of the cured matrix* thereby
increasing teachability potential. The
presence of certain organic compounds '
may likewise interfere. In portland ,
-------
federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 1987 ;/ Proposed Rules.
30001
cement systems, large amounts of ',-. -.'
sulfates will impede'setting and react to
form calcium suifuluminate hydrate, V
'causing swelling and spalling ofthe
stabilized product. -;
d. Design and Operating Parameters
Affecting Performance. The design and
operating parameters that :the Agency
evaluates, to the extent possible, are:
Selection of -stabilizing agents and
other, additives; '.'V;'
'Ratio of waste to stabilizing agents
and other additives; -v.
vMixing;and , ; ;;
Cure conditions.
(i) The type of stabilizing agent
selected and the use of additives will
determine the bonding and structure of
the stabilized waste solid and, therefore,
have an effect on how well waste
constituents are incorporated into the
solid. Stabilizing agents and other /
additives must be carefully selected
based on the chemical and physical ",-
characteristics of the waste to be
stabilized. For example, the amount of
suifates in a waste will come into
consideration when choosing a lime/
pozzolan over portland cement-based
system, iime/pozzolan or a speciallpwf
alumina, sulfate-resistant cement-would
be the stabilizing agent of choice, as it
would prevent swelling and spalling iii
the stabilized product. Waste-solidifying
formulations in stabilization processes
vary widely, and a variety of materials
may be iisedin-conjunction with the
stabilizing agent to change performance
characteristics. These include soluble
silicates, hydi-ated silica gels, clays,
emulsifiers, surfactants, carb.on, and
zeolites. In portland cement systems,
soluble silicates will reduce the
interference from metal ions in the
waste. Emulsifiers and surfactants will
allow the incorporation of immiscible
organic liquids. Carbon; silicates, and
zeolites will adsorb toxic constituents
and be encapsulated within the-
stabilized solid. / ,'-
(ii) The amount of stabilizing agents
and other additives is a critical
parameter in that sufficient stabilizing
materials are necessary in the mixture
to bind the waste constitutents of
concern properly, thereby making them
less susceptible to leaching. The
appropriate ratios of amounts of waste
to stabilizing agent and other additives
are established after evaluating the
waste and the selected stabilization
formulation. This may be done fay
setting up a series of experiments that
allow separate leachate and strength -
testing of different mix ratios. Once
established, the ratios are maintained
by monitoring the volume, and/or weight
of the waste and the stabilizing agents
and other additives; through the use of
feedsystems. -'.-'--. . -
(iii) The conditions of mixing include
the type andduration .of mixing. Mixing
is necessary to ensure adequate
.distribution of the waste and the ..;- r
stabilizing agents, thereby resulting in ,'-.
uniform bonding. Insufficient mixing
could result in some of the waste -'.. .
constituents of concern, not being bound
in the solid and thus being susceptible to
leaching. ; . .,; . .
(iv) The conditions of cure include the
duration of curing and the. ambient
curing conditions (temperature and
humidity). The duration of curing is a
critical paramenter to ensure that the
waste particles have had sufficient time
in which to form a stable solid. The time
ncessary for complete stabilization to
occur depends upon the waste type and
the treatment process used. The
performance of the stabilized waste (i.e.,
the levels of constitutents in the
leachate) will be highly dependent upon
whether complete stabilization has
occurred. Curing conditions such as
ambient temperature and humidity
affect the rate of curing and, therefore, -
could affect the strength of the
stabilized solid. .
3. Hexavalent Chromium Reduction
a. Description and Applicability. The
process of hexavalent chromium (Cr6*) ;
reduction involves conversion from the
hexavalent form to the trivalent form of:
chromium. The treatment system
essentially consists of a stirred tank
with a feed system for adding a
"reducing agent" and a system for
adding a chemical to adjust pH. This
technology has wide application to1
hexavalent chromium wastes including
plating solutions, stainless steel acid
baths and rinses, "chrome conversion"
coating process rinses, and chromium
pigment manufacturing wastes. It is
important to note that additional
treatment is required to remove trivalent
chromium from solution. .
b. Basic Principles tif Operation. The
basic principle of treatmentis to reduce
the valence of chromium in solution {in
the form of chrpmate or dichromate
ions) from the valence state of six to'the
trivalent (-f 3) state."Reducing agents"
used to effect the reduction include
sodium bisulfite, sodium metabisulfite,
sulfur dioxide, sodium hydrbsulfide, or
the ferrous form of iron.
c. Waste Characteristics th'at Affect
Performance. The Agency believes that
the single waste characteristic that most
affects performance of chromium , :
reduction treatment is the presence of
other reducible compounds in the waste.
Substances such as oils and other metal
ions may exhibit a demand for the
reducing agentMsed to treat hexavalent
chromium. In these case's,'additional
reducing agent must be added to satisfy
the extra demand. To ensure that
enough reducing agent is employed in
the batch system, the hexavalent
chromium concentration isrmonitored
after completion of treatment. In
cdntinuousisystems, oxidation-reduction
potential JCJRP), a surrogate for
hexavalent chromium concentration, is
measured aind controlled.
The literature indicates *hat solutions
of hexavalent chromium up to 1,300 ppm
have been Ireaied successfully using
reduction technology. More
concentrateJd solutions should be bench
tested prior to application of the
reduction technology. Additional
retention time may be required for - -,
satisfactory; treatment '"; ':
d. Design and Operating Variables
Affecting Performance. Four design and
operating viariables that the,Agency
believes are; critical to proper operation
are:
pHconfrol;
* Control of reducing agent feed
quantityr '! .-_.'.-- '. .
Type o| reducing agent used; and
Retentipn time. '.' '
p) The specific pK value chosen
(usually aciaic) is a function of the ..-''
reducing agent used. In a batch system
the value ntied not be adhered to
rigorously ILe.wifliin ±i pH unit)
because therreaciion-will be completed
rapidly eveii with slight variations.
Reaction completion is determined, in
any case, by measuring hexavalent ."
chroniium levels prior to further.".
processing. ![n continuous systems,
however, w3iere-oxidation-reduction :
potential (QRP) sensors are used to
control feed of the reducing agent, pH . "-'
must be controlled precisely, since the
ORP value will vary with pH changes.
(ii) In continuous systems, the ORP
value is used as a surrogate for the
degree of hexavalent chromium
treataent, a;nd controls the feed of ,
reducing ageint If the ORP is not ;.
controlled iri a fairly precise range,
insufficient reducing agent may be fed to
treat the hexavalent :chromium.
: (iii) Various reducing agents are
available (stse Basic Principles of
Operation section). Economics and
availability iisually dictate their use, not
the ability tai reduce hexavalent
chromium. Certain reducing agents will
require higher dosage rates than others.
Also, some will produce greater
quantities of settled solids (such as
ferrous iron, which also precipitates
ferric hydroxide). Sulfur dioxide, when
used as a reducing agent, may liberate
-------
30002
Federal Register /Vol. 52, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 1987 / Proposed Rules
sulfur dioxide gas if not properly
maintained and controlled.
(iv) Retention time should be
adequate to ensure that the hexavalent
chromium reduction reaction goes to
completion. In the case of the batch
reactor, the retention time is varied by
adjusting treatment time in the reaction
tank. If the process is continuous, the
retention time may be varied by
changing flow rates of feed and reagent
to the reaction tank.
4. Cyanide Oxidation
a. Description and Applicability.
Cyanide oxidation is a treatment
process which chemically destroys free
cyanides found in solution. The cyanide
is converted either to a cyanate form or
to carbon dioxide and nitrogen. This
treatment system consists of a stirred
tank or tanks and feed systems for an
oxidizing agent and a chemical used to
adjust pIL
This technology can be applied to a
wide range of cyanide wastes such as
those generated from plating copper,
zinc and brass; solutions generated by
rinsing of residues from cyanide salt
heat treating baths; and cyanide metal
"passivatlng" solutions and rinses. In
some solutions, however, cyanide is
tightly bound to dissolved metals, such
as iron, by chemical complexing (i.e., the
metal and the cyanide are not easily
separated). Therefore, the metal cyanide
complex becomes less amenable to
chemical oxidation. For some of these
"complexed" forms of cyanide, the
preferred treatment technology is
cyanide precipitation.
b. Basic Principles of Operation. In
the cyanide ion, the carbon and nitrogen
atoms are bound by what is referred to
as a triple bond, represented by C=N.
When sufficient oxidizing agent is
present, the cyanide ion is converted to
a cyanate ion, represented by
-O-C=N or O=C=N-. Further
treatment, if used, breaks the triple bond
form of cyanate and converts both forms
of the cyanate to carbon dioxide and
nitrogen gas. The two types of oxidizing
agents used most frequently are
chlorine-containing materials (e.g.,
chlorine gas, sodium hypochlorite, or
calcium hypochlorite) and ozone gas. A
typical reaction showing sodium
hypochlorite reacting with sodium
cyanide to form sodium cyanate is:
NaCN + NaOCl-* NaCNO + NaCl.
c. Waste Characteristics Affecting
Performance. The two waste
characteristics that affect performance
are the presence of metals and the
presence of other oxidizable materials.
As noted earlier, many metals form
complexes with free cyanide.
Complexes of many of the metals,
including iron and to some extent nickel,
cannot be decomposed by cyanide
oxidation techniques. Other
technologies such as chemical
precipitation of the cyanide complex
may be required.
The presence of other oxidizable
materials affect the performance of the
treatment system. Free cyanide is not
the only constituent of wastewater than
can be oxidized by chlorine-containing
compounds or ozone. Organic materials
(such as oils and surfactants) and
reduced forms of metals (such as
trivalent chromium and ferrous iron)
will also react with the oxidizing agents.
Consequently, enough oxidizing agent
must be added to overcome the demand
of both the free cyanide and the other
materials.
d. Design and Operating Variables
Affecting Performance. Four design and
operating variables that the Agency
monitors, to the extent possible, for
effect on performance are:
PH;
Oxidizing agent feed quantity;
Reaction time; and
Type of oxidizing agent used.
We believe that evaluation of these
parameters best provides a reasonable
measure of assurance that the system is
designed and operated properly.
(i) The pH must be kept in the alkaline
range (above 7) in order to ensure that
free cyanide is not released as toxic
hydrogen cyanide gas to the
atmosphere. Also, the pH for each
process step must be controlled for the
reaction to proceed at a reaction rate
sufficient to prevent liberation of toxic
cyanogen chloride gas. Additionally, if
ORP controls are used to control feed of
the oxidizing agent (discussed below),
pH control must be very rigorous
because the ORP value varies with
changes in the pH value.
(ii) The feed quantity of the oxidizing
agent (e.g. chlorine and ozone) affects
performance. Enough oxidizing agent
must be added to react fully with the
free cyanide present. For batch systems,
the oxidizing agent may be added until
chemical analysis shows that no
cyanide is detectable. Although
detection levels may change somewhat,
depending on the composition of the
waste, it is generally possible to achieve
a detection level of 10 ug/1 in the treated
waste.1 For continuous systems, the
1 The classical method for cyanide analysis
(Method 9010 in EPA Publication SW-848) will
detect both free cyanide and cyanide complexes
with the exception of the cobalt-cyanide complex.
Cyanate is not detected by this method. Cyanate
will not form volatile hydrogen cyanide under the
distillation procedures and it will not respond to the
level of'oxidizing agent should be
monitored and controlled with ari ORP
meter. As noted earlier, ORP is sensitive
to pH and, therefore, pH must be kept
constant during the treatment process.
(iii) Reaction time should be sufficient
to ensure that the cyanide destruction
reactions have gone to completion. For
continuous systems, reaction time is
monitored by obtaining data on the
flowrate of the waste. If the flowrate is
at or below the design value for the
volume of the system, and the initial
concentration is at or below the design
value, then the reaction time would be
adequate.
(iv) Each of the oxidizing agents
discussed (those containing chlorine and
ozone) will work effectively.
Consequently, the decision of which to
use is usually based on economics and
availability. However, different doses of
each will be required. Also, for some
oxidizing agents, such as ozone, smaller
quantities of chemicals (lime or caustic
soda) will be required to adjust pH.
5. High Temperature Metals Recovery
a. Description and Applicability. The
high temperature metal recovery process
separates metals from wastes by
vaporizing the metals and collecting
them. The Waelz kiln method is
currently being used on steelmaking
electric furnace air pollution control
dust (K061). The process may also be
applied to certain sludges containing
high concentrations of metals.
b. Basic Principles of Operation. The
metallic wastes that are fed into the kiln
are normally in the form of an oxide.
Heat is supplied to reduce the oxides to
the metallic form and to vaporize the
metals. This is not a destructive process,
but a conversion to yield a reusable
metal product. The Waelz kiln process
consists of three steps: (1) the reduction
of a metallic oxide, (2) the vaporization
of metals, and (3) the recovery of a
product. The first two steps are carried
out in a kiln where high temperatures
and excess carbon reduce the oxides to
their metallic form. The primary reaction
can be described as:
MO + C M + CO
where M = metal
Once in their metallic form, the more
volatile metals leave the kiln in the air
stream where they are reoxidized as
particulates and collected in a baghouse.
The residual material, stripped of the
more volatile metals, is quenched and
' collected. Both residuals and baghouse
colorimetric procedure normally used to detect
cyanide.
-------
'Rules
30003
dust may have potential value as
products. '-"'',' '"_ "-'*'-. -'"'
c. Waste Characteristics Affecting
Performance,/The recovery of metals
. from Wastes using high temperature
processes Is dependent on the initial
concentration of certain metals'and .the
presencei of impurities. These waste
characteristics determine whether the
process can yield a reusable metal
product, "--'*. >""_;
-".'-. Ifsthe initial concentration of ;'-..
recoverable metals in the waste; is low, r
then the purity of the product may also
be low. The ability to concentrate a
specific metal from a waste to an
enriched product is limited when other
metals are present. Depending on the
concentration of metals to be .recovered
relative to the concentration of other
constituents, the product may not be ,'_
suitable, for reuse. . . . -'.-,-,
If, the waste contains many metals
withi similarvolatilities,;, then the product
will contain a mixture of these metals.
This product may notb?e -reusable if file
metals present are incompatible to the
reuse. The removal or separation of .,
impurities.may notbe possible, ; , '
especially at low concentrations,where
they may be fixed into a matrix.;
Operation atMgher temperatiires'may
break these bonds, but this coluM lead tb
the presence of greater amoimls of
impurities in the product.
d. Design and-Operating Parameters
Affecting Performance. For the high
temperature .recovery of metals, the;
important design and operating L , '
parameters are the temperature in the
kiln and the residence time. -
The reduction of-various metallic
oxides and the volatilization of (he - '--
metals -oGcur at different tempfera'tures. ;
An increasein temperature'will improve
the removal of some constituents', but'
less volatile metals could also be
liberated from the waste if they are
present. The exact operating :.,. : .
temperature is directly dependent upon
the metals present in the waste and the
metals being recovered., -
The residence time ol the material in
the kiln also implacts the removal of /
metals from the waste. Adequate time
must be provided for the reduction and
vblatization of the metals to allow
maximum recovery. Due to the
temperature dependency of the
reactions, the residence time miast also
be optimized for the-waste being fed,to.
the kiln.'The residence time is -
dependent upon.the dimensions of the
kiln and can be adjusted by varying the.
rate of rotation and tbe feed rate, :
,6.Filtration ;/ : - - r'.:';'-"<-,
a.Description and Applicability. '; ?
Filtration.is'fhe operation in . Basic Principals of Operations. ₯01'
in-depth filtration, the liquid to be
filtered may flow by gravity or under ,
^pressure to the filter. Forj'elatively large
volume flows granulated media {such as
sand or anthracite poal] are used to trap
suspended solids within the pore spaces
of the media. "VVastewater is filtered
until excessive pressure is required to -
maintain the flow or.unfilttie flow drops
to an unaGceptable level. Granular
media in-depth filters are cleaned, after
they are exhausted, by backwashing
with filtered water that has been saved
for thatpurpose^fBackwashing is
always upflow to loosen the media
granuals and resuspend the entrapped
solids.j The backwash water, which
may be as much as 10 percent of the
volume tof the filtered wastewater, is :
then returned to the treatment system,
so that the;solids in the backwash water
can be setMe.d in the system clarifier. ;
For relatively low flows, cartridge to*
depth filtration can be used. In this case
a cylindrically shaped filter media :
cartridge, such, as a matted cloth, is
placed Tivithin a sealed metal vessel, ;
Wastewater is pumped through the
cartridge until the flow drops
excessively becaase of plugging of the
media.oriuntil the pumping pressure ;
becomes too high,-11ie sealed-vessel is
; then opened and the plugged Cartridge '
removed and replaced with anew :
cartridge. The plugged-cartridge is ,
disposed.^ r;v > , ;
In-deptJij filtration is capable of
removing fiuspended-solids in order to
produce a filtrate'(effluent) having only
a few ppm suspended solids. Hence, if
.the suspended solids in thelrifluent
included insoluble metal hydroxides
formed by chemical precipitation, then
they could.be lemoved to less than a
fewppm; j : -':'.- -.'..--> -;
c. Waste Characteristics Affecting
Performance. The following
characteristics of the waste will affect
performance of an in-depth filten
Concentration of suspended
material; 1 .
Size qiF suspended particles; and
; Presence of grease and oils. " .'
(i) ConcentrationThe higher the
concentratign of suspended solids in the
wastewate:r to be filtered, the more
quickly thei filter will require .' : '
backwashing {or lemoval of flie
cartridge!). Hence, me size of the filter
and/or the length of fhe filtering:cycle
will be affected. :;''>- "
(ii) Size of particlesExtremely small
particles, 3m the collidal range, may not
be filtered effectively in an ih-depth
filter aiid may appear M the-filtrate \
(effluent). To mitigate against this ' ',' ,;
problem, the wastewater clarification >/'-
system should be modified prior to j
filtration by the use of appropriate
coagulants, modified coagulant dosage,
-or differen t chemical precipitation '-
techniques {for instance, lime
neutralization usually produces larger
particles than caustic soda '.> ; '''-
precipitation).- : ' ~ '
(iii) Creiise and oil-While grease and
oils may be, in fact, effectively filtered,
and while iihey may not reduce the ;
effectiveness of filtering suspended
solids/they may eventually coat filter
media particles in granulated media
filters, reducing the length of filter
cycles by jiireventing effective
backwashiBg. To the extent possible,
grease arid oil.should be removed prior ,;
to filtratior.u.3f they cannot be xemoved,
special baiikwashing-techniques using
detergents may be -required;
d, Design ana" Operating Variables
.that Affect Performance. For in-depth
filters, the Jfollowing design and
operating variables affect performance^
Type of filter selected;
Size ofifilter selected;
Pressure of wastewater feed;,
Use of ^coagulants or filter aids, -arid
Backwash technique. .
(i) Type of filterAs noted earlier, the
two main types :of filters are granular.
media and cartridge. While they are
both in-depith, cartridge depth-is rarely
more .than an inch^and is suited only to
-------
30004 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 1987 / Proposed Rules
low volume wastewaters and/or those
with extremely low suspended solids.
Usually, to develop the expected cycle
time prior to cartridge disposal, several
cartridges are placed in parallel. For
granulated media filtration, a variety of
media types and sizes are available.
Also, some granulated media filters feed
waslewater from the bottom up and
others from the top down. [They are all
backwashed from the bottom up.)
Typically, when more than one media is
used in the same filter (such as graded
sand and anthracite coal), a greater
capacity can be expected from a given
size filter bed. Typically, upflow
filtration will allow higher flowrates and
trap more particles, but there is the
danger of channelling (producing a
"hole" in the filter bed through which
unfiltered water will flow). The choice
of type of filter is usually based on a
combination of wastewater
characteristics and economics.
(il) Sizti of filterClearly, the larger
the size of a filter, the more wastewater
it will accommodate prior to back-
washing or filter replacement. This
affects performance only in that it may
limit the hydraulic capacity of the entire
treatment system.
(iii) Pressure of wastewater feed
Again, the higher the filtration pressure,
the more rapidly filtration can take
place. In any case, once design pressure
is reached, the filter must be
backwashed or the cartridges must be
replaced, thus affecting cycle time and
the overall hydraulic capacity of the
treatment system.
(iv) Use of coagulantsCoagulants
and filter aids can be added to the
influent. Generally, these materials
make very small particles larger and/or
gelatinous particles less gelatinous.
Filter runs can thus be lengthened and
the clarity of the filtrate should be
increased.
(v) Backwash techniques
Back washing is applicable only to
granular media filters, not to cartridge
types. If backwash flows are too high,
they may "fluidize" the media bed and
wash away the filter media. If flow is
too low, it may not expand the bed
adequately and not remove all of the
particles trapped in the fliter media
pores. In addition, if after a period of
time backwashing becomes ineffective,
the addition of detergents and
surfactants to the backwash water may
be necessary to clean the media bed of
greases, oils, and other adherent
materials.
7. Sludge Dewatering
a. Description and Applicability. This
section presents a brief description of
sludge dewatering, or cake-formation
filtration, that differentiates the
technology from in-depth filtration
which is presented Section V(B)(6).
Cake-formation filtration is applied to
sludges, typically those that have settled
to the bottom of clarifiers, for additional
dewatering. These sludges, which
usually contain more than 10,000 ppm
suspended solids, can be dewatered to
20 to 50 percent solids.
b. Basic Principles of'Operation. For
cake-formation filtration, settled sludge
is either pumped through a cloth-type
filter media (such as in a plate and
frame filter that allows solid "cake" to
build up on the media) or the sludge is
drawn by vacuum through the cloth
media (such as on a drum or vacuum
filter, which also allows the solids to
build). In both cases the solids
themselves act as a filter for subsequent
sludge solids. For a plate and frame type
filter, when excessive pressure is
required to force the sludge through the
media, the filter is opened and the cake
is removed for disposal or recovery (or
additional treatment, if necessary). For
the vacuum type filter, cake is removed
continuously after as much water as
possible has been drawn out of it. In
both types of cake-formation filtration
the liquid passing through the filter
media is usually too high in suspended
solids to be discharged to receiving
streams, so it is returned to the
treatment system. Also, for a specific
sludge, the plate and frame type filter
will usually produce a drier cake than a
vacuum filter. Other types of cake-
formation filters, such as belt filters, are
also used for effective sludge
dewatering.
c. Waste Characteristics Affecting
Performance. The following
characteristics of the waste will affect
performance of a cake-formation type of
filter:
Concentration of suspended
material;
Size of particles; and
Type of particles.
(i) ConcentrationFor plate and
frame type filters, the more concentrated
the inlet solids, the more rapidly cake
will build up and the shorter the
operating cycle will be. Consequently,
these types of pressure filters should be
sized.accordingly. For vacuum filtration,
a cake may not form at all if a minimum
solids concentration does not exist in
the influent. The higher the influent
solids for a vacuum filter, the more firm
and more dewatered will be the cake.
(ii) Size of particlesThe smaller the
particle size, the more the particles tend
to go through the filter media. This is
expecially true for a vacuum filter. Since
the filtrate is usually returned to the .
treatment system, this tends not to be a
major concern'unless significantly more
particles to through the filter than'are
trapped on it. For a pressure filter (like a
plate and frame), smaller particles may
require higher pressures for equivalent
throughput, since the smaller pore
spaces between particles create
resistance to flow.
(iii) Type of particlesSome solids
formed during metal precipitation are
gelatinous in nature and cannot be
dewatered well by cake-formation"'
filtration. In fact, for Vacuum filtration a
cake may not form at all. In most cases
solids can be made less gelatinous by
use of the appropriate coagulantstand
coagulant dosage prior to clarification,
or after clarification but prior to
filtration. In addition, the use of lime
instead of caustic soda in metal
precipitation will reduce the formations
of gelatinous solids. Also the addition of
filter aids to a gelatinous sludge, such, as
lime or diatomaceous earth, will help
significantly. Finally, precoating the.
filter with diatomaceous earth prior to
sludge filtration will assist in
dewatering gelatinous sludges., ...''"
d. Design and Operating Variables
that Affect Performance. For cake- .
formation filters, the following design
and operating variables affect
performance:
Type of filter selected;
Size of.filter selected; .... .
Feed pressure (not applicable to
vacuum filters); and
Use of coagulants or filter aids.
(i) Type of filterTypically, pressure
type cake-formation filters (such as a
plate and frame) will yield a drier cake
than a vacuum type filter and will also
be more tolerant of variations in influent,
sludge pharacteristic>s.
-------
12^1:987 / Proposed: Riiles"
30005
such .a way as to blind the filter and not
allow additional sludge to be filtered.. .C
For, vacuum filters, the jnaximum,
amount of vacuuni applied is;usuaiiy'nbt
very; variable and is limited to abput 20
to 25'inches of mercury. Hence, ,:,. ;; ;.-. ',;
differentiar pressure isi usually not a'.,'..,:
significant yariabie;in vacuum,fiitratipn.
(iv) Use of coagulantsCoagulant's
and filter aids may ;bemixe'd with filtei-
feed prior to filtration, as was; the ease --
with iri-depth filters. However, their :
effect is much more dramatic with cake- ,
formation filters, in that it may make the
difference in a vacuum filter between.no"
cake and a relatively dry cake. In a
pressure-filter, coagulants and filter aids
will also significantly improve hydraulic
capacity aridicaketdryriess. FilterJaidsV' ;
such as 'diatpmacepus earth- pan.be."'.-I.... ';
precbated on cake-formation'filters.'".'
(vacuum or pressure) for particularly
difficult to filter sludges. The precoat ''',
layer-acts $omewhat like ari in-depth
filter in .that sludge solids are trapped in
the precoat pore spaces. Use of precoats
and most coagulants of filter aids .; '
significantly increases the amount of ;
sludge solids to be disposed of. .
Hpweveri polyelectrplyte coagulant,
usage usually.does not increase sludge
volume sigmficantlyhecause the'dosage v
islow. " .:, ...-,:.': "%., ; .,Cdt-;-"2K,^;>:; .<.- :.'
^8, Ion Exchange v '"'J"\ .: ""'_'-'"'-'^
, ' a/Desqriptipn and Applicability. .Ion. "':
ex-change,refers to a,technologywhich ..:
^removes positively charged ions'
(cations) :orriegativelyicharged ions -
(anions} from solutions and replaces
them'with other, more'desirable, cations
oranipns. ;-.-. ,;,';, /; .',,-'..--.
The ion exchange treatment system
.consist^ of a CQlumn.(,pr bed) filled with
, either cation^ exchange resin or anipn ::
exchange resin, througfr whichi the. . . -.'
wastewater is pumped^ usually on a
continuous basis. Where it is desired to
remove both cations and anions, the
cation and anipn exchangers are placed -
in series: (On some specialised systems,
both cation and ai)iort exchange'resin
are coritained in the same column.)
Additional equipment required are .
chemical feed systems and pumps .used i
to regenerate the ion exchange columns
when they have exhausted their'
capacity to remove ions. ' -. - .
Cation exchange is applicable to , '
removal of all metalcations In relatively-
dilute solutions. (Typically, ; [ '::. --. '
concentrated metal solutions will be i
pretreatedlirstby'chemical . , >'~.'...\:
.precipitation.) AHion exchange is - -">
applicable to removal of, anipnic forms
;of metals (e.g.* .chrpmates and metal '.
complexes) in dilute solutions. It is / ,.'
important to note that a.relatively small.
volume of concentrated- w.astejyyater is/
,. .1
produced when regenerating an ion' ,
exchanger,. This concentrated waste
stream may be treated for disposal by
chemical precipitation and chrome
reduction as applicable. If appropriate, it
. may also be recycled for metal recovery.
\. Basic Principles of Operation. An
ion exchange resin consists of beads of
natural pr.synthetic material to which'
either anions* or cations are chemically -./
bound. For instance, in a typical qation
exchanger'the ions are either sodium or
hydrogen. When the re.siri is exposed to
a solution containing ions-pf similar
charge, .the ions are exchanged for the ? [
ions in solution. For instance, if a nickel;
containing solution, is pumped thJough a".
sodium-based cation exchanger, the ..: i
nickel will be;rempVedfrom sphition : i
and Teplaced with sodium. When the '
resin is exhausted, and the desired ions
are.no longer removed from solution .i .
(called "breakthrough''],; the .exchange
resin is regenerated by passing a
relatively low volume of a very- -''-
concentrated (percent range) regenerant
solution through the column. For .; ..
instance, in the case of a sodium-based '
resin, a strong solution of spdium -,-.
chloride.is typically the regenerant ;
solution. Th'e regenerant solution forces
the previously removed ions-back into
solution. This relatively low volume
solution, now highly cpncentraied^with -_;
s the contaminants, must then be treated !-
prior to disposal or-for recpvery/pf the :
-cation or anion contaminants. The^' ;
concentrated metal cations are [usually ,-
-f treated by chemical precipitation; : . , ,
Chromates (anions) are reduced to - -*,
triyalent chromium and then chemiqally;.
precipitated. Trace cyanides (anions),or -
metal/cyanide anion complexes may be
treated by pyanide oxidation.,. ; : ;.
c. Waste Characteristics thai Affect
.Performance: The waste characteristics
that affect performance qf ion exchange
systems are: --jy-, ..--, , . ; / -
\ the concehtratibn and valence of .
the contaminant in the wastewater;
The concentration and valence of
other ions in the wastewater with the .-."-
.same charge as the contaminant (i.e.,
positive ior negative); :' /''-
T,he]ampu,ntof suspended solids in p
the: wastewater; and -"-,- i i . ',-.'._ T
: ' The corrosiveness of the i , ; -
; wastewater relative to the resin . ;
material; ; V ::;-: --.-
'(i) As the concentration and valence
of adsorbable ions in the wastewater
increases, the size of the resinibed "'.'
required will increase, or alternatively,
the bed will become exhausted more
rapidly.This is because a given-amount .
of ion exchange resin has only-a specific
i number of sites at which it can adsorb
charged ions. Hence, if the valence is
doubled, the. sites are used twice as ;
quickly: The]s^mejs.true if.;the,, .;,%;--.:,
concentration is'dpubled , , :; . ? :
(ii) Other ions"in the wastewaterlwith. :
the.samfeichafge as the cdntaminant will!-
, compete for isxcharige sites on the resin.
Hence, a -low cPneentratiori of the :
; .cpntamiriant of concerh may be readily ;
removed from asblution with low;- - ,
concentratiohs of other similarly {[
: Pharged ionic species, but the :
contaminant'wil} hot be r.emoved as '; .
efficiently from solutions'Where high
concentrations of similarly charge'd ions '
exist. Ey;eni| the ion:of concern is;: v /
remove'd'effecfively. from a solution with
high concenfeatioris of sMilarly charged "
ions, the .resin will become exhausted ;'-.-.
more rapidly» since.it cannot ' ;/", \/!
. differentiate;[betweeri the contaminant :
and similarly charged ionic speicies."
(iii) Conyentionai ion exchange. ,_"
systema.^re liownflqw', i.e., the. ',','.-!'."..
wastewater" lows down through the ; .
resin bed.; (Typically, regeneration is '
. accomplished,in the upflow mode.) ; '-^:'.'.:
'.: Hence thebeid wiltact as a filtering".:'. '->
device. If ex(;essive suspended solids, or
grease'and .oils are contained in the:, --. '-
wastewater 1:he bed may clog and - ;
require backwashing prior to exhausting-
its exchangeiicapacity; For some solids
-;'br oils:backv?ashing may prove,' - v, /.--. ;
ineffectiye.j?Llso, sbme-ions tend;to" ;-.'-;->"
oxidize after-bemg-removedirom i' , ..
solution,'For.instance Mn+2 '..".;:';;:.- ,
:'(liianganese)-may oxidize to-.theMn^:4.: '; .
'.' fbrmj-which is insoluble; This niay;" ;v?
permanently :foul the exchange sites, so-'5.)
that the resiiii-will require premature. * :
replacement.!1.; :- .:.-'.-;- : ; ., :./-_' ' -.
(iv) Some- wastewaters are extremely
corrosive to exchange resin materials. ; ,
For ihstarice btrbngi' hot solutions pf
chromates will eventually oxidize many
resins. Ion exchange capacity will '
decrease until replacement is required.
d. Design and Operating Variables .
-; Affecting Peifofntanoe. The^^main design
and op.erating parameter that affects the
performance of ioh exchange systems is
thejesin quality arid.quantity. :
Numerous cation and anion resins are v:.
eommerciallji; available;. Different resins .
have-different exGharige capacities, and-.'-':-.
some have greater."'affinity than others:
for specific ions. Certain resins are ,
designed to tolerate corrosive, oxidizing, ^
or high tempesrature solutions, so that; '.-
their exchange capacity dp.es not .: ,
degrade as .rapidly with agei Most resins
will effectively remove contaminant
: ions from 'solutions until they become '-.,-
exhausted. If,: however, resin bed - , ,,
; exhaustion occurs "too frequehtlyror-
regeneration requires excessive Volumes
of regenerant, the type, and/or quantity
of resin might require Ohangirig. In some
-------
30006
Federal Register / VoL 52, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 1987 /Proposed Rules
Instances, pretreatment technologies.
may be required prior to ion exchange.
When a resin bed is exhausted, this is
referred to a "breakthrough", meaning
that the ions which were to be removed
from the wastewater are no longer being
removed. Breakthrough may be detected
In many ways, The most common
method of detecting breakthrough for
hydrogen ion based cation exchangers
in series with hydroxyl based anion
exchangers is to use an electrical
conductivity meter. Before
breakthrough, this type of system
discharges deionized water, which has
very low electrical conductivity. After
breakthrough of either or both
exchangers, acids, salts, or alkalies will
be discharged. These have high
conductivities. For hydrogen based
cation exchangers or hydroxyl based
anion exchangers operating
independently [not in series with each
other) breakthrough will be indicated by
a change in pH, which is easily
measured. Prior to breakthrough a
hydrogen based cation exchanger
discharges an acidic solution. A
hydroxyl based anion exchanger
discharges an alkaline solution. The pH
change in the discharge will rapidly ;
migrate to fhe pH of the raw waste. For
sodium based cation exchangers and
chloride based anion exchangers
conductivity measurement is also
effective in many cases, since the raw
waste ions will have a different
conductivity than the sodium and/Or
chloride ions.
The rate at which wastewater is fed to
the ion exchanger has little effect on its
effectiveness, since ions are adsorbed
on the resins almost instantaneously, so
long as exchange capacity exists. The
limiting factor for the flow rate is the
ability of the pump to pump a liquid
through a packed resin bed.
C. Treatment Data Summary
This section presents the data
reviewed by the Agency that support
treatment of California List metals and
cyanides to the EP regulatory levels or
health-based prohibition levels.
Included in this section are a summary
of the Agency's available data and
information on the treated
concentrations of the constituents of
concern, waste characteristics, and on
design and operating parameters. This
section also discusses the Agency's
preliminary conclusions with^ regard to
treatment of these wastes to levels
equivalent to the EP regulatory level or
health-based prohibition levels.
1. Arsenic
a. Data Summary. The Agency has
three data points on the treatment of
arsenic in wastewater from two
facilities. These three data points have
arsenic concentrations in the treated
wastewater Ipwer than the EP ,
regulatory levels of 5.0 mg/1. Table 2
provides a summary of all available
data on the treatment of arsenic in
wastewater.
The Agency has 11 data points on the
treatment of arsenic in waste other than
wastewater from three facilities. Of the
11 data points, all 11 have arsenic
concentrations in the leachate from the
treated waste lower than the EP
regulatory level of 5.0 mg/1. Table 3
provides a summary of all available
data on the treatment of arsenic in
waste other than wastewater.
b. Data AnalysisWastewater. (i)
Waste Characteristic Analysis. These
three data points reflect treatment by
chemical precipitation. The Agency has
limited data on the range of waste
characteristics pertinent to an
evaluation of the performance of this
technology. The only available waste
characterization data that are important
for an engineering analysis involve other
metals concentrations.
The treatment data show a maximum
influent concentration for arsenic of 160
mg/1, while the literature indicates
untreated wastes may have
concentrations as high as 430 mg/1. As
stated previously in Section V(B}[1),
high influent metal concentrations, per
se, do not adversely affect treatment;
however, high metal concentrations
often indicate that the metals are
complexed in solution and complexed
metal compounds, if not dissociated,
could have an adverse effect on
treatment.
(ii) Design and Operating Parameters
Analysis. For the three data points, the
Agency has some design and operating
data for two treatment points from one
facility that document the operation of
the treatment system.
(iii) Discussion. The Agency's best
engineering judgment is that the EP
regulatory level of 5.0 mg/1 for arsenic
can be met for the full range of
California List wastewaters containing
arsenic. In support of this position, the
Agency points to the theoretical
solubility limit of arsenic precipitates,
chemical precipitation theory, and our
knowledge of the technologies available
to minimize the effects of constituents in
the waste that can interfere with
treatment performance. Additionally,
the available data would not lead us to
conclude otherwise.
The Agency recognizes the lack of
data on the full range of waste
characteristics and design and operating
conditions ithat may affect treatment
effectiveness. Therefore, we are
soliciting data that would aid the
Agency in analyzing treatment ,
performance for arsenic in wastewaters.
The specific waste characterization data
and design and operating data that the
Agency needs are described in Section
V(E), Request for Comments.
c. Data AnalysisWaste Other Than
Wastewater. {i) Waste Characteristics
Analysis. As stated above in the Data
Summary, all 11 data points achieve the
EP, regulatory level. Each of these uses
stabilization technology for treatment.
Four of these data points represents .,-
bench-scale tests. .-, -
For these data points, the Agency has1
limited information oh the range of.
waste characteristics pertinent to an
evaluation of the performance of this
technology. Most of the available waste
characterization data that are important
for an engineering analysis involve other
metal concentrations.
The treatment data have a maximum
total arsenic concentration of 12,000 mg/-
kg. The stabilization data for this data
point represent bench-scale treatment.
(ii) Design and Operating Parameters
Analysis. For the 11 data points, the
Agency has limited design and operating
data for four treatment points from two
facilities. All of these data points:
represent bench-scale data.
[iii) Discussion. The Agency's best
engineering judgment is that the EP
regulatory level of 5.0 mg/1 for arsenic
can be met in leachate for the full range
of California List waste other than
wastewater. In support of this position,
the Agency points to the facility's ability
to change the fatio of stabilizing agents
to waste quantities as needed to
decrease mobility of the constituent; this
'assumes that an effective stabilizing
agent and/or additives are available. .
Additionally, the curing conditions (e.g.,
length of cure and ambient conditions) '
can be controlled to ensure that the
waste particles have had sufficient time
to form a stable treated waste.
Additionally^ all the available data
show that the EP regulatory level of 5,0
mg/1 for arsenic can be achieved.
The Agency recognizes the lack of * ;
data on the full range of waste
characteristics and design and operating
, conditions that may affect treatment
effectivness. Therefore, we .are soliciting
data that would aid the Agency in
analyzing treatment performance for
arsenic in waste other than wastewater.
The specific waste characteristic data
and design and operating data that the
Agency needs are described in Section.
V(E), Request for Comments.
-------
Federal Register'/ Vol. 52, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 1987 / Proposed Rules^
30007
TABLE 2.ARSENIC CONCENTRATION DATA FOR WASTEWATER ,
^ *
Source + l
Bhattacharyya, et al t13
t
Bhattacharyya, et al [21 .
Nonferrous metals Dev Doc
i
- °* *
{
' Industry
.
Nonferrous metal
production.
Nprtferrous metal
production
!
Secondary lead
production
i-
Process
.generat-
ing
waste :
NAV
NAV ,
NAV
"
(
Treatment process
i
*
Suifide and lime
precipitation
*
Suldde and Jime ,
precipitation
Hydroyide
precipitation,
filtration
Waste,
cddes?
-
NAV.
NAV.
D004 .
D008
-
' Waste \
characterization data
Parame
ter ,-
~i^
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury.1
Cadmium
Lead v,
Mercury.
Lead,
f
^Concen-
tration
(mg/l)
35
60
09
14
75
08
80
Arsenic
concentration
data
Un-
treated
Tri*al
(mg/l)
160
t
125
64
Treated
Total"
(mg/l)
18
1 9
29
f See Section V(D)(10) for, Data Sources;
8 Waste code as reported in source
NAVNot available
"- t i «r-,
TABLE 3.ARSENIC DATA FOR WASTE-OTHER THAN WASTEWATER
Source +
192"
192" '
HAZCO"..
Industry
r
NAP
NAP
!
NAP.;
7r
Process
generating
waste
Synthetic
"Waste.
t
_
Synthetic
waste.
1
Synthetic
waste,
Treatment
process
Stabiliza-
tions
-
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Waste
codes _
NAP.
NAP
NAP.
Waste characterization data
Parameter
Barium.
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel ,
Silver ..
Selenium.
6,600 mg/
kg
10,300 mg/
kg
10,900 mg/
kg
8,820 mg/
kg
11,300-mg/-
kg
1t,100mg/
kg
3,900 mg/
kg
7,600 mg/
kg
Barium
Cadmium
Chromtum
Lead.
Mercury. _
Nickel:
Silver.
Selenium.
Cadmium
Lead.
Mercury.
Selenium:
Waste lube
oil
Alcohol:
Water,
"Concentration
12,000
3,680"mg/kg ..
5,500 mg/kg
6,300 mg/kg .
3,5800 mg/kg
600 mg/kg.
5,810 mg/kg.
1,760 mg/kg.
4,600 mg/kg.
1,090 mg/kg.
1,872 mg/kg.
1,752 mg/kg.
599 mg/kg .
858,000 mg/
kg.
55,000 mg/kg.
87,000 mg/kg.
Aiserac Concentration data
Untreated
Total"
(mg/kg) "
NAV
_
"!
_
1
t
6,400
2,267
EP-TOX
(mg/()
NAV
t i
*
NAV
»
NAV.
Treated
Total
(mg/kg)
0135
,
~
f-
NAV
-
2,195.
EP-Tox
(mg/l)
T
-
-
0139
, ~
<05
-------
30000
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 1987 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3.ARSENIC DATA FOR WASTE OTHER THAN WASTEWATERContinued
Source *
j92» _....,.
C8I
CSI ,....,._
CBI
C8I.....
CBI...
cat
Industry
NAP
CBI ,.
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
Process
generating
waste
Synthetic
waste.
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI.
CBI
Treatment
process
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza- .
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Waste
codes
NAP. .......
NAV ...
NAV
NAV
,NAV
NAV
NAV..
NAV. .......
Waste characterization data
Parameter'
Barium
Cadmium .......
Chromium
Lead .
Mercury :...
.Nickel
Silver
Selenium..
CBI
CBI,...
CBI
CBt.. :
CBI ....
CBI~
GBI
Concentration
18 mg/kg......... .
2,400 mg/kg .. .
1,710 mg/kg. .
1,170 mg/kg. .
1,060 mg/kg. .
1,360 mg/kg. .;
290 mg/kg
750 mg/kg ...
CBI '.
CBI.... ;.:
CBI..... ,........:
CBI...
CBI
CBI.«.:. .
CBI ;
,. Arsenic Concentration data .
Untreated
Total
(mg/kg)
1,100
350
310
287 ,
255
144
120
110
!Ef»-tox
(mg/l)
NAV........
WAV
..NAV..;.....
NAV ...... ..
NAV........
NAV ........
NAV...
.NAV.....
.Treated
Total
(mg/kg)
NAV........
NAV
NAV..
: NAV. ......
NAV.......
NAV......;
NAV.......
N AV .......
' EP-Tox
(mg/l)
0.028 -,
. ' J , .' .' > , i
0.19
0.12
0.48
, vo.49 ;
0,15
;.,..o.2i
6.21
*Sea Section V(C)(10) for Data Sources.
'Data represent bench-scale test
CBtConfidential Business Information.
NAVNot applicable.
NAPNot applicable.
2. Cadmium
a. Data Summary. The Agency has 16
data points on the treatment of cadmium
In wastewaters from 12 facilities. Of the
16 data points, 15 are usable. One data
point cannot be used because the
laboratory analysis for the effluent was
reported at a detection level greater
than the EP regulatory level. Of the 15
data points, 13 have cadmium
concentrations in the treated
waatewater lower than the EP
regulatory level of 1.0 mg/l. Chemical
precipitation was the treatment
technology used for 14 of the 15 data
points; ion exchange was used to treat
one waste stream. Table 4 provides a
summary of all available data on
treatment of cadmium in wastewater.
The Agency has 43 data points on the
treatment of cadmium in waste other
than wastewater from eight facilities. Of
the 43 data points, 30 have cadmium
concentrations in the leachate from the
treated waste that are lower than the EP
regulatory level of 1.0 mg/l. Table 5
provides a summary of all available
data on cadmium ia waste other than
wastewater.
b. Data AnalysisWastewater. (i)
Waste Characteristic Analysis. Of the 13
points that achieve the EP regulatory
level, 12 reflect trreatment by chemical
precipitation, the principal technology
for treating cadmium in wastewaters. .
The Agency has limited data on the
range of waste characteristics pertinent
to an evaluation of tiie performance of
this technology. Most of the available
waste characterization data that are
important for an engineering analysis
involve other metal concentrations.
The treatment data have a maximum
influent concentration for cadmium of
240 mg/l, while the literature indicated
untreated wastes may have
concentrations as high as 5,000 mg/l. As
stated in Section V(B)(1), high influent
concentrations, per se, do riot adversely
affect treatment; however, high metal
concentrations often indicate that the
metals are complexed in solution and
complexed metal compounds, if not
disassociated, could have an adverse
effect on treatment.
(ii) Design and Operating Parameters
, Analysis. For the 12 data points that
achieve the EP regulatory level, the
Agency has some design and operating,
data for four treatment points from two
facilities that document the operation of
the facility. ; '
(iii) Discussion. The Agency's best
engineering judgment is that the EP
regulatory level of 1.0 mg/l for cadmium
can be met for the full range of
California List wastes containing
cadmium. In support of this position, the;
Agency points to the theoretical ;
solubility limit of cadmium precipitates,'.
chemical precipitation theory, and our.
knowledge of the technologies available
to minimize the effects of constituents in
the waste that can interfere with
treatment performance. Additionally, .
the available data would not lead us to
conclude otherwise. ;
In the case of the data point that does
not show achievement of the EP
regulatory level, the Agency looked,at ,
the waste characteristics and treatment
design and operation to determine why.
these values were not attained; Relative ,
to waste characteristics, the waste
exhibited high oil arid grease and high
total dissolved solid values. These. ;
parameters can.adversely.affect the
effectiveness of the treatment. We
expect that preliminary treatment, such
as oil-water separation, and/or emulsion
breaking, can remedy any problems .;
associated with high oil and grease, -..
content. Reducing the high TDS value ',
can be accomplished using ion
exchange, but can be a difficult problem
to resolve. With regard to our analysis
of the design and operation of the ' :
treatment system used, the Agency had!
. no data to show that the treatment
-------
Federal Register / Vet. 52, No, 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 1987 / Proposed Rules
30009
system was designed and operated . l-
properly; therefore, we-cannot, conclude.-.:
that flieEPregulatory level isnot ,
attainable.
The Agency recognizes the lack .of
data on; fee fall range of waste
characteristics and design and operating
conditions that may affect treatment
effectiveness. Therefore, we are
soliciting data that would aid the
-Agency in analyzing treatment
performance for cadmium in ---,-
wastewaiters. A description of the
specific waste characterization data and
design and operating data that the
Agency needs can be found in Section
V(E), Request for Comments.
c. Data Analysis-^-Waste Other than
Wastewater. (i) Waste Characteristics
Analysis. As stated above in the-data
summary, 30 of the 43 data points
achieve the EP regulatory level Each of
these uses stabilization technology for
treatment. ,
Of the 30 data points that achieve the
EP regulatory levels, the Agency has
limited data on the.range of waste
characteristics pertinent to an
evaluation of the performance of Ms '
technology. Most of the available waste
characterization data that are' important
for an engineering analysis involve other
metals and oil and grease
concentrations. For the wastes where EP
regulatory levels were achieved, the
maximum total cadmium concentration
. was 31,200 mg/kg. The stabilization data
for this data point represent bench scale ;
treatment results. - V
{ii) Design and Operating Parameters
Analysis. For the 30 data points that .
achieve the EP regulatory levels, the,
-Agency has limited design and operating
data for six treatment points from four;.
facilities. Three of the data points
represent bench scale experimental -
data.
(iii)Discussion. The Agency's, best
engineering judgment is that the EP
regulatory level of 1.0-mg/1 for cadmium
; can be.met toleachate for the full range
of California List waste oth^r than
waslewa ter. In support of this position,
the Agency points to facility's ability to
change the ratio of stabilizing agents to
waste quantities as needed to decrease
mobility of the constituent ihis assumes
that an effective stabilizing agent and/or
additives are available. Additionally,
the curing conditions (e.g;, length of cure
and ambient conditions) can be ..-'
controlled to ensure that the waste
particles have had sufficient lime to
form a stable treated waste.
Additionally, the Agency's evaluation of
the available data would not lead us to
conclude otherwise.
In the cases where the treated waste
leachate did not-achieve the EP
regulatory level, the Agency looked at
the waste characteristics and treatment
design and operation to determine why
these yaJues were not attained. Relative
to waste characteristics, one of the 13
data points had untreated waste with a
high oil and grease content that-could
have had an adverse affect on fee -
performance of the stabilization.
technology. Qil andgrease can be
removed byvemalsion breaking-or
separation in a pretreatirierit step. For
another of the data points that do not
achieve the EP regulatory level, the
initial concentration is three times the
next highest concentration that achieves
the EP regulatory levels (98,000 mg/kg
vs. 31,200 mjg/kg). However, the leachate
concentration for this data point is so
much higher than for the other data
point (98 mg/r vs. <0.01 mg/1) that .we
believe that stabilization process is not
properly designed. EPA has no other
waste characteristic data on these data
points or other data points, to determine
why the EP regulatory levels were not
achieved. Relative to analysis of the
design and operation of the treatment
systems used, the Agency had.no data
to determine! whether poor design or
operation contributed to the failure of
the systems to achieve the EP regulatory
levels. :
The Agency recognizes that we lack
data on the Ml range of waste
characteristics and design and operating
-'conditions that may affect treatment
effectiveness. Therefore, we are
soliciting information lo aid the Agency
in analyzing: treatment performance for
cadmium in wastes other than
wastewater.'The specific waste
- characteristics data and design and ;
operating data that the Agency needs
are describe!! in Section V(E), Request
"for Commen'ts. . ,
TABLE 4.CADMIUM DATA FOR WASTEWATER
Source*
Battery
manufacturing
dev. doc.
Frontier Chemical
Company.
Chem F'rolnc ; ...;
Envirite 143 ._....-....;.....
Bhattacharyya, et al.
[2]. J
Industry
Lead battery
manufacturing.
Batter
manufacture.
NAV.. .
TSDF..................
Nonferrous metal
production. . !
Process '
generating
waste i
NAV ,
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
Treatment -'"
process
- ' : -
Ferrite co-
precipitation.
Lime precipitation,
filtration, carbon
adsorption.
Chemical .1
precipitation.
Chemical
precipitation;
filtration.
Sulfide and lime
precipitation. ~\
Waste-
codes'
NAV i
D002
D007
NAV
F006
K062 '
D003
NAV
Waste characterizatiori data
Parameter
Lead.........
Mercury ................
Nickel....
Lead.......
TOC
Oil & grease.........
TSS .1
TDS.
Nickel
Oil & grease. .......
Copper
Lead.. ........"...
Zinc.....
Nickel.............
Oil & grease...., .
Arsenic
Lead ...;..
Mercury
-.'i :_ . "
Goncentratiori
(mg/1)
_- .' -' .'I*' -
475....;..:.......!;.....
7.4.;...;;....;;...;
1rOOO.u.....M.....i
1:1^3.13...; ........
5600- 19000 ........'
2600-18000 :
2400-150000
10000-170000....
4.3-500..
150 mg/kg..
- - ' '!'.
61 7 ^
137....;.................,
136....,
135 ;
382....JL:. ......;
322 ,:
125 _..;..;.....'...-..:.-.
75 '- ' ' - "
G.8...J .;...
Cadmium
concentration data
Untreat- .
.ed
Total
(mg/l) :
";- 240
3.9-r180 "
88
oo .
- ''.
Treated
Total
; (mg/1)
0.008
0.15-1.4
0.7
, /<5
-------
30010
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 1987 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4.CADMIUM DATA FOR WASTEWATERContinued
Source*
EnvMtam
Envirita [23
Envidte 13]
Nonforrous metals,
dav. doc.
Battery
manufacturing
dov. doc.
Battery
manufacturing
dov. doc.
Bhatlacharyya, et al.
[13.
Battery
manufacturing
dev. doc!
Batter
manufacturing
dav. doc.
Metal finishing dev.
doc.
Metal finishing dev.
doc.
Industry
TSDF.
TSDF
TSDF.
Secondary lead
production.
Lead battery
manufacturing.
Lead battery
manufacturing.
Nonforrous metal
production.
Lead battery
manufacturing.
Zinc battery
manufacturing.
Metal finishing
Metal finishing
Process
generating
waste
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
Treatment
process
Chemical
precipitation,
filtration.
Chemical
precipitation,
filtration.
Chemical
precipitation,
filtration.
Hydroxide
precipitation,
filtration.
Ion exchange
Hydroxide
precipitation,
sedimentation.
Sulfide and lime
precipitation.
Hydroxide
precipitation.
Lime precipitation,
settling,
filtration.
Chemical
precipitation,
sedimentation.
Chemical
precipitation,
sedimentation.
Waste
codes"
F006
K062
D003
D002
F006
K062
D003
D002
F006
K062
D004
D008
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV .
Waste characterization data
Parameter
Zinc
Hex. Chrom
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Oil & grease
Nickel
Hex. Chrom
Chromium...;
Copper
Lead
Oil & grease
D003
D002
Lead
Hex. chrom
Cyanide .:.....
Nickel
NAV...
Arsenic
Lead
Mercury ...
NAV
Mercury
Nickel
NAV
.NAV
Concentration
(mg/l)
116
893 ;
2581
138
64
471
28.4
470
807, ..
2279
133
54
54
Lead
Hex. Chrom
Chromium
CoDDer
Nickel
Zinc
Oil & grease
80
7.1 .-..;
98 .
6.2
NAV
160..
6,0
0 9
NAV
100.......
1100.!
NAV
NAV
Cadmium
concentration data
Untreat-
ed
Total
(mg/l)
13
10
108
769
2314
72
426
171
113
6.4
5.7
3.8
.3.5
2.8
2.04
1.88
1.0
Treated
Total
(mg/l)
<0.15
<0.5
10
2.9
<0.01
0.08
<0.02
0.055
0.067
0.018
0.015
* Seo section V(C)(10) for Data Source.
* Waste codes as reported in source.
NAVNot available.
TABLE 5.CADMIUM DATA FOR WASTE OTHER THAN WASTEWATER
Source1
C8I
UNH a
Industry
cat...'.
NAP
Process
generating
waste
CBI
Synthetic
waste.
Treatment
process
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Waste
codes "
NAVS
NAP a
Waste characterization data
parameter
CBI7
NAV
concentration
CBI
NAV
Cadmium concentration data
. Untreated
Total
(mg/kg)
98000
* 31 200
EP-Tox
(mg/l)
4 NAV
Hi: "' , ,, *m,
NAV
Treated
Total
(mg/kg)
NAV
NAV. ....
EP-Tox
(mg/l).
98
<0.01
-------
£egister:X y*>l.~52;-
v Aagast 12, "1987; ^Proposed Rales 30011
TABLE 5.CADMIUM DATA TOR WASTE OTHER THAN WASTEWATERContinued
Source *
UNH »........_.
192 3 .._
CBI...~_...,.
GBI.....;.....;.
CBL. _,
CBi. ;......
UNH *...,...........
-- .
1923 ..,_
HAZCO* _.,
CBI..........
industry
NAP;..;....;.
NAP........
CBI........
CBI.......
CBI......
CBI
NAP..........
NAP.....
GBI......
NAP,........,
CBI.......
;.. Process
generating
waste
Synthetic
waste.
Synthetic
waste..
CB3 .......]
GBI........
Synthetic
waste. , -
r ; - '- '
GBf-
CBi- J
Synthetic
waste.
Synthetic . i
waste.
CB!_..; ;
Synthetic j
-waste.
CBI..........
Treatment
process
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion,
Stabiliza- .
8on.
Stabiliza- - .
lion.
Stabiliza- .
fion.
Stabiliza- ,
;tioh. ;
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
. fion.
Stabiliza- ,
fion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza- .
;tion.
Waste
codes2
NAP.....
NAP...
. . " .
WAV...:.....
WAV.......;
WAP........
WAV..
NAP....,
NAV
Waste characterization data
parameter
NAV...;..;....:..
Chromium ....
Lead ............
Mercury
Nickel
Silver^
.Arsenic..:....;.
Setenium......
- :
!" "-".-:'.-""
' -
CBI..................
Barium....
Chromium
Lead .;........
Mercury ...
Nickel,.........
Silver
Selenium........
NAV . "__
Barium
Chromium ......
.ead ......__
Mercury. ~.
Nickel,
Silver .............
Arsenic,... ,
Selenium ........
Arsenic,
Lead .......... ..
Mercury ,
Seleium
Waste lube '
oil.
Alcohol j
Water ........
CBI
concentration
NAV
8600 mg/kg,.;
GBI i
CBI;... 1
GBI.................;
3680 mg/kg ...j
6300 mg/Kg...,
3580 rrig/ikg.,j
600 mg/kg .;...j
5810 mg/kg...;
1760 mg/kg .J
8400 mg/Kg._;
4600mg/kg~i
CBI..........;
CBI..... ._j
18 mg/kg....
1710 mg/kg..J
1060 mg/kg J
1360 mg/ikgj
290 mg/kg i
1100 mg/kg ;.
750 mg/kg ..i
2267 mg/kg.i
1872 mg/kg" i
1752 mg/kg.
599 mg/kg ......
858000 mg/
kg.
55000 mgfkg..
87000 mg/kg..
CBI
- Cadmium concentration data
Untreated
Total
(mg/kg)
M5600
10900 -
mg/
kg
8820
:kg
11300
mg/
kg
11100
mg/ .
kg
3900
mg/
12000
7BOO
mg/
kg-
9900
9900 "
7104 >
S500 "--.
4100 ;
3940
3120 ,
2400V ~",
1210
1090
617
EP-Tox
(mg/l)
NAV.;....
10300...
^NAV
: WAV. .,.....
iNAV;;,.....,
WAV.......".
NAV ..;,
NAV, .,
NAV '
Treated
Total
(mg/kg)
NAV..
NAV..._.
NAV ...;.:;:
NAV....
NAV,.,....
NAV........
WAV..J.L
NAV..,
10563.1,.:
EP-Tox
(mg/l)
<0.01 ,
:NAV -
.3.39 ;
41.6 ;
O.037 ^
49K)
6.94 V
3.3 ;
0.02
-------
30012 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 1987 / Proposed Rules -
R17
668
CBI
192
C8L.~....
CBI
CBI
RA1
CBI
CBI.......
C8l
C8I ,
CBI ...
CBI
CBI
CBI ,
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI .. i
CBI..
CBI.....
CBI
CSI,
CBI
CBI
CBI.
CBI..
EAF steel
produc-
tion.
EAF steel
produc-
tion.
CBI
TSDF
CBI
CBI
CBI,...,
EAF steel
produc-
tion.
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI.
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI...
CBI, '....
CBI
CSI ...
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
EAF steel
produc-
tion.
EAF steel
produc-
tion.
CBI
NAV
CBI
CBI
CBI ....
EAF steel
produc-
tion.
CBI
CBI ...
CBI
CSI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBl
CBI
CBI
CSI
CBI
CBI
PRl
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI. _
CBI
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabilize- ,
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Lime
neutral-
ization,.
Chemical
fixation,.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion:
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
" tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
K061
K061
NAV. .......
K062
D002.......
NAV
NAV
NAV
K061
NAV. .......
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV.
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV.......
NAV
NAV....'...
NAV,...,..
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV.......
NAV
NAV
NAV
Lead.
Nickel
TOG..... :.....
Oil & greese ..
Lead
Oil & greese ,.
TOG ......
CBI ..........
Lead
Nickel '..
pH....
CBI
CBI
CBI
Arsenic
Lead
Selenium
CBI '.
CBI
CBI
CBI... ...
CBI: ....;..,..
CBI
CBI ....
CSI........
CBI ,
CBI....;
CBI .
CBI.....;.....
CBI ,.
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
38000 ppm
200 ppm :
0.03-0.04% ...i
0.04-0.06% ....
33618 mg/kg..
18-127
102-168 mg/
,kg.
CBl
0.12-204
mg/kg.
30-124.8
mg/kg.
< 1-7.0
CBI
CBI...
CBI ....
50mg/kg..........
15000 mg/kg..
70 mg/kg
CBI.
CBI .....
CBI..:
CBI ...
CBI.... ........
CBI...
CBI
CBI
CBI......
CBI
CBI.....
CBI....
CBI
CBI :...
CBI ....;........
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI.
CBI.
600
537-
591
524
8 0.11- ,
310
286
241
211.0
200
160.4
100
88.1
84
80
77
54.1
49 ,
38.1
38
38
36.5
35.6
34
33.1
27.4
27
24.3
21
20.6
NAV
NAV........
NAV
NAV,
NAV
NAV...
NAV
1.4... .-.
NAV......;.
NAVi
NAV.,.:....
NAV.......
NAV;
NAV
NAV
NAV.......
NAV.......
NAV.......
NAV
.NAV.;.;...
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV.......
NAV;
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
217-
265.,'
NAV :..
8 6.0.
NAV
NAV
NAV
<200
NAV........
NAV
NAV...
NAV ........
NAV........
NAV........
NAV.......
NAV.......
.' :
NAV....'...
NAV.......
NAV
NAV.
NAV.
NAV
NAV
NAV.......
NAV...:..'.
NAV.......
NAV..
NAV
0.02-
0.03
0.03-
0.04
0.03
0.02-
0,03
0.49
4.19
0.29
<0.02-
0.02
0.042
3.35
0.035
: 0.08
1.14 :
.:0.02
.., 0.052"
.0.31,;
0.051
0.06
0.16
, 0.029
0.137
. 0.04
0.024
0.025
..9-035,
0.028
0.3
0.017
i Sea section V(C)(10 for Data Sources '....
* Waste codes as reported in source. ,
3 Data represent bench-scale test. , ...,,.»
Cadmium concentration in sludge given in test as mg/l. Converted to mg/kg assuming typical sludge density of about 100 Ib/ft3.
* NAVNot available.
NAPNot applicable.
» CBIConfidential business information.
»mg/l
-------
Federal Register"/: Vol^52, :No>155'-/ Wednesday, August 12, >1987r/ Prop^e'd ?Rules 5 :' 30013
3. Hexavalent Chromium -"' '-.-' : ""
- a,; Data Summary. The Agency has ;
seven data points on thejre^tm_ent,of
hexaVaient chromium in wastewate4r
from four facilities. Of the seven data
points, all. have hexavalent chromium
concentrations'in the treated^ ;
wastewater lower .than the EP
regulatory level of 5.0 mg/1. Table 6
provides a summary of all available.
data1 for the treatment of hexavalent
chromium, in Wastewatef. ; .
, Chemical reduction, was the .treatment
technology used for six of .the/data ,
points; Ion exchange was applied in the
, case of the other,data point. .''- '-
The(Agency has seven data pointsior
the treatment of hexavalent chrplnium in
. waste other than wasteWater. from two
facilities. Stabilization was identified as
the treatment technology for all of the
data points. Of the seven data points, ...
two have hexavalent chromium
concentrations in the leachate from the
treated waste that ate lower than the EP
regulatory level of 5.0 mg/1. Table 7 ;
provides a summary of all available
data on th'e treatment of hexavalent ."''"'
chromium in wast'elbther thap "''
wastewater. , ,,
b. Data AnalysisWastewater. (i)
Waste Characteristic Analysis. Of'the
seven points, six reflect treatment by.
chemiealreduction. The Agency?has - ''.
limitejd data on the range of ;wast0,'-:
characteristics peftinerit to an;~:;'- ; ;
evaluation of the performance of this '
, technology. Most of the available Waste
characterization data thatare important
for an engineering analysis involve other
reducible compounds (mainly metals) in,
the waste.
The treatment data have a maxinnyn
influent concentration for hexavalent"
"chromium of 1,230 mg/1, while the '
literature indicates untreated wastes
may have concentrations as high as '
' -270,000 mg/1. The Agency believes that
high hexavalent chromium
..concentrations, per se, do notadversely
affect treatment by hexavalent \
chromium reduction. Proper adjustment
of the reagent dose and sufficient. .'
residence time to allow;the reaction to ,.
go to completion should provide, i
"adequate treatment for the range of ;
untreated waste concentrations that the
::.Agency would expect. ,
; ';, (ii) Design and Operating Parameters
^Analysis; For the seven data points, the
.Agency has some design and operating
: .idata-fpr four treatment points from one
-(facility that can be used to document.'the
operation of the facility.
(iii} Discussion. The Agency's best < ,
engineering judgment is that the EP.;.
regulatory level of 5.0 mg/1 for . > .'.. ;
..hexavalent chromium can be met for the
full range of California List wastewaters
containing hexavalent chromium. In
support of this position, the Agency -:
"points to chemical reduction theory "and .
our knowledge of the technologies ' :
available to minimize the effects of
constituents in the waste that can < .
interfere with treatment performance.
: Additionally, the available data would
= not lead us to conclude otherwise;- - - - -
J-"; The Agency recognizes that we lack
fdataon'the full range of waste \ .'* - '' r .
Characteristics and design and operation
'conditions that may affect treatment
effectiveness. Therefore, we are' .
soliciting information to aid the Agency
-inanaly2ingtreatmentperfprinancefor -
hexavalent chromium in wastewater.
The specific waste characterization ;data
and design and operating data that the
Agency nee"d^!3 are described in Section '
- V(E),xRequesli: for Comments. , -.'-
'c. IJata Analysis -Waste Other -than
Wastewater. (i) Waste Characteristic-
Analysis. As $tated above.in the data
summary; only two of the seven /. - '
available data points achieve the EP V '
regulatory level for hexavalent
chromium. Ea.ch.of these uses :
.^stabilization (technology 'for treatment. ....
The treatment data have a maximum
.influent concentration -for hexavalent
chromium of 709,970 mg/kg. ". "
The Agency has rip waste '" "
characteristics data pertaining to the
:perfo!rmaijce of stabilization for the.p"ata
reported in Table 7., ; V; ":.;
(ii]' Design andOperatingT.arameters '
Analysis. Of the seven daia points, the
Agency has design .and operating data
for six of the treatment points to
document the' pperation'pf the bench L
scale tests. The design arid operating
data cover all. parameters 'pfthe ' ' '
stabilization lireathient process that the
/Agency believes ; to be significant. ;.
However; information was not provided
as to the basi s ot the design" bonditibns -
. ..and, thefefpr^., it is riot possible to , . _ .:.
defermine'if tfe system was! optimized. '
(iii) Disdussiipn. While data are -.=:'- ' ;
limited, the concentration of hexavalent
chromium in 1:he leachate tended to : : '
increase asHliie cbncentratjbn in the' '
r thatthe performa'n'ce of stabilization on *
1 wastes containing hexavalent chromium-
'. is adversely' alffected by the high; - '''.-
jsblubility of h'exavalent chrpriiiuih ' '"'''
compounds, and that treatment of these'
: ^wastes by he3cavaient chromium ,
-reduGtion.is-the recommende'd "-'- ' -
alternative. EP regulatory levels can be
attained after the application of
chemical reduction technology.
TABLE 6. HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM DATA FOR WASTEVVATER
Source +
Ehvirite 113
Envirite [23
Industry
tSDF ..-..-..,
^ \,
tSDF
Process
generating
waste
NAV "
WAV
Treatment process
Chemical reduction..
Chemical reduction ..
Waste
codes a
i
F006
K062 !
D003 '
DOQ2
F006
K062
D003
D002
i v
; Waste; characte.rizatipn data
Parameter;
i
Cadmium. '.
Nickel....;..
Chromiiifn
Copper
Lead
Cadmium.
Chromium
Copper
Lead ,
Nickel
Zinc t.
i
Concentration
' (mg/1)
10
470 .7
2279...' .'.'.....'.
133
54 i
10
2314
72
108.1
428 ."
171 .'. .,
Hexavalent
chromiurn
concentration data
Untreat-
ed
Total
(mg/l)
1230
1180
Treated.
Total
(mg/l)
0.19
0.121
-------
30014
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 155 /Wednesday, August 12, 1987 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6. HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM DATA FOR WASTEWATERContinued
Source*
EnvkitotS]
EnvMtet43.»
Battery
manufacturing.
Battery
manufacturing.
Battery
manufacturing.
Industry
TSDF
TSDF.
Lead battery
manufacturing.
Lead battery
manufacturing.
Lead battery
manufacturing.
Process
generating
waste
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
Treatment process
Chemical reduction^
Chemical reduction.;
Chemical reduction..
Chemical reduction..
Ion exchange ..
Waste
codes"
F006
K062
D003
D002
F006
K062
D003
NAV
NAV
NAV
Waste characterization data
Parameter
Cadmium
Zjnc... ...
Chromium
Copper .,
Lead ......
Nickel
Zinc
Zinc.. J
Nickel
Chromium
Copper
NAV... ...:....
NAV
Cadmium ......
Cyanide ...
Nickel
Concentration
(mg/l)
13.. .!........ .....^
116.....
2581 .......
138.... .
64....
471
116 ....
71
1414
2236
91 ..'..; ;...:
18 . .
NAV ?.......
NAV . '.
5 7 .'......'....'
9.8..........
62.'..;,.......;
Hexavalent '
chromium
concentration data
Untreat-
ed <;
Total
(mg/l)
' 1100
1070
25.6
11.45
7.1
Treated
Total
0.011
0.058
<0.014
<"o;oos
0.01
* Sea Section V(C)(10) for Data Sources.
Waste codes as reported in source.
NAVNot available.
TABLE 7. HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM DATA FOR WASTE OTHER THAN WASTEWATER
Sourcs*
CBI
UNH'EI]
UNHT.2]
UNHH3]
UNHkW]
UNHT53
UNHM6]..
Industry
CBI
NAP
NAP
NAP..
NAP
NAP
NAP
Process
generating
waste
CBI
Synthetic
waste.
Synthetic
waste.
Synthetic
waste.
Synthetic
waste.
Synthetic
waste.
Synthetic
waste.
Treatment
process
Stabilization ......
Stabilization
Stabilization.. .
Stabilization
Stabilization......
Stabilization......
Stabilization ......
Waste
codes
NAV
NAP :
NAP .....
NAP
NAP ...
NAP ...
NAP
Waste
characterization
data
Param-
eter
CBI ....
NAV
NAV . .
'NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
Concen-
tration
CBI
NAV....
NAV .-.'..
.NAV.......
NAV..:
NAV...........
NAV. ....
Hexavalent chromium concentration data
Untreated
709,970
45,000
45,000
,23,900
23,900
4,950
4,950
; Treated
Total '
EP-Tox
(mg/kg)
:(mg/l)
NAV
NAV: :.
NAV
NAV........
NAV ........
NAV
NAV
Total
(mg/kg)
NAV........
NAV ....:...
NAV...
NAV........
NAV........
NAV. ...... .
NAV
EP-Tox
(mg/l)
100
56.3
- .158.5
. ,13.5,
;60;7,
'".", ," 1-&
4.5
* Sea Section V(C){10) for Data Sources.
b Those data represent bench-scale test.
NAVNot available.
NAPNot available.
CBIConfidontial Business Information..
4. Lead
a. Data Summary. The Agency has 16
data points on the treatment of lead in
wastewater from ten facilities. Of the 16
data points, 15 have lead concentrations
In the treated wastewater lower than
the EP regulatory level of 5.0 mg/l. Of
the 15 points that achieve the EP
regulatory level, all reflect treatment by
chemical precipitation. Table 8 provides
a summary of all available data for the
treatment of lead in wastewaters. :
The Agency has 94 data points on the
treatment of lead in waste other than
wastewater from nine facilities. Of the
94 data points, 90 have lead
concentrations in the leachate from the
treated waste Ipwer than the EP
regulatory level of 5.0 nig/1. Of the 90
points that achieve the EP regulatory
level, all reflect treatment by. .
-------
Federal Register /, Vol. 52t Novl55 / Wednesday, August 12.M987 / PfciposeAJRules - ; 3001S
stabilization. Table 9 provides a';
summary of all.available data on lead-in
Waste'Other than wastewater: -,
b,Data Analysis WQsiewatef.~(i)
Wa'ste Characteristic Analysis. Of the 15
data points-that achieve the EP
regulatory levels all reflect tr'eatnient by"
chemical .precipitation, the principal
technology fbr'treating lead in
wastewaters. The Agency has limited
data oil the'range of waste , ".'. -.:..., -
characteristics,pertinent to an- ,
evaluation of the performance of: this-
technology. Most of the available/waste
dharacterizati'on data 'th'at:afe;imp'prtant * \
for an engineering analysis involve other''
, metalcoricentrations.3,:.,^;'^'"'- ";«..;'!.!'-.'!
For.Uie!one;data'ppmt'wiiere;the EP , "':'
regulatoiy le,vfil;.wa9.not.acbievedVthe -
influent level was 1,900' mg7i. As stated
previously in Section V(B)(l), high -
, influent concentrations, per se< do not-
adversely affect treatment; however, -.-
, high influent metal concentrations often
are an indication that the metals are' "-'.'
complexedin solution and complexed
metal compounds, if not" dissociated,
. could have an adverse, effect;o.n.,.
treatment. , ;.,..,.,_ _;......,.
: , (ii) Design .and Operating Parameter
Analysis. For. the 15 data points that
achieve the EP regulatory level, the :
Agency has some design and operating
, data for six treatment points frqm one .
facility that document the operation of
the facility. ,. ..! '-'"V»«...!'';'':
. (iii) Discussion. The Agency's best
engineermg.judgmentjis th^.t the EP,. ; ,
regulatory level of 5.0 mg/1 for lead can ;
be met for the full range of California
List wastewaters containing lead. In
support of this position^ the Agency
points to theoretical solubility limit of
lead precipitates', chemical precipitation
theory, and bur knowledge of the
technologies available to minimize the
effects of Constituents in the waste that
can interfere with treatment
performance. In addition^ the 'available
data does not lead us to another
conclusion. ' ; .% ';
In the case of the' onerdata point that
does not show achievement of the EP
regulatory level, there are ho additional
. .-waste characterization data ;tq indicate
why the EP regulatory level was not,. ,
~ met. With regard to our analysis of the
design and operation of the treatment'
system used, the Agency had no data to
show that the treatment system was
designed and operated properly.
.;, JTheJ\gency recognizes th.e lack of
data on the full range of waste ,
- characteristics and design and operating
conditions, that may affect treatment
effectiveness.,Therefore,.we are
soliciting data that would aid the .;;." ;
Agency in .analyzing treatment; ; :
perfprmance for lead in wastewaters. A
^^escrip'tipnpfthe;: specific waste ;
:.: characterization data and design and
.operating data that the Agency needs
: - can be found in Section V(E), Request
-.for"Comment$; .- ... "--.-;' -".:. . ..,.;-
: aDqta AnalysisWaste Other than
Wastewater. (i) Waste Characterization
: Analysis. As stated abpve in the data
'summary, 90 of the 94 data points show
that the EP regulatory level for lead can
be achieved; Of the 90 points that i ;
..achieve.the EP regulatory level, all . ;
reflect treatment by stabilization. The -
Agency has limited informatipn on the
- range of waste characteristics pertinent
to an evaluation of the performance of
this technology ..Most of the available
waste characterization data that are :
;.; important for an engineering analysis :
; involve other metal concentrations.',-;
;,. For th'e wastes that were stabilized so
; .that thg;leachate met the EP regulatory
: level, the highest-concentration of lead '
was 57,000 mg/kg. " '" '.'-'
(ii) Design and Operating Parameter
"Analysis. For the 90 data points that
achieve the EP regulatory level, the
'Agency has some design and.operating,
data for four treatment points at four
facilities that generally describe the
stabilizing agent and ratio of waste to
.stabilizing agent.; ' .'';"
(iii) Discussion. The Agency's best
engineering judgment is that the EP
regulatory level of 5.0 mg/1 for lead can
be met m leachate for the full range of
California List waste other than
TABLE 8LEAD DATA FOR WASTEWATER
wastewateri In support of this position,; .;
--the Agency points.-to the facility's-abjlity-
;to change the ratio of stabilizing agents ,
to waste quantities as n'eeded to
decrease'mobility of the constituent; this
. assumes thalt an effective .stabilizing"-.;
agerit'and/or.additives are available. ; ,
Additionally, the curing conditions (e.g.,
, Je.ngth,of cui-e jahd ambient conditiona),c_
can be conti-olled to ensure that the. v ;
waste particiles}have had sufficient time^ '
to forma sfsible treated;wastei
.Additipnalljr, the Agency's evaluation of;.
the availabliB data^iypuldnpt lead us to ;
conclude other^vise; -;" ; 'V ':-:C : /'"-' ''
' For the four values .that do not achieve
- the EP reguiatQry'level of;5.0 mg/lv only:
two ;bf them;have'waste concentrations ^! ',
'higherthan,waste>:which we,show to ,:;"--.-.;
achieve the EP regulatoify level (96,200 ''.
mg/kg, ER of. 93? mg/1; 63,150. mg/kg, EP
of 22.8 mg/l). For the first point, the very ,
high leachate value (938 mg/1) indicates
.that 'the stabilization process was'not.'.-,,.
wellrdesigrieidMn the'case.of the seconds
point, the- untreated concentration -
(63,150 mg/kg) is approximately the .. J
same as the 'concentration in a different >'
waste (57,000 mg/kg} that does achieve i
the EPregulatory level. The Agency has ' -..
no other waste characterization data on,--.
anypfthefouf values that do not' ;
.achieve the EP regulatory level that , ,.
; .would have iis cpnclude the EP "
.regulatory level cannot-be achieved.
Addjtipnally, we:do hot have any design
and'operating data that show the' : r
stabilization processes for the four
values that dp not achieve the E^P
regulatory leivel are well-designed and
operated. ' ; ' :
The Agen<3y recognizes that we lack
data on the i'ull range of waste
characteristics and design and operating-
conditions that may affect treatment' :
effectiveness. Therefore, we are '
soliciting information to aid the Agency ,
in analyzing treatment performance for -*
lead in wastes other than wastewater." ;
; The specificjwaste characteristics data
and design and operating data-that the
Agency needs are described in Section
V(E); Requesit for Comments.
Source*
EWE..; ................
Industry
Electronic &
plating. ' . :
Process
generating
waste
NAV
Treatment process
Chemical
precipitation.
Waste
codes*
NAV
Waste characterization data
Parameter
Oil & grease.........
concentration
(rpg/l)
150 n g/kg ...'....
lead concentration
data
Untreat-
ed
, Total
i (mg/1)
; 1900,
Treated!
.Total .
93
-------
30016
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 1987 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 8-4-EAD DATA FOR WASTEWATERContinued
Sourcs*
Battery
manufacturing.
EnvkitoRl
EnviritaK]
EnvfrftaPl
Bnattacharyya, et
al. £21. ,
EnvWtat4].....
EnvkitaCS]
Ctvom Pro Inc » .
Battory
manufacturing.
Motal Flashing
Dov. Doc.
Motel Finishing
Dov. Doc.
Metal Finishing
Dov. Doc.
Motal Finsthing
Dov. Doc.
Industry
Lead .battery
manufacturing.
TSOF
TSDF
TSDF :
Nonferrous metal
production,
TSDF
TSDF... .; .
NAV .
Lead battery
manufacturing.
TSDF .
Metal finishing
MetaJ finishing
Metal finishing. ..
Metal finishing .
Process :
generating
: waste
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
WAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
Treatment process '
Ferrite co-
precipitation.
Chemical
precipitation
Filtration.
Chemical
precipitation
Filtration.
Chemical
precipitation
Filtration.
Sulfide and lime *
precipitation.
Chemical
precipitation
Filtration.
Chemical
precipitation
Filtration.
Chemical
precipitation
Filtration.
Hydroxide
precipitation,
Sedimentation.
Chemical
precipitation
Filtration.
Chemical -
precipitation
Sedimentation.
Chemical
precipitation
Sedimentation.
Chemical :
precipitation
Sedimentation.
Chemical
precipitation
Sedimentation.
Waste
codes"
NAV
F006
D003
K062
F006
K062
D003
F006
K062
D003
D002
NAV
F006
K062
D003
D002
F006 ''
K062
D003
D002
NAV .
NAV
F006
K062
D003
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
Waste characterization data
Parameter
Cadmium
Mercury ......;.'..;.....
Nickel . .
Zinc......... ......
Hex. Chrom
Chromium.!....;:....:
Copper
Nickel...; ...:....,
Oil & Grease ...
Chromium "
Cadmium.
Copper.. ;..'...
Zinc
Nickel ..... ... ...
Oil & grease...-,
Cadmium ...
Hex. Chrom.......
Chromium ...
Zinc ....; .....
Nickel... ,....
Oil & grease.........
Arsenic .;.
Cadmium ' . ........
Mercury ..........;..,.
Hex. Chrom.........
Chromium.:..
Copper :.
Nickel
Zinc
Oil & grease........
Hex. Chrom
Chromium >.
Copper ...
Nickel J.
Oil & grease........
NAV
NAV ' ....
Hex. Chrom :.
Chromium....:
Nickel
Zinc
Oil & grease
NAV .;.
NAV... :.......
NAV .
NAV ...,..;.....:.
"
'Concentration
(mg/1)
240 i
7.4..........;;.:;.:
.151....... ;
0.13. ..........
'831 ......,.........,..!
217......
669 : ;
573 ;
23- ' ;.. .-. .-:..;..:..;
617 ;.
137 ..,..
135
382. ..-... <
322
10 ,.;... ...;
769.................:
2314... .>........
72 :...............
171..
426
113...........
125.......%.-:.........
14..; ...;...
0.8.1.,...;.., ......
13
893;.....;...:.: :.
2581
138 ;'........
471 ...'.,
116
28...........: ...
10
807 ..........
133..,....
470 ;...l.......
54.....;...;....
NAV
NAV ...;.......
917. .....
2236..:.."...;.,........
91 .
1414 .
71 .....
.14
NAV ..;.........
NAV.;...^.
NAV .........
NAV ....:.........
Lead .concentration
data-
Dntreat- ;
ed., . ..'
Total :
475
212
136
108
75
64
.-. .'.54
32
': 30'
18
9.7
8.4
6.9
Treated
,.,, ,,., . i. -.-.
total
(rng/l)
0.01
>g.oi
-------
I
.Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12. 1987 / Proposed Rules
30017
TABLE 8LEAD DATA FOR WASTEWATERContinued
Source*
Bhattacharyyar at
a!. [1]. f
-t
i Industry
Nonferrous metal
production.
Process
generating
waste
NAV
Treatment process
Sulfide and lime
precipitation.
Waste
codes1
,NAV
f See Section V(C)(10) for Data Sources.
" Waste codes as reported in source
NAV Not available.
Waste characterization data
Parameter
Arsenic
Cadmium
Mercury
concentration
(mg/1)
160
3.5
0.9
I
Lead concentration
data
Untreat-
ed
Total
(mg/1)
6.0
Treated
Total
(mg/1)
<0.2
TABLE 9.^LEAD DATA FOR WASTE OTHER THAN WASTEWATER
Source
CBI
CBI I
591
CBI
617
t
CBI.
681
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBL.:....!.:.
192*-.."..,
....'
'. ' ''
. -' " (
CBI....:..,
CBI....;......
CBI......:.....J....
CBI!.....!!
CBI.....!-
CBI.;.:.. :-.;;
Industry
CBI
CBI
NAV
CBI
EAF steel..
CBI
EAF steel...
GBI
CBI
CBI.;...;...;.:.,.
CBI.......;...::..
NAP...:
CBI..
CBI...;.,...-......
CBI..;......;...,.
CBI.....:....:...,
CBI .;;.;;.;;!!
S -: n>.'
CB1 ;.:......;;..';.
Process
generating
waste
CBI
CBI
NAV
car
EAF steel
produc-
tion.
CBI
EAF steel
produc-
tion.
CBI.
CBI
CBI.........;......
CBI.;....; .;
Synthetic
waste. .
..- - : -
CBU,
CBI...; .
CBl!..
CBI,:....:...,.:
psr..,.!...
CBI ;.....;.
: Treatment
process
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion,
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabillza-
: tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza- .
tion. ~
Stabiliza- ;
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-.
lion.' -',.-.-
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza- ;
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.'
Sfabiiiza- "
tibn: ;t
Waste
codes
NAV
NAV
F006.....
NAV
K061...J.
NAV
K061
NAV
NAV
NAV..
NAV...,;...
NAP ........
,. - -.,.
NAV........
NAV..'...;..
NAV.....
NAV........
NAV
>JAV :.......
Waste characterization data
Parameter
CBI
CBI
Nickel
CBI
Cadmium ......
Nickel
Arsenic
TOO
Oil and
grease.'
CBI
Arsenic
Cadmium
Selenium
CBI
CBf
CBI......;.:
CBI......;...........
Barium.:....
Cadmium........
Chromium..,..,.
Mercury ........
Nickel
Silver.
Arsenic
Selenium
OBI,..;...;....
CBI..................
CBI...:.,....,.
CBI.. :..-_..
CBi...-....";..;.!1
CBI...,.!.......;..
Concentration
CBI..
CBI
AlSOmg/kg..
CBI
200 ppm: .
40 ppm
003-004%
0.04-0.06%
CBI.
50(mg/gk)
200 mg/gk.
70:mgXgk
CBI
CBI
GBI......;........;...
CBI...................
6600 mg/gk;;..:..
10300 mg/gk
10900 mg/gk.....
11300.rrig/gk..
11100 mg/gk
3900 mg/gk.......
12000: mg/gk..
7600 mg/gk....
CBJ....,,..
CBI......,..
CBI.:..:...;.;..
CB|;......;...........
CBI.;..... ....
CBI...... ........
Lead concentration data
Untreated
Total
(mg/kg)
36200 :
53150
57000 -
50500,
J8000
J5600
15000
12500
1800
0900
0900
8820 -"'"-
,.;;.'
7911 :
7000
6450 ''"..
6260 . ,
6250 , "',"
5581." -'--
EP-Tox:
(mg/i)
!
NAV.....
WAV.....
I25
NAV
NAV
t
1
NAV
55
NAV
NAV
MAV.!....
NAV.....
!''' : i '
NAV..,,.:..
K'« : '.;'
]
NAV........
NAV........
NAV.."...
NAV..
NXv!..!
NAV....:;..
Treated
Total
(mg/kg)
NAV...:.
NAV
NAV......
NAV
NAV...:..
NAV
000-
7000.
NAV.....
NAV..
NAV .........
NAV:.
NAV...;....
NAV...::...
rv' - ,- .:-{
NAV....L.
NAV.;.!.!
N^iV....:...
NAVl.!...
MAV.:.V...
EP-Tox
(mg/1)
938
22.8
0.3
0;2
0.02-
003
0.88
<0,01-
0.08
1.19
14.3
3:81 7': .'; '-.
25.8
X0.03 "*.
- " " " ; ' .'" ' -- ,
-' ' '.. .' ^-'-^'
' " ' '. '.
:rt"0;84:"' ;>.'- -".---
0.39 -' '*
0.98 . ,
0.28 -:
-j.i.aia";; ' ' ;.'/.
.. ^ .. "." J
-------
30018 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 155 /- Wednesday, August -1-2,-1987 / Proposed-Rule?
TABLE 9.LEAD DATA FOR WASTE OTHER THAN WASIEWATERContinued
Source
CBL.....,,,...,...
CBL.....
CBL......
CBI...... ....
192*.,,,,,.
CBL,..,.,..,,....,.
CBI,,..,,..,.....,..
CBI ...........
CBL,,...,..
CBI...,...,......;..
f+at
CBL.., .......
CBL .........
HAZCO* ..!....
CBL..............
CBL......
CBI........
CBL. ............
CBL.,,.......,
CBL
CBL.,.,...,.......
192". . ...........
CBI.........
CBL.......
Industry
CBI..; ...
CBI
CBL...
I
CBI....... :..
NAP
CBL....
CBI,,
CBI .........
CBI
CBI
T.RI
CBI
CBI,.. .....
NAP
CBI
CBI
CB| ......
CBI :
CBI...
CBI
CBI
NAP
. CBI
. CBI,.
Process
generating
waste
CBI.....
CBI ................
CBI,....,:,
CBI....:.,
Synthetic
Waste.
CBI...............
CBI .....!
CBI
CBI ....
CBI
PHI
CBI. .......
csV.....,..,!.
Synthetic
waste.
CBI.
CBI.....,!..;
CBI ..............
CBI....:...:
CBI.
CBI
CBI ',....
Synthetic:
waste..
CBI
CBI
Treatment
process
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.'
i
Stabiliza-
tion. ,
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion:
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion. "
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion. ,
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Waste
codes
NAV..:.....
NAV. .......
NAV.
NAV ...
NAP.!..."..".
NAV
NAV
NAV........
NAV...
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV.,
NAP
NAV
NAV......
NAV
NAV..:...
NAV......
NAV......
NAV
NAP
NAV.....
NAV,:...-.
Waste characterization data
Parameter
CBI..................
CBL................
CBI..........!
CBI
Barium. .....
Cadmium........
Jtirpmium,..,.
Mercury "....
Silver
Arsenic
Selenium ........
OBI...-:..'.,..'...:....
CBI
CBI.,.:....:...
CBI
CBI !.......
CBI.:.::....,::
CBI:'..';..,......'
Arsenic
Cadmium..*....
Mercury ....:....
Seleniuni ..:....
Waste lube
Oil.
Alcohol
Water '...:.:
CBI.
CBI...............
CBI ....
CBI................
CBI ......
CBI .:,...-...
CBI................
Barium ' .
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Nickel
Silver.
Arsenic
Selenium .....
CBI !,
CBI .-.
Concentration
CBI....:...........:..,..
CBL-.!:, ,...!...,..
CB.I.:... ........
CBI ...,-,.
3680 mg/kg.:,...
5500 mg/kg..;....
6300 mg/kg..,..,
600 mg/kg......
5810' mg/kg.."..
1760 mg/kg.......
6400 mg/kg.......
4600 mg/kg..
CBI ...
CBI /.....:.
CBI . "..:....:.
CBL:., .::..:.:..
CBI ...; .'..'' ...
CBI,,, .!,...
2267 mg/kg.:...
1090 mg/kg'.....
1752 mg/kg.'...'.
599 mg/kg. ..."...
858000 mg/kg
55000 mg/kg...
87000 mg/kg...
CBI
CBL. ...!"...
CBI ...........
CBI.....::...:.. ::
CBI...:. .........
CBI........ ....
CBI.............
18i mg/kg.,
2400 mg/kg
1710 mg/kg.....
1060 mg/kg....
1360 mg/kg.
290 mg/kg
1100 mg/kg....
750 mg/kg
CBI :
CBI
Lead concentration data
Untreated
.,' Total "
(mg./kg)
4689 _ ;
4210
3800
3630,
3580
3510 -
3231;
2729 ; ' ""
2680
247f. "'
2471
2000
18!89' '
1872
1820
1808 ,
1725
13|70 "
13,60
1300
1185
1170
1049
. 800 '
EP-TOX
(mg/l)
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV ........
NAV .;.:....
NAV
NAV
N AV. :......
NAV ....::..
NAV . :......
NAV .....
NAV ........
NAV .
NAV....,,
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV......
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV ......
NAV
NAV
Treated
Total
mg/kg)
NAV ..,.,:,
NAV..
NAV
NAV.:...
NAV..:,.:.
NAV ........
NAV
NAV:....:..
NAV........
NAV ....:...
NAV...U...
NAV ...:.:..
, i
1813,.!
NAV,
NAV...1
NAV...
NAV...
NAV ......
NAV ......
- f
NAV....,
NAV......
NAV..,
:EP-TOX
(mg/l)
,0,3 ,
0.44 :
3.77 ,
<0.03
r 0.38
.0.21 "
""0.45
.1:16 '
1.76
0.27!
0.08
. 0.24
1.05
, 0-39
1.13
.'0.29
0,08
0.55
1.41
-------
i fEederal Register / Vol. 52^ No. .155 /: Wednesdays-August 12, 1982^, Proposed Rules / 30019 - I
i/. - .:.:.,: ::_:..^'.-. I-...'' - .TABLE .9
Source
- ' - " ' '
CBI.......;..!.
CBL..;........
CBI...!. .
; CBL!.!
CBI.,............!
" CBI.!.;:....;.....
CBL... ....
CBI.;........;....
638
CBI ....;
CBI..!...
CBL! !..;..;
CBI ..;..
CBI...... ;.....
548 !.,...
CBL.......,...;.
CBL...!
! CBI,...,
CBI... ;.. ,
CBI.;......;,;
192... .;....!
CBI.:..............,
. CBI;.......;;!..!
CBI......!......,...
CBI ....:,....
CBI...;..'- -
. CBI!...!.;.
CBI .1.
Industry
'..'."'" - ?.' :>i
>CBj
.OBI .;....!....
. CBI. ...... ..!...
CBl.....!.;
CBJ.....!....
.CBI....,..;....;
CBI. ............
.TSDF
CBI......
CBI
CBI.....
CBI
CBI..;
NAV
CBI,...;.......
CBI....;...........
CBi...............
GBI. ...;.......,.;;
GBi.....;.........,
T.SDF ;..........
CBI';..-..
CBi...............
CBI....:..
CBI...:..
CBI.....
CBl....:...,...
CBI ..!.....;..
CBI;... ..
.; Process.
generating
,? waste.
CBl .............
CBI:,...
CBJ.....;....;...
.CBI ..............
CBI .A...!..
CBI ..I..........
CBI ..............
CBI...
NAV.. .,..-
CBI
CBI.......
CBI,.:
CBI ..;...:...;:.,,.
CBI .-.,..;
Electroplat-
ing.
CBl ....!
CBI
CBI ...:.;
CBI....... ....
CBI.. ...:
NAV..,.......,;
CBi;.....;.........
CBI ............!...
CBI
CBI
CBf
CBI.....,....
CB! ---:--
CBi...... ..;..
iiEAO. DATA FOR WASTE OTHER THAN WASTEWATER-^Gontioued -.;.. : . . .,-.. ,-;'?.. ; , ...^..,-^.!v- .,..,; j.
Treatment
process
Stabiliza;
. tion.
Stabiliza? :
.-'-'. ton. '-'-
-Stabiliza*'"
.tion.
Stabjliza-
- tion.
Stabiliza-
tion:'
Stabiliza-
tion.
.Stabiliza- 1
tioh.
Stabiliza-
tion:1
Stabiliza-.
ton, "
Stabiiizai
tioh.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
.tton.
Stabiliza-
fon.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
StabNiza^
,tiOn.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza- ;
tion.. - .
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion,
Stabiliza-
' tion.
Stabiliza-.
tion; < .
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-. '
tion.
Waste
, qodesi
NAV.....
NAV
NAV
NAV......
NAV...
NAV.;....
NAV,..,..
NAV......
NAV.;!...
NAV.;....
. i"
NAV.;......
NAV...
F006 .......
NAV.;...,..
NAV........
NAV....:.,.
NAV
NAV.r ,
K062";..:
D002
FOGS ;.,....
F007;
F009 ...... .
F01 2. ......
NAV ::
NAV
NAV....;...
NAV .......
NAV..:.....
NAV........
NAV.!;..
NAV
- Waste characterization data
Parameter
CBI.........;
CBU -'--
CBI
CBL.........
CBL:. !.;
CBI ;.J;
CBl., .....
.CBL....:..........
Nickel ...........
Selenium ......
TOC
Ojl & grease.
CBI-..:.
CBL..!.......:....
CBi..: ..;...;.
CBL,;............:.
CBI.;..........;.....
Chromium
(tot).
Nickel .........
CBL..,..;,.-..:......
CBI..................
CBI
CBL..,..,,,...;..
Dadmium. ...... .
Nickel..
pH .....,.:,.. ,..
CBL...:....:....,
CBI
CBL.................
CBI
CBi..,....;....;;..;.
CBI........
CBI
Concentration
CBI:..;.........
CBI
PRI
CBI ;
CBL.......
CBI ;.....!...
CBL............
CBL......
291-314 ppm..
0.125-51,8.
ppm.
3.35-9.58 ppm
CBI.. !
CBL..:..;
CBI ......;!.
CBL .......,,..;.
138000 mg/kg ..
5610 mg/kg..
CBI
CBI...;....
CBI.....,.;
CBI
CBL.... ...
0.1 1-31.0 mg/
30-124.8 mg/
i < 1.7.0.
CBI.......
PRI ' . :
CBI......
CBI
CBI;.
CBL;"..
PRI ;
';,<,;-:. Load-concentration data -;,.,;> - -,:-.
.-: ... yhtre'ated-' _
-VTotat--
v (mg/kg)
663
597- y
: 596
577-
484
. 362
- 360
156-
334
332
327
288
275 "-v
,.270
269.
236
229
228 '
221 -. :-_
216 >.!
0.12- ,
204
203
198 : .
190
186
,182 ,;,
181!-: v;/
180 ;;
180
'.EP.Tox
!r.(m'g/l)
-NAV:.
'[ NAV ;...;.
INAV...;..
:NAVi:,
,('
'NAV *
JNAV......
'}.' ' > - -
NAV I..:
N AV ......
'NAV...
NAV,,..,.,.
NAV.....!..
NAV.......
I f,
NAV........
NAV.!!..!;.
JAy.;,,..;.
t -'
3AV...,;...
JAV .....,.;
4Ay,.:.;...
1AV
JAV ;..:....
iAV.;......
I .--..--
j
j -
-.'.',-!'". Treated'.
Total
(mg/kg)
NAV...:.
NAV;....
NAV......
;NAV:;.
NAV;..:..
NAV...'.
NAV,!!...
NAV......
.NAV;.;:.!
NAV..;..;
NAV......
NAV.......
NAV...;.
NAV......;.
NAV,.....:.
NAV;.....;.
NAV:..,...,.
NAV........
NAV. .......
NAV...:,...
NAV..;....:
NAV
NAV..;..
NAV.!;.
.'.,ER-ToX ",>''-';>'..
. - 0.62- '...;;
1 " :, ,_ -; ' .. ..
;o.6,-
, ;1.82! - ;-;, , .;.:
,; '-.0:42-.'-- . . . ;.
OAi. ' '-'''-'.
0.365
'0.02'
0.33
0'.37
' 0:39^ v -';--
':; 0.245 ' ' "
0.3.
-. 0.33 : .-.
0.39 , ,
.0.43.. . . ..
;*»;-: '::-
,-p,5,. ,.,,,
-------
30020
Federal Register / Vol. 52,.No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 1987 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 9.LEAD DATA FOR WASTE OTHER THAN WASTEW'ATERContinued
Source
CBI,,,.,.,,,,,.,.,,
192,,..
CBL...............
CBI
CBI.,..
CBI
CBI
548 ,.,
C8I.................
CBI.........
CBI
CBI...... ......
CBI ...
CBI................
CBI
CSI...,.,...,,..,,.
CBI..,......,,....,
CBI.,,......,.,...,
CBI,,........
CBI,, ... .. .
CBI..
CBI................
Industry
CBI....
TSDF ...........
CBI
CBI.
CBI
CBI ....
CBI
NAV
CBI
NAV
CBI...
CBI
CBI..,. ....
CBI
CBI....,
CBI,...
CBI
CBI........
CB)
CBI ...
CBI
CBI... :....
CBI
Process
generating
, waste
CBI ......
NAV..;.....:......
CBI ,;
GBI..;....-..:.
CBI
CBI
CBI ,
Electroplat-
ing-
CBI
Electroplat-
ing. "
CBI
CBI '...,....,,..,
CBI '.
WLJI. ...
CBI ..;
CBI :..
CBI.
CSI
CBI
CBI.
CBI .:.:
CBI .
1 ' 1; f
CBI :
Treatment
process
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion, .
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
--, tion.
Stabiliza-
' ,tiorj.
Stabiliza-
Stabiliza-
tioril
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza^
tidri.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion,
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion:
Waste
codes
NAV
K062".
0002:
F009
F006
FQ12. ..:...
F007.
F01 8. ......
NAV..:..'..,
NAV
N AV .:'.
NAV....1.
NAV
F006..
NAV
F006
NAV........
NAV .....'...
NAV ...:.
NAV
NAV....,;.
NAV.......
NAV
NAV '..
NAV
NAV...
NAV .......
NAV
NAV-
; Waste characterization data
Parameter
CBI . ' "
Chromium
Nickel
CBL,,..,....
CBI
CBI ......:...
CBI........
CBI....
Chromium
Nickel......
CBI
Chromium
Nickel
CBI..........
CBI. ....:....
CBL......;......,.
CBI........;
CBI....;:
CBL. ..........
CBI . .
CBI.....
CBI :..........
CBL.... ,.,..
CBL.:....'..'..;.
CBI ' " '
CBI...
', r, ;'<". fl-
Concentration
Cgj '.'i' -' >'.
1527 mg/kg.......
2020 mg/kg
CBi:.....::..l,.-.:;'.i
CBI...........;.....,
CBI..................:...
CBI.
16700 mg/kg.....
5050 mg/kg. ,
CBI... ........
15600 mg/kg....
5700 mg/kg......
CBI
'cat..:. :....r.
CBI. :....l.,...;.t.
cBi...:...,.:.r:.~:
CBI....:...:.... ...
CBI :,.........:..
CBI ;
GBL....... ..::...
CBI . . .:..
CBL .-.
' Lead concentration data .
Untreated
Total
, (mg/kg)
169 ...;..
165
161, : ,,
160 ,. .
159 ,:
157 '--
151
144 " " '
'-138.9
- 1.32 ;
129 .; '
"128 ''-'.^
' .127.,,, '.'
116
115
114 , ;
108
108 .
108 , '
EP-Tox '
NAV
NAV:
NAV. .......
NAV:;
NAV-..
NAV.
NAV........
NAV
NAV. .......
NAV...'.
NAV. ......
NAV;.
NAVfJ..
NAV...
NAV.;..,;.
NAV .......
NAV..
NAV
NAV
NAV....'...
NAV...
NAV. ;.....
Treated
Total :
(mg/kg)
NAV ........
NAV
NAV....
NAV
NAV ........
NAV 1.
NAV........
NAV
NAV........
NAV.!.
NAV .'.
NAV .. ..'...
NAV. .
NAV
NAV .:
NAV
NAV..:...;
NAV'.......
NAV.,
NAV...
NAV .......
NAV....:.
NAV ......
EP-Tox
(mg/l)
0;4 '
,"....0,1.
. ..,0,2 "
..0.16
,,,,0.34;
.0.06 '
0.3
' 0.34
, 0.28
' 0.42
0,06
."' ".0.65 ';'
. 0.33,,. .
0.08 ,
:',. 0.42
,. 0,27 .
0.47
0:53
0.21
' 0.53 .:'
0.23:
* See Section V(C)(10) (or Data Sources.
* Waste code reported in delisting petition.
* Data represents bench-scale test.
NAVNot available. ;
NAPNot applicable.
C8IConfidential Business Information.
5. Mercury
a. Data Summary. The Agency has
five data points on the treatment of
mercury in wostewater from four
facilities. Of the'five data points, all
have mercury concentrations in the
treated wastewater lower than the EP
regulatory level of 0.2 mg/l. Table 10
provides a summary of all available
data for treatment of mercury.'All five
data points reflect treatment by
chemical precipitation. " "'
The Agency has 102 data points on the
treatment of mercury in waste other
-------
Federal Register / Veil.- 52, No. 155 /Wednesday, August 12, 1987, / Prbpdsed Rules 30021
than wastewater fromthree facilities. Of
the 102 data points, 96 have mercury
concentrations in the leachate from the
treated waste lower than the EP
regulatory level of 0.2 mg/1. Table 11
provides a summary of all available. ,
data for mercury in waste other than
wastewateri Of the 102 data points, all
reflect treatment by stabilization.
b. Data AnalysisWastewater. (i)
Waste Characterization Analysis. All
data points reflect treatment by
chemical precipitation. The Agency has
limited data on the range of waste
characteristics pertinent to an
evaluation of performance of this
technology. Most of the available waste
characterization data that are important
for an engineering analysis involve other
metal concentrations. "
The treatment data have a maximum
influent concentration forinercury of 110
mg/1.. Our review of the literature
indicates that untreated wastes may
have concentrations as high as 132 mg/
1, comparable to the maximum influent '
concentration contained in the data set.
(ii) Design and Operating Parameter '.
Analysis; The five data points were
generated by four different facilities that
employed chemical precipitation
technologies. The Agency has no :
available design and operating data for
any of the treatment facilities.
(iir) Discussion. The Agency's best
engineering judgment is that the EP .- ;
regulatory level, of 0.2 mg/1 for mercury
, canbe met for the full range of
California List wastewaters containing
mercury. In support of this position, the
Agency points to theoretical solubility
limits, chemical precipitation theory,
and our knowledge of the technologies
available to minimize the effects of
constituents in the waste that can
interfere with treatment performance.
Additionally, the available data would
not lead us to conclude otherwise'.
All five data points show, that the EP
regulatory level can be achieved. Based
on available information, these data
cover the range of mercury
concentrations that the Agency would
expect to be present in untreated
California List wastewaters. The .
Agency recognizes the lack of data on
the full range of waste characteristics
and design and operating conditions
that may affect treatment effectiveness.
Therefore, we are soliciting data that
would aid the Agency in analyzing
treatment effectiveness for mercury in
. wastewaters. A description of the
specific waste characterization data and
design and operating data that the
Agency needs can be found in Section
V(E), Request for Comments. >
c. Data AnalysisWaste Other Than
Wastewater. (i) Waste characterization
Analysis. As stated above in the Data
Summary, 96 of the 102 data points show
that the EP regulatory level for mercury
.can be achieved. Of the 96 points that :
achieved the EP regulatory, level, all. .
reflect treatment by stabilization. The
Agency has limited information oh the
range of waste characteristics pertinent
to an evaluation of the performance of
this technology. Most of the available
waste characteristics data that are
important for an engineering analysis
involve other metal concentrations. For
the 96 data points which meet EP
regulatory levels, the treatment data
reflect a maximum untreated level for
mercury of 3,720 mg/kg.: ..
(ii) Design and Operating Parameter '.
Analysis. For the 96 data points that
achieve the EP regulatory level, the
Agency has only limited design and :
operating data reported from two
facilities. :
(iii) Discussion. The Agency's best
engineering judgment is that the EP
regulatory level of 0.2 mg/1 for mercury
can be-met iri leachate for the full range
of California jList wastes other than,
wastewaters,: In support of this position,
the Agency points to the facility's ability
to change the ratio of stabilizing agents
to waste quantities as needed to
decrease mobility of the constituent; this
assumes that an effective stabilizing
agent and/or additives are available.
Additionally,;! the curing conditions (e.g.,
length of cure and. ambient conditions) ;
can be controlled to ensure that the
waste particles have had sufficient time
to form a stable treated waste.
Additionally, the Agency's evaluation of
- the available data would not lead us to
conclude otherwise.
For the six data points that dp not
achieve the EP regulatory level, only one
has a waste concentration significantly ,
higher than waste.concentrations shown
to achieve the EP regulatory level. While
limited waste characterization data are
available, this waste is not shown to
contain constituents much different from
other wastes which achieve the EP
regulatory level. With regard to design
and operation!, of the system, there are
no data available to show that the
stabilization process for this point was,
well-designed and operated.' -. - "
The Agency recognizes that we lack
data on'the full range of waste -".' ', -
characteristics and design and operation
conditions that may affect treatment ,
effectiveness. Therefore, we are
soliciting information to aid the Agency
in analyzing treatment performance for
mercury in wastes Mother than
wastewater. The specific waste ,
characteristic'data, and design and
operating data that the Agency needs
are described in Section V(E), Request
for Comments, '*-.-..
TABLE 10.MERCURY DATA FOR WASTEWATER
Source*
Battery Mariuf. .,
Dev. Doc.'
Battery Manuf.
Dev, Doc.
Battery Manur.
Dev. Doc. . ...
Bhattach aryya, et
al. [13,
: , Industry
Zinc battery -
manufacturing/
HgO production.
Zinc battery
manufacturing.
Lead battery
manufacturing.,
Npnferrous rrietal
production. ,
Process
generating
waste
NAV
NAV
NAV -; -
NAV
Treatment
: process
Sulfide
precipitation. '
Lime precipitation,
Settling,-
Filtration.
Fertile cb- '.'; .
precipitation.
Sulfide and lime
precipitation. ;
Waste
' codes
KlAV
NAV
NAV
NAV .-
Waste characterization data ,
Parameter
NAV ...........:....
Cadmium. .'....
Nickel........... .-.;.
Cadmium ..............
Nickel..: :.
Lead
Arsenic ...;. '.
Cadmium
Lead..l.
-.' i --r
-. ..... 'ri .-'.;,
Concentration
.'NAV."J,:.^.
.'i ..'.'
2.04' mg/1 '
1,000 mg/i ;..:....:..
240 fng/L ''"'
1,000 mg/1 -...,.....
475 mg/1 . .'
160.:....; .;
3.5....;.^..;...L........
6.0 .L..;..:
Mercury concentration
data
Untreated
Total -':
. (mg/l)
.r:fco:v--'s
ioo
i'-A- ;:.
. 0,9
Treated
; Total
[mg/l);
'.''-'W!
<0.001.
, .. .0.001 .
0.01
-------
30022 -Federal Register;/-. Vol. 52, No. 155 /Wednesday, August 12, 1987 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 10.MERCURY DATA FOR WASTEWATERContinued
Source*
BhattacJi afyya, et
at. [21.
Industry
Nonferrous metal
production.
Process
generating
waste
NAV
Treatment
process
Sulfido and lime
precipitation.
Waste
codes
NAV
Waste characterization data
Parameter
Arsenic
Lead......
Concentration
125
14
75.....
Mercury concentration
data
Untreated
Total
(mg/l)
0.8
Treated
Total
(mg/l)
0.012
* Sea Section V(C){10) for Data Sources.
NAV-Not Available.
TABLE 11.MERCURY DATA FOR WASTE OTHER THAN WASTEWATER
Sourca*
192*.
C81 .
HAZCO*
192*....
192"
C8I
CBJ .^.
CBI
CBI
CBI ...
CBI ..............
CBI.
Industry
NAP......
CBI.... .....
NAP
NAP
NAP .....
CBI ....
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI ....
CBI ...
Process
generating
waste
Synthetic
waste.
CBi ..
Synthetic
waste.
Synthetic
waste.
Synthetic
waste.
CBt
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
Treatment
process
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabilize-
tton.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Waste
codes
NAP
NAV...
NAP . .
NAP
NAP
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV........
Waste characterization data
Parameter
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium....
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Arsenic
Selenium
CBI ...............
Arsenic .. . .
Cadmium .....
Lead
Selenium
Waste lube
oil.
Alcohol
Water
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium ....
Lead .............
Nickel ...
Silver
Arsenic.
Selenium
Barium.
Cadmium .....
Chromium ....
Lead..
Nickel
Silver
Arsenic
Selenium......
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
Concentration
6600 mg/kg
10300 mg/kg
10900 mg/kg
8820 mg/kg
11 100 mg/kg
3900 mg/kg
12000 mg/kg...
7600 mg/kg .....
CBI
2267 mg/kg ..........
1090 mg/kg
1872 mg/kg
599 mg/kg
858000 mg/kg
55000 mg/kg
87000 mg/kg..
18 mg/kg . .....
2400 mg/kg ..........
1710 mg/kg.....
1 1 70 mg/kg ..........
1360 mg/kg
290 mg/kg .....
1100 mg/kg..
750 mg/kg
3680 mg/kg.
5500 mg/kg ..........
6300 mg/kg ........ ..
3580 mg/kg.....
5810 mg/kg
1760 mg/kg......
6400 mg/kg
4600 mg/kg
CBI
CBI .....
CBI
CBI ....
CBI;.
CBI
CBI......
Mercury Concentration Data
Untreated
Total
(mg/kg)
11300
3720
1752
1060 '
600
554.2
253
243
105
90
84.3
64.9
Treated ,
EP-Tox
(mg/l)
NAV ....... .
NAV
NAV
NAV. .......
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV..
NAV
NAV...
NAV
NAV ........
Total
(mg/kg)
NAV..
NAV..
1 697 ...... .
NAV..
NAV...
NAV
NAV ...
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
EP-Tox
(mg/l)
26
0.09
0.07
9.4
8.6
0.008
0.11
0.009
0.01
0.002
0.001
0.001
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 155 / Wednesday,' August 12, 1987 / PtQ;3osed' Rules 30023
TABLE 11.MERCURY DATA FOR WASTE OTHER THAN WASTEWATERContinued
.Source*
CBI ;...
CBI .............
CBI
CBI
CBI .;
CBI ..,......,
CBI..............
CBI
CBI
CBI ..,......:....
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI,...,.
CBI ...............
CBI......
GBI ......:......,.
CBI
CBI ..,,. :....
CBI ...............
CBI ...............
CBI
DBI :.:
"^Rl
DBI, ,
DBI ...............
DBI ......,......,:
DBI ...............
DBI
DBI ,..:...........
DBI....
DBI
DBI
Industry .
CBI
CBI .........;...
CBI
CBI .............
CBI .............
CBI .......;.....
CBI
CBI
CBI ...........;..
CBI
CBI....;....
CBI.....
CBI ..........;.:..
CBI ..:.....
CB! ...;...,.......
CBI...............
CBI .;..
CBI
CB\ ....:.'.......
CBI ...........;.
CBI .......:......
CBI
CBI ;......;.,.....
CB.l.
CBI , ...;:..
CBI ......,:.......
CBI .....;...
CBI;
CBI ,.
CBI........,.;.....
CBI ;.....
CBI ............;..
CBI
Process
generating
waste
CBI
CBI ..;.....;....
CBI
CBI
CBI .-.
CBI .;..........,
CBI:
CBI
CBI
CBI ..............
CBI
CBI...
CBI ...............
GBI ........
CBI. .:.,
CBI
CBI .............;.
CBI.......:
CBI, ....... .......
CBI ...............
CBI
CBI ;.......
CBI
CBI...............
GBI ,.,......
CBI.;.....;.;..;..
GBI I ..;..;..
CBI..., ;...
CBI
CBI;. I.
CBI .....;.........
CBl
CBI .;.............
Treatment
process
Stabiliza-,
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
- tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabilizer
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-.
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion. .
Stabiliza- ,
tion.
Stabiliza-
, tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion. .
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza- ;
tion:
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza- ,
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion. . ,
Stabiliza-
tion. -/
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-.
tion.
Waste
codes
NAV,
NAV......
NAV
NAV......
NAV..
NAV......
NAV......
NAV......
NAV......
NAV..
NAV..;....
NAV.......
NAV
NAV.
NAV
NAV.
NAV...
NAV...
NAV.
NAV....:,..
NAV;.;.....
NAV
NAV,..
NAV..:.....
NAV...:....
NAV
NAV........
NAV
NAV
NAV.......
NAV........
NAV
NAV...
Waste characterization data
Parameter
CBI
CBI
CBI ...,
CBI ....,......;.
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI ......:....;:
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI ..............
CBI ...............
CBI ...........
CBI ...,...:.:.....
CBI ..,...,;..
CBI
CBI ;.....:..
CBI
CBI
CBI ...:......:..,.
CBI ...............
CBI ...,.;.....
CBI
CBI.
CBI.;.....
CBI
CBI ...............
CBI
CBI.......'...
CBI
Concentration
CBI:
CBI
CBJ .:....:.;............
CBI............. '.
CBI
CBI..;.....;..
CBI
CBI..:
CBI.. ;.......
CBI.
CBI ........:...
CBI
CBI'
CBI...... ;.
CBI.....
CBI
CBI...:.......;
CBI:.........-...............
CBI....... ...:..
CBI.........;-....
CBI;
CBI
CBI......
CBI..
CBI.......
CBI......
CBI
CBI.....;...................
CBI
CBI...
CBI
CBI.......;...
CBL.....;
Mercury Concentration Data
Untreated
Total
(mg/kg)
50 -
:.: 49, ; ...
44
41
40 ;
40 ,
38
35
35 :
34
33
32
31
29 . : r
29
28
25.48 .
25 ,
24
23
22
22
21
21
20
20 ,
19
19
19 ,.
18
18
18
17
i ; Treated
' EP-fox
IvJAV......
NAV....;.
NAV
NAV
NAV.
NAV...:..
NAV
NAV......
NAV......
NAV
......
WAV......
NAV
NAV::..;;.
NAV.....;.
NAV........
NAV .....
NAV........
NAV.
NAV....:..,
NAV....;...
NAV.:...:..
NAV
NAV...
NAV........
NAV ...
NAV........
NAV
NAV...,.:..
NAV
i ':-
NAV........
T ''
NAV;:
NAV ....... .
NAV:
Total:
(mg/kg)
NAV....;
NAV:....
NAV.....
NAV..:...
NAV....;.
NAV......
NAV......
NAV......
NAV......
NAV......
NAV......
NAV
NAV.:..:.
NAV..,,..,
NAV....:..
NAV
NAy ........
NAV........
NAV..
NAV,..:..;.
NAV .;....,:
NAV........
NAV..
NAV.....;.,
NAV...
NAV,...'.,:.
NAV
NAV........
NAV........
NAV........
NAV....'..;.
NAV..;
NAV........
NAV,.....:.
EP-Tox.
0.01
, 0.008
0.17
12
0.02
0.18
0.02
0.05
0.03
n n1^
V.vtJ .
0.12-
0.1
0.011
0.04
0.11
OH H '
1 ' .
' 0.0058'
0.02
o;03^
0.03 :
0.09
0.14
0.11
0.12
0.02
0.19
0,08 ,
0.03
0,08 .
0.09,
0.13
0.02
p.14
-------
39024
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 1987 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 11.MERCURY DATA FOR WASTE OTHER THAN WASTEWATERContinued
Source*
CBl _...-
CBl ,
CSl
CBl
C8I
CBl -.-.
CBl -
CBl ..,. .,
CBl , ...
CBl
CBl
CBl ,
CBl -
CSl .
CBl .....
CBl
CBl
CBl . ..
CBl ....
CSl ...
CBl .
CBl
CBl ..
CSl ........
CBl
CBl-.-
CBl
CBl ..
CBl
CBl
CBl ...........
Industry
CSl
C8I .. - .
CBl ,
CSl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CSl
CBl ,
CBl
CBl ....
CBl ...
CSl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
C81
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl ....
CBl
CBl ....
CBl _._
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
OR1
Process
generating
waste
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CSl
CBl
CBl
CBl
HR1
CBl .
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl .-.
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl -
CBl
CBl
CSl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl .
CBl
CBl
CBl
CSl
CBl
CBl
Treatment
process
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.,
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Waste
codes
NAV...
NAV
NAV . ..
NAV ...'.....
\JAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV........
NAV
NAV ........
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV.
NAV.
NAV
NAV.
NAV
NAV ......
NAV ......
NAV
NAV
NAV.
NAV
NAV.....
NAV
NAV
Waste characterization data
Parameter
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl ....
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl ...
CBl .-.
CBl ....
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl .....
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl .....
CBl
CBl
CBl
Concentration
CBl.................
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl....
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl.. _ .
CBl . ..,
CB|
CBl
CBl.
CBl !
CBl..
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl ...
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl '.
CBl
CBl
CBl
CBl ....
CBl
CBl
CBl
Mercury Concentration Data
Untreated
Total
(mg/kg)
17
16
16
15.22
14
14
13:6
12.83
12
12
12
12
11
11
11 '
10.4
10.3,
1°
10
.10
10
9.4
9.38
8.8
8.6
8.5
8.03
8
8
8
8.1
7.91
7.32
Treated !
EP-Tox
(mg/l)
NAV..
NAV
NAV.
NAV
NAV
NAV,.,.....
NAV
NAV.....'...
NAV
NAV ...
NAV
NAV ........
NAV
NAV
NAV
N AV .......
.NAV.
NAV.
NAV.
NAV ......
NAV.:....
NAV,
NAV ......
NAV
NAV......
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
Total
rng/kg)
NAV
NAV........
NAV........
NAV
NAV ...... ..
NAV ....
NAV........
NAV
NAV...
NAV
NAV
NAV....;...
NAV.
NAV
NAV
NAV ...... .
NAV.......
NAV
NAV
NAV......
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV.
NAV ......
NAV.
NAV.
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
EP-TOX
(mg/l)
0.09
0.21 .
0.08
0.0087
0.12
0.02
0,0165
0.001
0.09
0.08
: 0.05
, 0.11
0.11
0.07
0.03
0.0174
0.006
0.08
0.04
0.9
0.14
0.002
0.0104
0.008E
o.ooge
0.009£
0.01 0£
0.03
009
0.04
0.045
0.001
0.001
-------
;4,.,. :.;;, ,. Federal Register / Vol 52. No. 155 ;/ Wednesday.'August. 12. 1*387; ? Pr6P(jV;ed Rules
,,,- J. TABLE H.^-MERCURY DATA FOR WASTE OTHER THAN WASTEWATERContinued
30025
--;>-. '.
;. Source*
.. CBI:.,......,,...
CBL......,.,,
CBL.
CBI
CBL......
CBI,,.,,,.,
CBI ..............
CBI .:. ....
CBI ...............
CBI .........
CBI :........
CBI......
CBL...:.....;..'..
CBI ,....::....
CBI...;.;
CBI ;...;..'.:...;.:
CBI ............;
CBL ;.£:...
'CBL.........;.
CBI...:.:.;;
CBI
, -.-.. .-". i '
CBI
CBL..........;
CBI ...,..
Industry:
CBL ......
CBL:..,;
GBL...
CBI............
CBL............
.CBI,.,,...,,.
CBU.^..
CBI
:CBi ....;.....,....
CBI ..............
CBL........
CBI .;,........;
dBL:..,
CBI ....;.......;..
CBJ ,;...
cBi ..;............
CBI ....,..
CBI;..;;.
CBL.;:;,
CBI..:..
CBI ... ......
CBI .,,..
CBI
CBI..,.,
1. ,!,«,., V .-..-.-
Process
generating
waste
CBI ...........
CBI
' -:: V-
flRI "
CBI ..;,L,..
CBI .............
C8I ...,,..
CBI ............
CBI :,......;...,.
.CBI ,~
CBI ...............
CBI .,.,..;,.....
CBI
CBI ......,.
CBI'.:;.......;.
CBI .....I..;...;
CBI ...............
CBI
CBJ..';..:'.'.
CBI,:;,.;..
CB.I..... ,...,.....
CBi.,....;..
CBI
CBI ,,.....
CBI ...:.....
:-.;.- --:' .-,.
Treatment
process,
Stabiliza-.
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza- -
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza--
tioa
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-:
tion.
-Stabiifea- ;;..'
tion,
Stabiliza-
tion. ,
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion..
Stabiliza- "
Won.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiiizar ,
.tion.
Stabiliza- 1
'tion.
Stabiliza-
'-tio'n.- '"
Stabiliza- ~"
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion; ;
Stabijiza- . .
tion. '
-.-:,. .......
Waste-
. codes ,
NAV.,...
NAV,y,.
NAV
NAV......
NAV...
NAV......
NAV
NAV,.
NAV........
NAV........
NAV
NAV........
NAV ''
NAV
NAV;....*.,.
NAV..:..;:.
NAV........
NAV;.....:.
NAV...;.,1
NAV.,...,.
NAV....;
NAV
NAy,...,:
NAV........
i f Waste characterization data
Parameter
CBI
CBI .....;.......
CBI .............
CBI
CBI ...........
CBI ,,...,,
CBL.........;..
CBI ............
CBI ..............
CBI .... ......
CBI
CBI ....,...,
CBI
CBI
CBI ...............
CBI ,. ......
CBI .,.
CBI .I.,;;
CBI .;..,..,.....;
CBL,.:.:.;.....:.
CBI ..... .
CBI ...:.:.........
CBI,;.
CBI .;........,..;.
.' Concentration
CBI......................
CBI.........'......
CBI........,;......
CBI........ ..
CBI. ,.,
cat,...,.......,..
CBI .,.....,
CBI..... ....;
CBI
CBI.......;....,:..
CBI
CBI,..............;,......
CBI
CBI
CBI....;..,....
CBI............,...
(3BI .............. ,
CBI.....,.......;.......
CBI................;:
CBI....;,;........:.........
_
M31............,.
CBI
CBI,..,...; ,
cat ...:;.......
+ See section V(C)(10) for Data Sources. --=.-'
* Data represents bench-scale test. . '' - .
NAV Not available. > - - ;.
Mercuri^Goncehtration Data
Untreated
Total
(mgf/kg)
7:24
'"'- 7 /''-
- - 6.98
,6.67
', 6.62
-;.'«>..
6.1 :
6.1 .
6 .-.:;
6
' ' :6 '-' ,'
' . 6 -'-
.'. '5.9
: 5.86
5.8
5.74
5.1
"5 '
s -...;.-.."
: C,. "
:.?:"":;"
.4.91
r 4.23
.44 :,:'
;' .
-;.;..'. -.-'. . .;Treated ^ ' ;
EF?-fox
(nig/I)
.NAV;.,..
NAV......
NAV.;....
NAV...;..
NAV.....:
NAV:,...
NAV.,
NAV
"
NA7.,..
NAV .'.
NAV,.....,.
NAV.....
NAy;.
NAV,,.....
NAV '"...
NA\r;....
NA\L.,,..
NAV.....
NAV^
NAV;........
,'bs', .
NAV:.......
NAV.....
NAV........
NAVi.,;...,.
. . -y- ,, .-.
..... .... ._
Total
(mg/kg)
NAV..,.
NAV.:.;.
.NAV.,;..
NAV.;....
NAV..,,,
NAV.;,..
NAV......
NAV...,,
NAV...:,
NAV:.....
NAV,.....,
NAv...;...1.
NAV.......
NAV.
NAV;.;.....
NAV;....
NAV........
NAV,......:
NAV........
NAV.......
NAV:;, '.
NAV.......
NAV........
NAV,^
... - ,-.,, .
'.EP-tox
(mg/l)
0.0231
0.06
0.0096
.-" ; 0.0073
0.0048;
.. 0.0043
0.002 ;
; 0.0092
0.05
0.02
.0.09
; 0:050 ^
, 0.002
0.0024
0.01
0.0051
0-0085
0,02
6.06
0.021
0.05
0.0011
0.01 63;
NAR Not applicable.; . ' : - . . . . , -'".. " / 3.
CBI Confidential Business Information. ' : ij- - / -.''.'--'"
6, Nickel -'-' ;' "."' :
,, a. Data Summary.'The Agency has 35'
data ppints on:the treatment of'nickel in
wastewater from 25 facilities. Of the 35
data points,; 34 have nickel
concentrations in the treated .
wastewater.lower thanthe health-based
value of 50mg/l. The treatment;, ,; '
technology applied to these wastewaters
was chemicaLprecipitation:- Table 12
Provides^ summary of all available
data °n the treatment of .nickel in
data points, 38 have nickel lower than
the health-based prohibition le^^
mg/i. The treatment technology applied
to these wastes liyas stabilization. Table
13 provides a summary of all available
data foir nickel in waste other than ''
wastewater^ f .
b. Data Analysis Wastewater.
-.. -r P). Waste Characteristic Analysis. Of
the 34, data pointis that achieve the-.
,-. health-based prohibition level, all.reflect,
treatment by chemical precipitation. The
-------
30026
Federal'Register / Vol. 52, No. -155 / Wednesday. August 12, 1987 '/> EroposSd Rules
Agency has limited data on the range of
waste characteristics pertinent to an
evaluation of the performance of this
technology. Most of the available waste
characterization data that are important
for engineering analysis involve ather.
metal concentrations. - '
The treatment data have a njaximum
influent concentration for nickpl of. '.' .
65,000 mg/1. As stated m Section
V(B)(1), high influent concentrations, per
se, do not adversely affect treatirient; -
hoxvever, high metal concentration often
indicate that the metals are complexed
in solution and complexe'd ntetal
compounds, if not dissociated^could
have an adverse effect on tjre,atment." . -
(ii) Design and Operating Parameter
Analysis. Of the 34 data points that
meet the health-based prohibition level,
the Agency has some design and
operating data for two data points from' "
two facilities that document the >
operation of the treatment system.
Limited design and operating data are
available for the data point that does .
not meet the health-based prohibition
level.
(iii) Discussion. The Agency's best
engineering judgment is that,the health-'
»based prohibition level of ,50'mg/l fo,r
nickel can be met for the full range of
California List wastes containing nickel.
In support of this position, the Agency
points to the theoretical solubility limit
of nickel precipitates, chemical
precipitation theory, and qur knowledge
of the technologies available to . ;
minimize the effects .of constituents in
the waste that can interfere with
treatment performance. Additionally,
the available data would noj lead us to
conclude otherwise. . ;
In the case of the data point that does
not show achievement of the health- >
based prohibition level, the Agency
looked at the waste characteristics and ,
treatment design and operation to
determine why the health-based
prohibition level was not attained. The
only waste characteristic data reported
for this point was an oil and grease
concentration of 150 mg/1. This level
may have been sufficient to'interfere ;
with the precipitation process; we would
expect that oil and grease can be
effectively removed by preliminary
treatment such as oil-water separation '
and/or emulsion breaking. ,
. With regard to our Analysis of the
design and operation of the treatment
system used, the Agency had limited
data to determine whether poor design .
or operation contributed to the failure of
the system to achieve the health-based
prohibition level.
The Agency recognizes that we lack
data on the full range of waste > . ;
characterization and design and
operation conditions that may,affect
treatment effectiveness. Therefore, we
are soliciting iriformatiofyto aid the '""-
Agency in analyzing treatment '
performance for nickel in wastewater. .'t '.'.
The specific Waste characteristics data '
and design and operating data that the
Agency needs are described in Section
V(E), Request for Comments. " :
c. Data AnalysisWaste Other Than
Wastewater. (i) Waste Characteristics
Analysis. As stated above in the Data
Summary, 38 of the 40 data points
achieve the health-based prohibition
level for nickel. All 40 data points reflect
treatment by stabilization. '-.'
For the 38 data points, the Agency has
limited information on the range of ;
waste characteristics pertinent to an
evaluation of the performance of this
technology. Most of the available waste .
characterization data that are important
for an engineering .analysis involve other!
metal concentrations. -; -. ;
for. wastes that were treated to below ;
the health-based prohibition level, the ;
maximum total nickel concentration was"
65,000 mg/kg.
(ii) Design and Operating Parameter *
Analysis. For the 38 data points that'!
achieve the health-based value, the
Agency has limited design and operating
data for 10 data points from two
facilities. For the two data points that do
not meet the health-based prohibition
level, we have insufficient information
to determine whether poor design or;
operation affected performance.
(iii) Discussion. The Agency's best
engineering judgment is that the health-
based prohibition level of;50 mg/1 for. .
nickel can be met in leachate for the full
range, of California List wastes other
than wastewater. In support of this 1
.position, the Agency points to the . !
facility's ability to change the ratio of "
stabilizing agents to waste ^quantities as --
needed to decrease the mobility of the ''
constituent; this assumes that ah.. \
effective stabilizing agent and/or ' - .
additives are available- Additionally, , .
the curing conditions (e.g., length of cure
arid arribieijt conditions) can be
controlled to.;ensure that the waste
, particles have had sufficient time to
form a stable treated waste. .;.
Additionally, the; Agency's evaluation' of.,.
the available data also would n, 11:;,:,,,,,;. ; ,;;,..,;.,.:,.rilt.^'.-.
In the cases where the treated waste .7.
'leachate did not achieve "the-health-
based prohibition level, the Agency^ ;.;
looked at the waste characteristics and
' treatment design and operation to
.determine why the/health-based
prohibition level was not attained..
Relative'to waste characteristics, one of
the two-data .points had untreated waste
with high concentrations ,of various :
other metals that could have had an
adverse affect on the performance of the
' stabilization technology. The EPA has
no waste Characteristic data on other
parameters in these wastes, siich as oil
and grease content, organic compounds,
: and sulfates, all .of .which can adversely
affect the performance -of -stabilization
technology if not adequately removed or
immobilized prior 'to 'of during"" " *"" ""'
'stabilization. Relative to analysis of the-
1 desigii and operation of the tf e'atirient
system used, the Agency has insufficient
data to determine whether poor design
'or operation contributed to the failure of
the systems to achieve the healt^based,
prohibition level. .' " ' .;,'"
" ' The Agency recognize.s.that we.lack,, ,
', data on the full range of waste .
, characteristics/and design arid operation
'. conditions that may affect treatment .;.
effectiveness. Therefore;-we. are '.-.
soliciting information to aid the Agency ..
in analyzing treatment performance" for
nickel in wastes pther.than wastewater...,
The specific wa8te;characteristics-data
and design and operating data thatthe-
Agency needs are described in Section
- V(E), Request for Comments. '- ,; -
-------
^Federal Register / VoL 52. No. 155 /Wednesday, August 12^ 1987 /Proposed Rules 3QQ27
TABLE 12.^-NiCKEL DATA FPRWASTEWATER
-'- Source*, ., '; .-
Envirite t2] ;.........;.;...,
Envirite 11] ..; .......
. Envirite [3]
Battery ' :' :
Manufacturing
Dev. Doc. r
Battery ,',
. Manufacturing
Dev. Doc;.
Envirite [10]
Envirite £43
Envirite [5] '''
. Frontier- Chemical
. Company. ....;
Envirite [6] ;. ...i
. ' -. ' ...... i
Envirite [7]
-..:., Industry.
"-. ' ' ' ',,*-": -"-
-TSDF- '
.; , . ...--. »". ~. ' '.-:,-..
TSDF ........ .
Electronic & plating....
TSDF. ...................
Zinc battery
v -manufacturing.
LeadbattejV
manufacMng.
TCnc - '
1 our
T.i;:
Battery; '
.manufacturing. -.- -
; "' . " T- "' T"(- "
.. 'i^-a
.... . _r: |.
TSDF....;....,,;...
TSDF........1:..;..;!.....
s^fc?-
Process
.generating
v waste
; NAV .
NAV
.NAV"
NAV .-:
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
Treatment '
process. ; ,
Chemical ;;
precipitation,
Filtration. -
Chemical ,- ,
precipitation,
Filtration.
Chemical"
precipitation.
Chemical -
precipitation,
Filtration.-
Lime
3 precipitation.
Settling.
Filtration.
Ferrite ,
- coprecipita- ;
.tion. . - . ;.
Chemical
precipitation.
Filtration.
Chemical
precipitation,
Filtration.
Chemical
precipitation,
Filtration,
Chemical ,
precipitation,
-Filtration.
. - - . - .
Chromium
reduction^
Lime
precipitation.
Filtration,
-Carbon
adsorption.
Chemical
precipitation,
-> Filtration. .
Chemical . , ;
precipitation.
Filtration.
, Waste
codes*
F006:
K062
D003
D002
D002
K062
D003
NAV
F006
K062
D003
NAV
NAV:
D002
F006
D003
F006
K062
D003
F006
D003
K062
F011
K062
D003
P002
D00~2
D007 ,
F006
K062
D003
D002
F006
K062
D003
D002
- ' - - '
. .
Waste Characterization Data
Parameter ;
Chromium.;;;.;;;.^
Copper.....;..........
Zinc ...........
Oil & Grease...
Hex. Chrom.,.;..;:.
Chromium.......;....
Copper
Zinc...... ..;
Oil & Grease.
Oil & grease..;:....
Hex. Chrom.....;.;.
Chromium............
Copper.................
Lead.. ....... v
Zinc
Oif & grease...
Cadmium
Mercury ............,;.
Cadmium;..:..........
Lead.............;;....;..
Mercury
Chromium....;........
Copper ;
Oil & grease........;
Chromium...;
Copper ;
Oil & grease...;.....
Hex. chrom ...........
Chromium
Copper..
Lead
Zinc....; ;....
Hex. Chrom..........
Chromium
Copper......;;.:.;......
Zinc
Oil & grease....
TOG...................;..
Oil & grease..?......
TSS . .
TDS...........
Lead ...........;..
Cadmium;......;......
Hex. Chrom..........
Chromium..;.....:....
Copper................;;
Lead....
Zinc .........;...:..
Dil & grease..
^lex. Chrom..;.......
Chromium.....;:......
Copper..,......;........
.ead .,....:....
Oil & grease..;;..v..
Gorioantration
(riig/l)
^ggQ-""-"";".r"
133...,.;..........:.:.
39 ); ' '
0.25....:........:......
0.6......i,...v.....v..
88.....
'84" '' * =' '"
16.......;.
1 50 >'"
. - s
;. . I . '
917;~' ' ""
2236..J.;....:....;,..
91...:.
18 ;,;.
71..
2.04,...,;;
100 1.....:.........
240 :.....!..... ''
475 .'! -' '.-"
7.4,.....,; ........;
939......;......... '-
225: |...............
395......,;......
191.......
0.035...;1
0.13 ;...
831. .........;......
217 :;..............
212: ;........
151 .............;...
734.......:.....,........
2548...4...;..;.....;.
4 ' ,' ' ' -.
1.02 ;;...-..,; ^.
5600-1 EJOOO. ......
2600-181000..;;;.,
2400-6COOO. ...;.;
10000-170000...
1.1-3.8;..
3.9-1 80;...:..;.....M.
893.......:;........
2581.
138.................:.;..
64 --."-;
116. L;....
28..........!, ....;
807........,!;............
133..4!!!Z;
54...:!Z.'.X:1"!Z!!!
-,-,-- I . J-
; -:'. :-^.-ti
concent
. .Untreat-
; ed
.Total
(mg/l)
. - 16330
... 6610
3700
1414
1100
; iqoo
940,
712
669
.."588:
4.3-500
471
,470
ickel '; -' :
ration data
l ... ,
Treated
Total
(mg/l)
0^3
0.33
130
0.3f
-
0,5
0.2
' v - " ."' ;
0.33
0.33
0.36
0.33
1.8^2,2
0.33
0.33
-------
30028i Federal Register /' Vol. 52. No. 155 /Wednesday,
TABLE 12.NICKEL DATA FOR WASTEWATERContinued
Source*
EnvtritetB]
Envkite[113.
Metal Finishing Dev.
Doc.
Metal Finishing Dev.
Doc.
Metal Finishing Dev.
Doc.
Matal Finishing Dev.
Doc..
Metal Finishing Dev,
Doc.
Metal Finishing Dev.
Doc.
Metal Finishing Dev.
Doc.
Metal Finishing Dev.
' Doc.
Metal Finishing Dev.
Doc.
Metal Finishing Dev.
Doc.
Metal Finishing Dev.
Doc.
Metal Finishing Dev.
Doc.
Industry
TSDF :
TSDF . :
Metal finishing
Metal finishing
Metal finishing .............
Metal finishing
Metal finishing
' ' -
Metal finishing
Metal finishing .....
Metal finishing
i
Metal finishing
Metal finishing
Metal finishing
~~T~, f
Process
generating
waste
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV ... . '
' ; - * " '
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
. NAV .
h ':
Treatment
process
Chemical
precipitation,
Filtration.
Chemical
precipitation, .
Filtration.
Chemical
precipitation,
Sedimenta-
. tion,:
Chemical
precipitation,
Sedirrienta-
t'pn.
Chemical
precipitation,
Sedimenta-
tion.
Chemical
precipitation,
Sedimenta- ,
tioh. :
Chemical
precipitation,
Sedimenta-
tion.
Chemical
precipitation,
-Sedimenta- *
tion.
Chemical
precipitation,
Sedimenta-
tion.
Chemical
precipitation,
Sedimenta-
tion.
Chemical
precipitation,
Sedimenta-
tioh. ! .
Chemical
precipitation,
Sedimenta-
tion.
Chemical
. precipitation,
Sedimenta-
tion.
Chemical, _. '..
precipitation.
Sedimenta-
tion. ;
Waste
codes"
F006
K062
D003
D002
F006
K062
D003 ,
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV,
NAV
Waste Characterization Data
Parameter :
Cadmium
Chromium ,...".
Zinc ....1........'.....:.
Oil & grease......*..".
Cadmium ...I......!...
Chromium..,.
Conner '....
Lead .......
Oil & grease .:.
NAV ......'....
NAV
NAV ........
NAV . .....; :.
NAV " ......
NAV ......'.
NAV..!.: :.....:
NAV
NAV '. ,
i
'NAV. .:......:..;.....:
NAV. :.....
NAV
' , ' : " i
Concentration '
(mg/l)
0 1
69
314. : i
2. ;
71 . ...:
08 .....
13....:..::..:
23
517 .......'.
37; ;
36.. ..A..:......'.
135;... :..........
322 I :
NAV .;:...:
NAV ;
NAV
NAV.,.-.,.. .....
NAV :...:...,.:.l...
NAV
NAV .....
NAV .-...., ...
NAV .:...
NAV :..:.:..:.::.:.
NAV ..;.;.;;...:..,..
NA.V :...:
Nickel
concentration^data
Untreat-
ed
Total
(mg/l)
426;
382
167
153
142
128
"'."",'iit:
108
; ids
97
94
."- ' -94
85.3
80.6
[reafed.
Total :
(mg/l)
, ; 0.4
0.39
0.3
' 0.91
}, 1 i1- ' *, '
r.56
0.57
: 1.78
0.78
, ..p.si
1.52
0.6C
.0.1'
-------
federal Register /Vol. 52, No 155 / Wednesday. August 12. 1987 / PrrJpcsed Rules
TABLE 12.NICKEL DATA FOR WASTEWATERContinued
Source*
Metal Finishing Dev.
Doc.
Metal Finishing Dev.
Doc:
Metal .Finishing Dev.
Doc.
Metal Finishing Dev.
Doc.
Battery ;
Manufacturing
Dev. Doc.
Metal Finishing Dev,
Doc.
Metal Finishing Dev.
Doc.
Metal Finishing Dev.
Doc. :'"
30029
Industry
Metal finishing.
Metal finishing.
Metal finishing.
Metal finishing.
Zinc battery
manufacturing.
Metal finishing
vtetal finishing.
Metal finishing....
. See Section V(C)(10) for Data Sources.
,« waste, codes as reported in-source.
NAVNot available. .
Process
generating
waste
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
Treatment
process
Chemical
precipjtation,
Sedimenta-
tion.
Chemical
precipitation,
Sedimenta-
tion. '
Chemical ' -
precipitation,
Sedimenta-
tion.
Chemical :
, precipitation.
Sedimenta-
tion. :
Lime . - .
precipitation,
Settling,
Filtration.
ihemical
precipitation,
Sedimenta-
tion.
Chemical
precipitation,
Sedimenta-
tion.
Chemical
precipitation,
.Sedimenta- ."
tion.
Waste
codes"
NAV,
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
: Waste Characterization Data
. Parameter
NAV;
NAV.
NAV.
NAV.
NAV.
NAV.
NAV
NAV...;.. >
Concentration
(mg/l)
NAV.
NAV;
NAV.
NAV.
NAV
NAV.
NAV ..>..;
NAV :*
SourceH
161.......
591.... ;......
192".;...........
CBI ;.......
548 ....-.'..!.......
CBI..............:....
TABLE 13. NICKEL DATA FOR .WASTE OTHER THAN WASTEWATER
Industry
NAV.... :
NAV............
NAP.....,.....;
CBI ..:....,.,..
NAV....
CBI ;.............
Process
generating
Electroplat-
ing. .
NAV.;..........
Synthetic.
-waste.
CBI.;......;...;...
-S : '-
--.,-',...
Electroplat-
ing.
GBI ...;..
Treatment
process
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion,
Waste
codes"
F006......
F006......
NAP.......
NAV........
F006.......
Waste characterization data
Parameter
Chromium.....
Lead.
Barium.....
Cadmium......
^Chromium...;.
Lead
Mercury..
Silver ,
Arsenic..
Selenium
CBI....; ..,..
Chromium:
CBI.................
Concentration
72000 mg/kg...
42200 mg/kg..'.
6600 mg/kg.....
10300 mg/kg...
10900 mg/kg...
8820 mg/kg
11300 mg/kg,...
3900 mg/kg
12000 mg/kg....
7600 mg/kg
CBI...
35000
3100
1100
16900. mg/kg....
CBI.., .....;.;,,.
Untreated
Nickel
, concentration data
Untreat-
ed
Total
(mg/l)
78.7
78.7
.76.9
50.0.
Treated
Total
(mg/l)
0.43
0.11 ,
0.38
1.76.
0.45
0.48
Nickel concentration data
Total
(mg/kg)
8432
6120
6013
EP-Tox
87...;....,
60..!:.;
NAVI;...:.
NAV.;...;..
NAV .;....
Treated
Total
(mg/kg)
NAV...:...
NAV.......
NAV.....;.
NAV
NAV........
NAV.......;
EP-Tox
(mg/l)
4.8
5.3
59.7
'1.19
: 5.85
-------
30030 , .Federal Register /.Vol. 52, No. 155 / Wednesday.-August 12. 1987 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 13. NICKEL DATA FOR WASTE OTHER THAN WASTEWATERContinued
Source*
548.
192 b
CBI... -..
548.....
CBI..,.
548 ..,....,
CBI ............
548 ,
CQI_.
CBI
CBI
CBI -
CBI .-
CBI .. ,
CBI..
192
548....
CBI. ....
548,
C8I
548
CBI
548
CBI
CBI
'
Industry
NAV _.
NAP
CBI
NAV
CBI
NAV.
CBI
NAV
CBI
CBI
CBI ~
CBI
CBI . . -
CBI
CBI
TSDF
NAV
NAV :..
NAV.
CBI
CBI
NAV
CBI,-
CBI
CBI. ....
Process
generating
waste
Electroplat-
ing.
Synthetic
waste.
CBI
Electroplat-
ing.
CBI .....
Electroplat-
ing.
CBI
Electroplat-
ing.
CBI
CB|
CBI
CBI..
CBI
NAV
Electroplat-
ing.
pni
Electroplat-
ing.
CBI
Electroplat-
ing.
CBI
CBI
Electroplat-
ing.
CBI
CBI
Treatment
process
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion..
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Waste
codes0
F006
NAP. ...... .
NAV ........
F006
NAV
F006
NAV
F006
NAV
NAV..;.
N AV. .......
NAV
NAV".
NAV
NAV
K062.....
D002
FOQ9
F006
F012
F007
F017.....
F018.....
F006
NAV
F006....
NAV
F006.I.
NAV
NAV....,
F006....
NAV
NAV....
NAV....
Waste characterization data
Parameter
Chromium
larium
Cadmium
Chromium ......
Mercury
Silver
Arsenic...
Selenium ...
CBI
Chromium.
Lead
CBI .......
Chromium
Lead
CBI
Dhromium ......
CBI ....L..........
CBI
CBI .......
CBI
CBI
CBI .....
CBI
Chromium ....
Iron.
Zinc
Chromium....
CBI
Chromium...
CBI
Chromium...
CBI .
CBI.
Chromium...
CBI
CBI
CBI .............
Concentration
5100 mg/kg....
680 mg/kg
5500 mg/kg
6300 mg/kg
3580 mg/kg
600 mg/kg ...
760 mg/kg
6400 mg/kg ......
4600 mg/kg
CBI
15600 mg/kg ....
144 mg/kg ........
CBI
13800 mg/kg....
269 mg/kg
CBI
16700 mg/kg....
151 mg/kg
CBI ...
CBI
CBI...
CBI
CBI.....
CBI. ...
CBI
3300 mg/kg....
30600 mg/kg ..
1 6000 mg/kg . .
9720 mg/kg...
CBI .'.
9070 mg/kg...
CBI
9000 mg/kg ...
CBI
CBI......
8580 mg/kg ...
CBI.....
CBI
CBI...
Nickel concentration data
Untreated
Total
(mg/kg)
010
810
5733
5700
5700
5610
5388
5050
4818
4810
4280
3740
3720
3530
3220
3200"
3150
3088
2920
2780
2780
2680
2670
2590
2587
2430
2160
EP-Tox
(mg/l)
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV ........
NAV ...
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV......
NAV......
NAV......
NAV
NAV
NAV.....
NAV
NAV".....
NAV
NAV
NAV.....
NAV
NAV
NAV...1
, Treated
Total
mg/kg)
NAV
NAV .,
NAV .
NAV..,
\ "
NAV...
NAV
NAV...
NAV........
NAV........
NAV.....
NAV.'.......
NAV
NAV;
NAV
NAV......
NAV ......
NAV...."..
NAV.
NAV
NAV.....
NAV
NAV....".
NAV.....
NAV.......
NAV......
NAV
EP-Tox
(mg/l)
0.377
9.0
6.60
0.364
5.85
0.352
2.26
0.313
3.64
0.45
0.52
0.86
0.45
0.46
0.94
,15
0.361
0.09
0.288
2.67
0.341
, 0.62
vO.70
0.366
2.67
. 0.92
0.42
-------
: . .;,; ;..,:; Federal Register /; Vol. 52, No.; 1S5- / Wedtie^day^August 'l2, 1987 / ftopc4ed";Rides' -'= 'sQOSl
. - - -.- . .
Source*
CBI....
192
;,CBI .:......;..-......
CBI.... .,
CBI
192b
CBI...':. ..;......
Industry
CBI ..: ;..
TSDF
CBI .......:.,....
CBI
CBI ..-
NAP.......
CBI
TABLE 1 3. NICKEL DATA FOR WASTE OTHER THAN WASTEWATER Continued .---/. '
Process
generating
waste' .
CBI......
NAV
CBI :...:...,.;
CBI........,...;...
CBI ..;,.
Synthetic
waste.
CBI
Treatment
process
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
". -" ' .
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
Stabiliza-
tion.
" .- -
Stabiliza-
tion.
Waste
codes °
NAV.......
K062.;....
D002......
F009 ......
F006
F012......
F007 ......
F01 7. ......
F018;
NAV........
NAV........
NAV
NAP.
NAV,..;....
Waste characterization data
Parameter
CBI ................
Chromium .;...
Iron......!.........
CBI
CBI.........:.......
CBI .................
Barium
Cadmium ....:..
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Silver
Arsenic
Selenium
CBI..
Concentration
CBI
1 527 mg/kg ...
165 mg/kg .......
CBI.v..'......,..........
CBI.
CBI.
18 mg/kg
2400 mg/kg .. ..
1710 mg/kg..
1 1 70 mg/kg
1060 mg/kg..
290 mg/kg ....
1 1 00 mg/kg
750 mg/kg
CBI
Nickel concentration data -
Untreated
Total
(mg/kg)
2100
2020
19.301;. ; :
1700 '
1650
1360
1180
EP-Tox
(mg/l)
NAV
NAV.:.....
. : i
.'?"'-"- ; --,
',: ;.-. . J^
. rK '"' ""
- "i ^ ,,;.''
(U A. W
NAV ..;..".'..
NAV
NAV
J;
i
] ' .''
I . .
!
NAV ........
i
Treated
Total
(mg/kg)
NAV.......
NAV.......
NAV,::...:
NAV........
NAV
NAV
NAV........
EP-fox
(mg/l)
0.75
60 ' .
, J . -- ,
0.90. ,.
0.71
0.58
1.04
0.52
v wwwtiv/i i » y^i\ i v/.ivi u/aici «juuiot;o
a Waste codes as reported in source.
.b Data represent bench-scale test
NAV-4Mot available.
NAPNot applicable. :'.'.
CBI^Confidential Business Information.
7. Selenium .-.-.. ;
a. Data Summary. The Agency has
three data points on treatment of
selenium in wastewaters from three
facilities. All three are lower than the EP
regulatory level of 1.0 mg/l. Table 14
provides a summary of all available
data for the treatment of selenium in
wastewater.
The Agency has 19 data points on the
treatment of selenium in waste other
than wastewater from six facilities. Of
the 19 data points, 16 are lower than the
EP regulatory level of 1.0 mg/l. Table 15
provides a summary of all available
data for the treatment of selenium in
waste, other than wastewater.
b. Data AnalysisWastewater. (i)
Waste Characteristic Analysis. As . '
stated above, all three of the data points
show that the EP regulatory level for
selenium in wastewaters can be
achieved. All three data points reflect
treatment by either lime and/or sodium
hydroxide^precipitation.
The Agency has limited data on the
range of waste characteristics pertinent
to an evaluation of the performance of
chemical precipitation technology. Most
of the available waste characterization
data that are important for an
engineering analysis involve other metal
concentrations. "
(ii) Design and Operating Parameters
Analysis. Design and operating data
were not available for the three data
points presented in Table 14.
(iii) Discussion. The Agency's best
engineering judgment is that the EP
regulatory level of 1.0 mg/l for selenium
can be met for the full range of
California List wastes containing ;
selenium. In support of this position, the
Agency points to the 'theoretical
solubility limit of selenium precipitates,
chemical.precipitation theory, and our
knowledge of the technologies available
to minimize the effects of constituents in
the waste that can interfere with
treatment performance. Additionally,
the available data would not lead us t
-------
30032 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 155 / Wednesday. August 12. 1987 / Proposed Rules
total selenium concentrations as high as
7.600 mg/kg. The data with 7,600
selenium in the untreated waste
represents bench scale treatment
results.
(ii) Design and Operating Parameters
Analysis. For the 16 data points that
achieve the EP regulatory level, the
Agency has limited design and operating
data for four data points from four
facilities. Three of these data points
represent bench scale data.
(Hi) Discussion. The Agency's best
engineering judgment is that the EP
regulatory level of 1.0 mg/1 for selenium
can be met in leachate for the full range
of California List waste other than
wastewater. In support of this position,
the Agency points to the ability of the
facility to increase the ratio of
stabilizing agents to waste as needed to
meet high concentration wastes.
Additionally, the curing conditions (e.g.,
length of cure and ambient conditions)
can be controlled to ensure that the
waste particles have had sufficient time
to form a stable treated waste. The
available data also would not lead us to
conclude that the EP regulatory level for
selenium cannot be achieved.
In the cases where the treated waste
leachate did not achieve the EP
regulatory level, the Agency looked at
the waste characteristics and treatment
design and operation to determine why
the EP regulatory level was not attained.
While we had limited waste
characteristic data for these 3 points, we
did not find any constituents in these
wastes that were significantly different
from other wastes achieving the EP
regulatory level. We also showed
TABLE 14.SELENIUM DATA FOR WASTEWATER
wastes that had initial concentrations of
the same order of magnitude achieving
the EP regulatory level. Relative to
analysis of the design and operation of
the treatment systems used, the Agency
had no data to determine whether poor
design or.operation contributed to the
failure of the systems to achieve the EP
regulatory level.
The Agency recognizes that we lack
data on the full range of waste
characteristics and design and operation
conditions that may affect treatment
effectiveness. Therefore, we are
soliciting information to aid the Agency
in analyzing treatment performance for
cadmium wastes other than wastewater.
The specific waste characteristics data
and design and operating data that the
. Agency needs are described in. Section
V(E), Request for Comments.
Source*
Battery
Manufacturing
Dev, Doc.
Battery
Manufacturing
Dev, Doc.
Battery
Manufacturing
Dov, Doc.
Industry
Lead battery
manufacturing.
Lead battery
manufacturing.
Lead battery
manufacturing.
Process
generat-
ing waste
NAV
NAV
NAV
Treatment process "
Lime and sodium
hydroxide
precipitation.
Lime and sodium
hydroxide
precipitation.
Lime and sodium
hydroxide
precipitation.
Waste
codes
NAV........
NAV
NAV
Waste characterization data
Parameter
Nickel
Nickel ....
Nickel
Concentration
(mg/l)
5.84 mg/kg ..........
6.86 mg/kg
5 63 mg/kg
Selenium
concentration data
Untreated
total
(mg/l)
30.2
28.6
27.4
Treated
total
(mg/l)
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
+ Sea Section V(C){10) for Data Source.
NAVNot available.
TABLE 15.SELENIUM DATA FOR WASTE OTHER THAN WASTEWATER
Source*
19!* ..........
192*.,.
ei7.».,.....,
Industry
NAP..... ......
NAP
EAF steeJ
production.
Process
generating
waste
Synthetic
waste.
. do
Electric arc
furnace.
Treatment
process
Stabilization
do
do...
Waste codes'
NAV ....
NAV
K061
Waste characterization data
Parameter
Barium . :.
Cadmium^
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead ~
Nickel ,
Silver
Lead^......'.....'........-1'l1
Nickel
TOG .....:
Oil & grease
Concentration
10,300 mg/kg
10,900 mg/kg
8,820 mg/kg
11,300 mg/kg
11,100 ring/kg
3 900 mg/kg
12,000 mg/kg...
3,680 mg/kg
6,300 mg/kg
3,580 mg/kg
600 mg/kg
5,810 mg/kg ...;
1 ,760 mg/kg
6 400 mg/kg
600 ppm....
1 100 ppm
200 ppm
0.3-0.04%...
0,04-0.06% _
Selenium concentration data
Untreated
Total
(mg/kg)
7,600
4,600
1,000
EP-Tox
(mg/l)
NAV .....
NAV .-
NAV
Treated
Total .
(mg/kg)
NAV
NAV.....
NAV
EP-Tox
(mg/l)
2.9
2.0
0.02-0.04
-------
Register / ₯ol 52. No. 155 /
^^^^^'^^^^^^^^P^^^^BRE^KSBKXDB^nMEHHBnHBHBl
TABLE 15.SELENIUM DATA. FOR WASTE OWES
Rrfes
Source*
192b._.
HAZCO".
CBI
CBJ, ^
681
CBI'
638
CBI
CBI..
CBI
csr
CBf:
CBI
CBI -.-.
CB(_.
Industry
NAP'
NAV
CBt
CBI. ;_
EAF steel
production.
CBI'
EAF steel
production.
CBI ..
CBI .. .. ......
CBI
CBT _
CSl
CBC _;..'
CBt
CBF
CBF.....
Process
generating
; ^ waste
Synthetic
-..' wasteu
do _._.__
CBt____
CBK_. .__.
Electric arc
furnace.
cat . .-.,..-....:_
NAV. ___.~
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBf .;.......:
CBf .;.
CBI
CBI
CBt
CSV
; Treatment
process
i..... .da......
da..
doIZZZ!
sSdi
do .. .;.
do :.
....do..
do _.
....do
do.
....do ..
Waste codes"
NAV.....
NAV...... ;...
NAV
NAV_u..._.._....
KO&f... ...
NAV.;.
NAV
NAV...:
NAV ;
NAV
NAV ;....;
NAV
NAV ... .
NAV
NAV.. ......... .
NAV
Waste characterization data
1 Parameter
Barium- _. _
Cadmium.
Chromium ;
Lead..;..... .
Mercury...........
Nickel.
Silver.;.....,
Arsenic . .__
. Arsenic .
: Cadmiunr...............
Leatf........
Mercury ;.
Waste lube oit._
Alcohof ...,.:.
Wafer...... _
CBI .
CBI :...,. _.
Arsenic. .. ... ..
Cadmium.;
Lead.......
CBI__
cnrorniurrr;.....
Nickel .;.
.ead._
OifS grease
CBI....................
CBI
CBI .." '"
CBI :;..... "-'-
CBI
CBI
CSF -'
CBI... .........
CBI
+Set* Section V(U)(1.u> tor Data Sources. '
Waste codes are reported in source
f Data represent bench-scale data. :- -..-'-
NAV Not available. ,
NAP-Not applicable : -
CBI-Confidential Business Information
Cdrrcenfratipn
TS mg/kg.........
i 2;4QO mg/kg
!1.7ta mg/kg
1,170 mg/kg.,..
1,060 ffig/Rg ..........
-1,360 mg/kg ...........
MS0 mg/kg !!]!!;!.".'
2.267 mg/kg....
f ,090" mg/kg
f 872" mg/kg
T,752mg/kg ......:...
: 858,000 mg/kg ......
"55,000 mg/kg .........
Q 700 rrrg/kg
CBI
200 mg/kg
tS.OOff mg/kg ..........
"M^fj^-f rt 4ff ppm.....
2&T-3t4 ppm
1-56-334 ppm
5.0%-t8'4% ....
CBI....... ..........
CBt
CBI..
CBI.... ...;;' :
CBI .-
CBI....:... ;..
CBI _ .
CBI
CBI_ .,..
, . Selenium, concentration data;
:.' Urifeated; -
Total'
75
- 59!
SCI
7C
; 5?
0.13-5t.a,
48'
35
30
26
26
25
24
23
21
: EP-TOX
fmn/n
NAV
NA'V.
NAV..........
MAV......
NAV.....
NAV.;........
NAV...... ..
NAV
NAV
NAV ..
NAV .
NAV...... ...
NAV
' Treated
Total,
(mg/kg)
; WAV-,....
:580
NAV.._,__
fO-4a._,_
NAV.
NAV...
NAV..........
NAV....;
NAV
NAV
NAV......
NAVi
NAV
NAV
'-.""-
EP:Tox
fmg/IJ
- f.5
i 0.28
O.TT
-------
30034 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12. 1987 / Proposed Rules
wastewater treatment will result in
some concentration of cyanide in the
residual solids. To exceed the health-
based prohibition level of 20 mg/1, this
residual concentration would need to be
in excess of 400 mg/kg. The Agency
does not believe this will be the case.
The Agency, therefore, has not included
data on treatment of cyanide-bearing
sludges in this notice because no
available data exist to show that these
wastes contain cyanide concentrations
that exceed 400 mg/kg.
b. Data AnalysisWastewater. (i)
Waste Characterization Analysis. As
slated above, 20 of the 21 data points
show that the health-based prohibition
level for cyanide can be achieved. The
Agency has limited data on the range of
waste characteristics pertinent to an
evaluation of the performance of
cyanide oxidation technology. Most of
the available waste characteristic data
that are important to an engineering
analysis involve other metals and total
organic carbon.
The treatment data show a maximum
influent concentration for cyanide of
75,000 mg/1. The literature indicates
untreated wastes may have
concentrations of cyanide as high as ,,
100,000 mg/1, comparable to the highest
cyanide influent concentrations for,
which the Agency has treatment data.
(ii) Design and Operating Parameter
Analysis. The Agency has limited design
and operating data from four facilities.
Three of the facilities presented data for
one point each and the fourth facility
presented operating data for 18 points.
The technologies used are ozonation,
alkaline chlorination, and electrolytic
oxidation.
(iii) Discussion. The Agency's best
engineering judgment is that the health-
based prohibition level of 20 mg/1 for
cyanide can be met for the full range of
California List wastewaters containing
cyanide. In support of this position, the
Agency points to the cyanide oxidation
theory and our knowledge of the
technologies available to minimize the
effects of constituents in the waste that
TABLE 17.CYANIDE DATA FOR WASTEWATER
can interfere with treatment
performance. Additionally, the available
data would not lead us to conclude
otherwise.
In the case of the data point that does
not show achievement of-the health-
based prohibition level of 20 mg/1, there
are insufficient waste characterization
data to indicate why the EP regulatory
level could not be met. Additionally, for
this data point, there is only limited ,
design and operating data reported; ,
however, it appears that insufficient
retention time resulted in poor
performance. .
The Agency recognizes the lack of
data on the full range of waste
characteristics and design and operating
conditions that may affect treatment
effectiveness. Therefore, we are
soliciting data on waste characteristics
that can affect performance for cyanide
in wastewaters. A description of the
specific waste characterization data and
design and operating data that the
Agency needs can be found in Section
V(E), Request for Comments. , .
Sourca*
JWPCF ..........
Chcm Pro Inc.
FfonSiw Chemical
Company.
Etcciio-pla'Jng Plant
Do ......................... ."...
Do.... , ....
DO.........
Do..... »«.
Do .,...... .
Do . ................. .
Do *.». ........
DO..
Do.. <.,......,
Do............
Do.......... .,*
Do' "', ...... ..................
Do... ...,.........,
Do..............,...-...
DO........:...,. .
Do..,.
Industry
NAV
NAV
NAV .....
NAV
NAV.....'.
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV ....
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV..
Process generating
waste
3lating bath wastes
Plating bath wastes
and rinses.
Cyanide Drum Rinse......
Electroplating
do
do
Z.do
. do
......do
do -
......do
.. do
do
do
do
,.m.do
......do.
do
do
......do
Z!db..
Treatment process
Electroyltic oxidation
do ..»
Cyanide oxidation by alkaline
chlorination.
Cyanide oxidation with ozone
do
'd6".....'..'...;. ...~
"...!do.
do
do ,
do
do \ ,..;...
zidoizzizzzzzz
do -
...do'.. :..'...' .:
do.... ;
do /
do :
.......do......:. -
11 « , ' '
Waste
codes
: v *
NAV
NAV
F007-
F012
NAV :
NAV . ....
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV ....
NAV ;...
NAV
NAV ....'.....
NAV .'. :...-..
NAV
NAV.....
NAV
,NAV .,.....:,,...
NAV
Waste characterization
...: :.,. ;data' ". '
Parameter
NAV
TOC ............:..
TOG
Cadmium
Nickel
NAV .-.
NAV ..'
NAV ...: :
NAV
NAV
NAV .
NAV
NAV
NAV .....
NAV
NAV
NAV :.:
NAV .....:...
NAV ..:......
NAV......;
NAV
NAV, ,
NAV...
Concen-
tration
(mg/l)
NAV
37,000
20,000
230
21
1,400
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
. ,NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
NAV
' NAV
. : NAV
.- ,NAV
'.. NAV
NAV
" NAV
Cyanide Concentration
' ' Data '',
Untreated
total (mg/1) .
' 75,000'
...- 16,000
5,800-01 1,060
130
107
83
82
76
75
72
69
68
,, 67
66
'' "64
' ' '58
' ' ' ' "53
.'<;. 49
' . 49
' ' : 48
38
treated
total
(mg/l)
0:2
1,000
'" :>
-------
30035
Chemical Processors, Inc., Seattle,
Washington. Prepared by Metcalf &
Eddy, Inc., under EPA Contract No. 68-
03-3-166. July 1986. ,.
Electroplating Pltint
U.S. Environmental Protection ,!-
Agency, Office of Research and
Development BriefingTechnologies
Applicable to Hazardous Wasted
Prepared by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Envirite .
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Onsife
Engineering Report of Treatment
Technology Performance and Operation
, for Envirite Corporation. Prepared for
EPA under EPA Contract No. 68-01-
7053. December 1986.
EWE -/ ": -'- -.,' "-'-
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and
Development. Facility Test Report for.
Environmental Waste Enterprises, Eloy,
Arizona. Prepared by Metealf & Eddy,
Inc., under EPA Contract No. 66-03-
3166. February 1986. ;
Frontier Chemical Company
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and
Development; Facility Test Report for
Frontier Chemical Waste Process, Inc.
Prepared by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., under
EPA Contract No. 6ff-03-3166. November
1985.
RAZC6
Hazco. Technical Fact Sheet for
HAZCO Solidification Agents.
JWPCF .:-,.'-. -'.-, ;;/.-.
Easton, John K. Electrolytic
Decomposition, of Concentrated Cyanide
Plating Wastes. Wafer Pollution Control
Federation Journal. 39:1621-1625.
October 1967.
Lange's Handbook of Chemistry
Dean, John A. Lange's Handbook of
Chemistry. Twelfth Edition. McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 1979, pp. 5-12.
Metal Finishing Etev* Doc* .
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Metal Finishing Point
'. Source Category. EPA 44G/1-83/6M.
June 1983. ''
Nonferrous Metah Dev. Doe,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Development Document for-
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, and
Standards for the Non-ferrous Metals
Point Source Category, Volume HL EPA-
440/1-83/019-6, March 1983.
UNH '. v ; - -. .:
Bishop, Paul LY, Steven B. Ransom,
and David L Gress. "Fixation
Mechanisms in Solidification/
Stabilization- of Inorganic Hazardous
Wastes." In: Proceedings of the 38tft
Industrial Waste Conference, ed. John
M. Bell. Boston: Butterworth Publishers-,
1984,,pp. 395-401.
126 .. -"-,' .-.- ,'v';-."
Delisting Petition No. 126.
Westinghouse Electric Corporafibn.
Waste Code FflQ6.
Delisting Petition Na 161. TRW Carr
Division. Waste Code FOOff.
192 : -- - . _ .;.', ;. .' '-.' '; .;
Delisting Petition No. 192: Ghemlime
Corporation. Waste (Codes K062, D002,
F006, F007, F008, F009, F012.
548 : '.--;.; --..-'
Delisfing Petition 54'ff. The General
Motors Corporation, Fisher Body '-
Division. Waste Code FCJ06.
591 :.'; -"-. '.'. '-.'-.' -.. ".'_' ".
Delisfing Petition No. 591. D.AJB.
Industries* Inc. Waste Code FQQ6.
617 .:- ' ', , :
Delisting Petition. No. 617. BetWeheni
Steel Corporatioh. Waste Code K061^
638 :"-:;. ;" - " ' -,- - . -- - " '.-'
' Delisting Petition No. 638; Chemical
Waste .Ma:nageinent,;AA/as,teCo,de, '
-Unspecifiect,. ',--.,''
657 .,-'.- - -.!./ ''->.-: .--;>.. --. '/y: ." .
PelistiniiPetitiQh No. 657. Universal
Fasteners, Inc. Waste Codes F006,. Pods*
andFOOg. ; . : .
681 -' ,| .'"..':. .-:'"... .:- '..v;'.-:
Delisting; Petition No. 681. BethTehem
Steel Corporation. Waste Code K061.
. -
Delisting Petition No. 68&.Roanofce
ElectriaSteiel Corporation. Waste Code
K061. -.'[
D. Conclusions.
- The Agency has evaluated the:
technologies used to treat California List
metals and, cyanide wastes and its best
engineering! judgment is that wastewater
and non-wastewater California List
wastes ca-iE.be treated to achieve EP
regulatory levels or health-based
prohibitioEulevels for metals and to a
level of 20rng/l for cyanide. Given the
potential diversity of California List
wastes, the Agency does; not believe it
possible at 'this time to establish more
tailored treatment standards, and so
instead is evaluating treatment
standards achievable by a wide group of
wastes. Moire specific determinations
will be made when.rales establishing
treatment standards for Section 3004fg>
wastes are promulgated.
Table 18 summarizes 'the number of
treatment data points that achieve the
EP regulatory level for each constituent. ;
The Agency does not have treatment
data forthalh'um.. For this constituent,
we estimates that availabfe treatment
could achieve flie health-based'
prohibifioii level based on a ebmpaiisbn
of solubility products for the various
; California List metal'a and a review of
the crificat elements of effective
stabilization, fechnplogy.
TABLE 18.NUMBER OF DATAPoiwrs MEETING THE EP VALUE
Constiteent
---.-.. . ' .
" - -..--:' _. . * . . .'.--.,.
Arsenic......... ;..... " ' ;
Cadium......... '; ;i*v**" "'**«. - .
Hexavatent ctor< }. : " "
Mercury ..._.. i~- ' " """"'"' T"" .. ~....
Selenium-. ' / ~~~ ;-" - -
Thallium w , / . ^ """ "" """"" ]
Wastewater
Wo.ofusabfe
data points
co to h. te'w ig eo {
'"..' " '\
' "' :'-.:: ' -' .-'!
- .' : ' . "'-i
No. meetfng:
1 EPvafue
3
f3
7
, 15
-- s:
; 34
; Waste ofhef than wastewatsr
' No. of usable
!.'- data points '
-.- -'.' ft
v -.' -': 43-
",- '"".:. 7
,- 94
;40
; No. 'meeting'.'
1 EP value -
; - "- . tt
' .'- '.':. :-.3QF
go
-------
30036
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12. 1987 / Proposed jlules_
TABLE 18NUMBER OF DATA POINTS MEETING THE EP VALUEContinued
Constituent
GyarvWa < - ' """
Wastewater '
.No. of usable
data points
21
No. meeting v
EP value
20
Waste other than wastewater
NQ. of usable
datappints
No. meeting .
EP value
II is EPA's tentative view that these
data corroborate that the contemplated
treatment standards can be achieved by
a wide group of California List wastes.
The treatment data for all constituents
are limited, however, particularly with
respect to waste characterization data
that affect treatment and design and
operation of the technologies. The
specific data that EPA is lacking for
each California List metal and cyanide
can bo ascertained by combining the
treatment technology discussion, which
describes the data needed for an
engineering analysis of technology
performance (Section V(B)), with the
data tables that present available data
for each treated constituent (Section
V(C)). In addition, within the Agency's
data analysis discussions for each
constituent, we have highlighted the
data gaps and/or reported information
concerning various aspects of waste
characteristics, design, and operating
parameters that might affect the
Agency's preliminary conclusions that
EP regulatory levels and health-based
prohibition levels uniformly can be
achieved,
EPA is soliciting comments on all
aspects of the treatment data presented
and is again requesting additional data
that would impact on the Agency's
preliminary assessment that treatment
levels can be established at the EP
regulatory levels or at health-based
prohibition levels for the California List
metals and at a level of 20 mg/1 for
cyanide. In Section V(E), the Agency
describes the specific data needed for
its evaluation of additional data on
treatment of California List metals and
cyanide in wastewaters and wastes
other than wastewater.
£". Request for Comments
Throughout this Notice of Data
Availability, EPA has indicated that
limited data exist to analyze treatment
performance for wastes containing
California List metals and cyanide.
Existing data are only sufficient for
corroborating engineering judgment. As
noted earlier, the Agency lacks specific
treatment data (i.e. waste
characterization, design, and operating
data) for certain categories pf California
List metals and cyanides. This section
describes the specific waste
characterization and design and
operating information that should
accompany any waste treatment data
suppied to the Agency. In this section,
Iwe have only provided specific data
requests for the technologies associated
with the vast majority of the data. For
other technologies upon which
commenters wish to provide treatment
data, the commenter should refer to
Section V(B), Applicable Technologies,
for a listing of the data needed by the
Agency.
1. Wastewaters Containing California
List. Metals, Except Hexavalent
Chromium
For Wastewaters, the principal
technology used to treat California List
metals (excluding hexavalent chromium)
is chemical precipitation.
a. Waste characterization data. The
specific waste characterization data
needed to assess the performance of this
technology include:
Initial metal concentration of
untreated wastewater;
Whether the metal exists as a
complex;
Valence state for the metals,
arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury;
Other metals present in the waste;
Presence of high concentrations of
dissolved inorganic solids in solution
(i.e., salinity);
Presence of oil and grease in the
waste; and
Presence of surfactants in the
waste.
b. Design data. The Agency needs
design data on thfe treatment system
used to treat the wastes. If a continuous
chemical precipitation system was used,
EPA needs the following design data:
Design pH value arid the basis for
selection of this value (e.g., bench scale
jar test results). The commenter should
also provide the temperature at which
the design tests were performed.
Design treatment chemical(s) used
to achieve the pH value.
Design settling time, associated
untreated waste feed rate and tank size,
and the basis for selection of these
values (e.g., total suspended solids (TSS)
value from bench scale jar tests).
Include information on any flocculating
or coagulating aids used to improve _ ;
settling characteristics and reduce
required retention times. .
For batch treatment systems,,the :
Agency, needs the-same design.
information listed above, except it does
not request waste feed rate and tank
size.'
c. Operating data. The operating data
that the Agency needs to ensure that the
design conditions were being achieved
during generation of the treatment, data
are:' :. - ;:-- .-,,,...'.>. .- .
pH and temperature values
.throughout the treatment period; and
Untreated wastewater flowrates
throughout the treatment, period.
For batch systems, the Agency needs
the same information except, instead of
wastewater flowrate, we need the '
settling time and/or any operating
parameter used as a check to ensure , ,
that sufficient settling has been
accomplished (e.g., TSS, turbidity, or
metal concentration in the treated
waste).
2, Wastewaters Containing Hexavalent
Chromium ..'".''-
For wastewaters containing
,hexavalent chromium, the principal
treatment technology is chromium
reduction. .-'.-;
a. Waste characterization data. The
specific .waste characterization data
needed to assess the performance of
chromium reduction technology include:
Initial hexavalent chromium
concentration in the untreated '
wastewater; ;
Whether the hexavaleht chromium
exists as a complex; , .
Other metals that could be reduced;
and ,
Presence of oil and grease in the
waste. , - : ;
. , b. Design data. TheAgencyneeds ,
design data on the treatment system
used to treat hexavalent chromium- If a
continuous hexavalent chromium
reduction system was used, EPA needs
the following design data:
Design ORP (oxidationreduction
potential) value and the basis for
.selection, of this value (e.g., bench scale
: tests comparing ORP readings with
hexavaleht chromium concentrations).
-------
. .._. . _ _
12, .1987,7. Proposed :RuleS
'3S937-
Thecomment,er should also provide the
associated pH values;.,'-. -. ,,. -'-..." ,,! .-.:;".
.Design treatment chemicalfs). ;
? .Design .retention tinTte,-ass9.ci§ted. .
untreated waste flow rate/and tank size,
and the basis for selections ofthese
values {e.g.,JDRP value from bench scale
tGStsl '" - * .=.""",."'.* '
,. ^Forbatch;,treatmetnt.systeml;EPA
needs the same. de_sign data, exfiept it ...
does not request wa.ste.feed rate and " ;
tank size. ,.... . ,.'.: .'-_ <'.! J.v .?-.':":"/ ';"',''.
,- c. Operating clgia. The Qpeftttgig: data .
: that; the Agency/needa.to ensure that the
1de.sign cpnditiQns ,were.being'achieyed '
: during gen.eratiop.pf the tr^atnjenl: data J::
. are:. '
::,,.,; pRP;and.pH during the treatment
""peripdj and\ ._-. , . '.',--.'':'
'; Untre'atieid,ijyafte.^atgt'^qw;r^t^V,V
;during the period of treatment. '
^°U?atcJ^hex.a^9lerit .c.hjbmljiin
'.'reducfipri systems, EPA needs the;samfe
data except instead'of wastewater :
' , flowrate, the Agency neecls-the retention
time;of'the.waste.during.treatment or ''
theoperating,parameter us:e-"
..-I; : ' Initial cbrtcenfeatibn of cyariide in
the wastewater;' ; ::M':r ;;::..?'
* -Presence of ;metals that complex ';.
, with cyanide (e.g.,,iron and nickel); .
" '. Presence of metals that can be
'oxidized (e.g.; trivalent chromium and
ferrous iron); ' ' ! '' . : < ' - ;
; ''High levels of oil and grease; arid
'' '* High-levels of surfactants. " . .':
, b.^Desjgn data. TheAgeriey'needs ;
» design data on cyanide oxida'tibri;,' ;
^systems used,to -treat "free" cyariide -
wastewaters. If a contiriupus oxidation
; "systeni.was used, EPA needs the ;, , ,
following design data: ' ; - .
, *ORP design .value arid the basis for';
. selection of this value (e.g., bench scale
i .{tests comparing ORP readings with
. <'.'free" cyanide concentration).,The -'
,- . commenter should provide the . ; '
viassociatedpH,values;..>... '. . ,
, * Type of oxidizing agent arid the
?., basis for.selection;-and : '. " .-'.;
;.,;;f .Design reaction tiriie, associated ;
:.. ,,flow rate of the was.te,:and the basis for
; ..selection.of these.values (e.g:,,cyanide
:,/levels.inb,enc.h scale tests),. . ,:,.. -.-.,-.
,.:- .Forbatch treatment systems, .the .
Agency needs .the same design
informatipn except it is not requesting
waste feed rate. , .'.'-.. ;: ; ,;'.°..
.. c. Operating data. The operating data
thajt the Agency needs ,to ensure that the
design conditions were being achieved'
during generation of the treatment data
are: .; -, - -- ': . ;; -^ -. -.-.-.'-. .-.:'
ORP and pH values throughout the:
treatment period; and /
Untreated waste water flowrate
throughout the-treatment period.
' For batchisystem's, the Agency needs '
' the retention time or any operating
parameter (e.g.; cyanide concentration
or ORP) used as a check tp ensiire ' -'.''
sufficient oxidation has been ' :: : 'u'
accomplished. "-'-"' .-..: -
,4. Wastes Other Than Wastewater. ':'.-''
Containing California List Metals
For xvastes other than wastewater, '
'stabilization was the treatment
technology used in all instances. : ."
a. Wast? characterization data: The
.specific untreated waste - . ;: ,
characterization data that EPA needs -
/'are:' "' '; '.'. '.'"-.'.' "-''''..'',"'.',.">"'"''.' ,'
-"> Initial! metal cqncentratipns;f6r the
;. Untreated waste; . ';"' f:-;, '"':':''":':'>-:''''''.
:**; i Initial riietalc^centraiipns in the '
'.' untreated vv^s{igile|i^ater;':f:;.;.,' ''- '!V'::^~'''':
"'* ' ^ OtHer m^Ms preseEit; 'rj~ " . ' ;
/ ' -Presericeltofcertainidissblyed '. -'.".
;.inorganic and orgaiuc compounds ... r;-
. containing metal salts, .sulfates arid '
. borates that can affect stafailizatiori; and
: Presence of high levels of oil arid : '
-grease, -.:,, ; ... V--.>X-'" .".' '!.l;:'\iXj"'
: b. Design-daia, The Agency also: .
.needs the fpllowing design data "for, the'
stabilization "system used.tp.treat the:
waste:' .;,_ ' - ; .-..-/ V '-". , '.''-.;
: Specific stabilizing agent and other
additives used and the ratio of waste to
stabilizing.agent, arid the basis for,this '"'.'
selection (e.g., bench, scale test data). .' '
The cbmmeriter should also prpyide the
temperature and humidity at which any
bench sc.ale or othe.r design-basis tests
werep'erforined.V "VT._ f / '",'.'
.;; Design curing: time arid the basis'for '
selectjpn of this value, [e.g., unepnfbrmed
compressive strength, tests pf stabilized
waste matrix)., _..; , '-.. ." ' ". .:,:,; ",
c. Operating data, the operatiijg.data
that EPA needs to ensure that;design; ,r :.
conditions were being achieved during
generation of the treatmerit data sre: ..'
.Theratioofwaste.to.stabilizmg , :
agent; , /, . .,.;-.... ,'.,..,.. ,:/-..,;,-
. The curing time for the stabilized ,
waste including the basis for, , ; . .
determining that the waste was ",':...,:-.-,
completely stabilized (e.g.,.:cpmpressiye .
strength tests); and ,': ;V";....'.:.',..' ,.
Ambient temperature:and humidity :'
during the curing process.. .' - ,-.,..-.-: ... ,?,-.,.
VI. Alternative Treatment Capacity For
California .List Metals and Cyanides -:
.. ,, A. Volumes Requmng Alternative ; ":
.'.- Capacity'f.^r.;* " ' :;:.t.---.;-.- ^';-;i>-.,
For promulgation of the California Hst
final rule (52 PR '^5760, July 8,1987), EPA
estimated that the maximum volumes of
metal-and cyanide wastes- that would -'
requite alterriative treatmerit capacity
_- would be 8,440 million gallons-of metal '.
: -Wastes per year, arid 690 million gallons
; ; of cyaniSe wastes per year .(see , .;'
Wckgrpurid:pOcunierit;fpr California list
wastesfinal rule); (These volumes",:'"- :
' howeyerV dp not include hazardous ' .
wastes1 beiri:g injected pursuant to the
UndergroundrIrijection,Coritr6r:
Prbgram.) These volume's represent the.:
maxiriiurri possible voiunie of California
list was.tes, rather than the vblume of v/
wastes Which exceed the statutory ' "
, ^Prohibition1 leivels. T/he' vdluriie estimates
are:based oii'the 1981 RIA Mail Survey,,
which cbritainBd very littlerquantitative
conceritral:idri;data. Therefore, these ' '' '
, vplumes include all hazardous wa'ste
/streams that Were land: disposed and ^
'that cph.tiairibd any cyanides oV ' :'"
; ;Paltfprni3 liist metals., TMAgeijcy: alsp !'.v'
".eslimitedjth^fofthesewastes,25 : ' '-',\:\
riiilljori galipns cpui;d'be.cyariide-bearing-''
sludges, .and'bver 1,455 millipri galibns '' '
^. could.be metal'bearing sludges. fTh'e f ' :
.;. Agency/expEicts 'that theseiwastes would;
;be treated by solidification or other -non- -
wastewater treatmerit technbrpgies,-' '-
Awhile the remaining wastewaters would
be treated by wastewater; treatment
technologies, x.j.'-/:-.'/. ';;'.-'"i-:-"'-
EPArecpgnizes^ejimitatjons Of the ,.;:'
;data bases fc)r:estimating Volumes - : '.:.:
affected by tlie.ealifprnia'list rule, and ' .;.
. thus requestsi data indicating the ' ,.'-.:'.' ' ',
, volumes of pastes that would-be .]--.; ; ';'
affected if EF^A, lowers the restriction , .
levels. EPA,requests that cbmmenters" ;
differejitiate among specific metal- ; .
^bearing (i.e., .p,seriic,:.cadmium,, ; '.: ' .;-':
. chroriiium,,lei3d,jmer:cUry, nickel,; ,., ...,-
selenium, or thallium} and cyanide^ : "-i -'"..-;;/'
cpntairiingwasteS: that currently are : L,,::
land disposed. In additiori, the' ,-- -.; '.,,;' ;'V
conimenters sihould indicate,whether the' -
waste is a wastewater, or a sludge or .
: solid.that.either.is a liquid (as defined '. :,
by,the PFLT) br is derived from treating;
a liquid waste that .contains greater than'---:
the prohibition levels {i.e., the.EP' : ,
regulatorylevels or analogous health- ,
based levels),of California list; ' . ;.'.- .,,
constituents/discussed in this:notice, ; . "
Cpmmenters.should also indicate :,: --:...-;
managenient irie.thods currently used for
.)hese,wastes, ;and address whether the
wastes meet the treatment standards, .;
under consideration in this notice. .
-------
30038-30040
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 155 / Wednesday. August 12. 1987 / Proposed^Rules
R Alternative Treatment Capacity
EPA currently has limited information
on available alternative treatment for
metals and cyanides. Analysis of the
1981 RIA Mail Survey indicated a
limited amount of commercial capacity.
However, comments on the proposed
CaWornia Usl rule indicate that there
have been significant changes in
commercial capacity since the 1981
survey. Thus, EPA is requesting
information on the volume of available
commercial capacity for treatment of
melfih and cyanides capable of
achieving the prohibition levels
discussed in this notice. In addition,
some commenters have indicated that
additional on-site capacity exists that
could be used to manage California list
wastes that were also generated on-site.
Certain facilities may already have en-
sile treatment systems or may have
impoundments satisfying the § 268.4 and
RCRA suction 3005(j)(ll) criteria to
handle these California list wastes. In
addition, some facilities may be able to
expand or upgrade their existing
treatment capacity quickly to handle
their California list wastes. Thus, EPA is
requesting information with respect to
on-site treatment capacity, particularly
capacity built after 1980. In addition,
EPA is also requesting information on
the time needed to develop new
capacity, especially the time needed to
develop large treatment systems.
Commenters should address all steps in
development of capacity: general
plant ing, engineering design and plans.
bid solicitation and evaluation,
construction and start-up.
C. Possible National Capacity
Variances ' ' ..,.'"..
The greatest volumes of potential, ,
California list wastes shown in the 1981
survey are wastewaters managed in ,
surface impoundments. 51 FR 44732.
These wastes could require alternative.
treatment capacity in non-land based
units (presumably tanks) or in retrofitted
surface impoundments satisfying
§ 268.4. Commenters to the proposed
California list rule have stressed the
difficulties in installing alternative
treatment systems without substantial
delay. EPA has noted that these
comments have merit in many cases. If
the volumes of metal-bearing and
cyanide-containing wastes needing
alternative treatment exceed available
capacity, the Agency would consider
granting national capacity variances.
EPA believes the maximum duration
of such a variance would be November
8,1988, the date on which most interim
status surface impoundments must meet
minimum technology requirements, or
cease receiving, storing or treating
hazardous wastes (RCRA section
3005(j)(l)). If affected-facilities do not
retrofit their surf ace impoundments to
comply with these requirements, these
facilities must develop alternative
treatment systems on-site (e.g., tank
treatment), or transport the wastes off-
site for treatment. The Agency expects
that facilities which generate certain
large volume flows will either retrofit
surface impoundments to meet the
3005(jj(l) requirements,^ install tank
treatmentsystems as necessary. New
capacity developed to comply with'the
minimum technology requirements,
along with existing commercial :
capacity, should provide sufficient.-
capacity,for California list metals and
"cyanides beyond November 8,1988. The
Agency solicits comments on this
tentative conclusion.
VII. Alternative Procedures lor
Treatability Variances
The Agency noticed for comment in
the December 11,1986 proposed rule the
issue of using non-rulemaking
procedures for processing treatability
variances (§ 268.44). 51 FR 44729. In the
recent final rulemaking on California list
hazardous wastes (52 FR 25760), the
Agency determined that treatment
method equivalency petitions
(§ 268.42(b)) need not be processed by
rulemaking where the relief sought
would not have generic applicability
and effect: 52 FR 25780. The Agency
believes tentatively that this same
reasoning could apply to the analogous
treatability variance and therefore
solicits,further comment on the issue .of
amending § 268.44 so that informal
rulemaking procedures are not
mandated for all applications.
Dated: July 24,1987.
]. Winston Porter,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR.Doc. 87^17882 Filed 8-41-87; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M '
------- |