x>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste
Washington, D C 20460
A'.'.-iust 1988
530-SW-88-049
Solid Waste
Background Document For
First Third Wastes To
Support 40 CFR Part 268
Land Disposal Restrictions
Final Rule
First Third Waste Volumes,
Characteristics, and Required
and Available Treatment
Capacity
-------
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
FOR
FIRST THIRD WASTES TO SUPPORT 40 CFR PART
268 LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
FINAL RULE
FIRST THIRD WASTE VOLUMES, CHARACTERISTICS,
AND REQUIRED AND AVAILABLE TREATMENT CAPACITY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
August 1988
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (Pt-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floot
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Legal Background 1-1
1.2 Summary of Previous Land Disposal Restrictions 1-2
1.2.1 Solvents and Dioxins 1-3
1.2.2 California List 1-4
1.2.3 First Third Wastes Proposed Rule 1-6
1.3 Introduction to Today's Final Rule 1-9
2.0 OVERVIEW 2-1
2.1 General Methodology 2-1
2.1.1 Data Set Development 2-1
2.1.2 Capacity Analysis Methodology 2-10
2.2 Results 2-15
2.2.1 All RCRA Wastes 2-15
2.2.2 Solvents 2-18
2.2.3 Non-Solvent RCRA Wastes Containing
Halogenated Organic Compounds 2-22
2.2.4 First Third Wastes 2-28
2.2.5 Waste Code Specific Capacity Analysis 2-34
2.2.6 Contaminated Soils 2-84
3.0 CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 3-1
3.1 Determination of Required Treatment Capacity 3-1
3.1.1 Waste Volumes Affected 3-1
3.1.2 Treatability Analysis 3-8
3.2 Determination of Available Treatment Capacity "... 3-15
3.2.1 Determination of Combustion Capacity 3-15
3.2.2 Determination of Other Treatment
System Capacities 3-22
3.2.3 Development of the Treatment Capacity
Data Set and Results 3-39
3.3 Capacity Analysis (Comparison of Required and
and Available Treatment Capacity) 3-47
4.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 4-1
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page No,
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Capacity Analysis for Solvent Wastes A-l
Appendix B - Capacity Analysis for California List
Halogenated Organic Compound Wastes B-l
Appendix C - Capacity Analysis for Contaminated Soil Wastes C-l
Appendix D - Treatability Groups D-l
Appendix E - Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technology Groups E-l
Appendix F - Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technologies F-l
in
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
Table 1-1 First Third Promulgated Wastes 1-10
Table 2-1 Overview of All RCRA Hazardous Waste 2-16
Table 2-2 Overview of Solvents 2-19
Table 2-3 Solvent Capacity Analysis 2-21
Table 2-4 Overview of Potential California List Wastes
Containing Halogenated Organic Compounds 2-23
Table 2-5 Overview of First Third Promulgated Wastes
Containing Halogenated Organic Compounds 2-24
Table 2-6 Overview of All Other Wastes Containing
Halogenated Organic Compounds 2-25
Table 2-7 Capacity Analysis for HOC Wastes 2-27
Table 2-8 Overview of All First Third Wastes 2-28
Table 2-9 Overview of First Third Promulgated Wastes 2-30
Table 2-10 1988 Capacity Analysis for First Third
Promulgated Wastes 2-31
Table 2-11 Overview of First Third Wastes Not Being
Promulgated 2-35
Table 2-12 Capacity Analysis for F006 2-38
Table 2-13 Capacity Analysis for K001 2-42
Table 2-14 Capacity Analysis for K016 2-44
Table 2-15 Capacity Analysis for K019 2-46
Table 2-16 Capacity Analysis for K020 2-48
Table 2-17 Capacity Analysis for K022 2-50
Table 2-18 Capacity Analysis for K024 2-52
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No.
Table 2-19 Capacity Analysis for K030 2-54
Table 2-20 Capacity Analysis for K037 2-56
Table 2-21 Capacity Analysis for K046 2-60
Table 2-22 Capacity Analysis for K048-K052 2-62
Table 2-23 Capacity Analysis for K061 2-68
Table 2-24 Capacity Analysis for K062 2-72
Table 2-25 Capacity Analysis for K071 2-75
Table 2-26 Capacity Analysis for K083 2-77
Table 2-27 Capacity Analysis for K086 2-79
Table 2-28 Capacity Analysis for K087 2-81
Table 2-29 Capacity Analysis for K101 and K102 2-83
Table 2-30 Capacity Analysis for K103 2-85
Table 2-31 Capacity Analysis for K104 2-87
Table 2-32 Volume of Contaminated Soils Land Disposed 2-89
Table 2-33 Contaminated Soils Capacity Analysis 2-90
Table 3-1 Commercial Hazardous Waste Incineration
Capacity 3-41
Table 3-2 Commercial Capacity of Industrial Kilns for
"Reuse as Fuel" of Hazardous Waste 3-42
Table 3-3 Commercial Treatment System Capacities 3-46
Table 3-4 Overview: 1988 Capacity for Alternative
Treatment/Recovery Technologies 3-48
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page No.
Figure 3-1 Process Codes 3-24
Figure 3-2 Flow Diagram of a Simple System 3-27
Figure 3-3 Flow Diagram of Three Systems With Unit
Process Capacities 3-28
Figure 3-4 Flow Diagram of One System With Two Units
Conducting the Same Process 3-30
Figure 3-5 Flow Diagram with Unit Capacities 3-32
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document supports the final land disposal restriction rule for
First Thirds wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). It includes estimates of the quantities of wastes that will
require alternative treatment or recovery prior to land disposal under
the treatment standards set by that rule and estimates of the
availability of alternative treatment and recovery capacity to
accommodate these diverted wastes. It also includes a reassessment of
capacity analyses developed for wastes covered by previous rules the
solvent wastes and California List Halogenated Organic Compound (HOC)
wastes in the light of new data.
As of this rulemaking, all capacity analyses supporting the land
disposal restrictions program will be based on data developed from the
National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and
Recycling Facilities (the TSDR Survey). The TSDR Survey is a census of
all RCRA-permitted and interim status hazardous waste treatment,
disposal, and recycling facilities; it also contains a representative
sample of hazardous waste storage facilities. The data set developed
from this survey provides detailed information on the volume and
characteristics of wastes currently sent to land disposal facilities and
on both the current and planned capacity of treatment and recovery
facilities.
-------
Legal Background
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA, enacted
November 8, 1984, set basic new priorities for hazardous waste
management. Land disposal, which has been the most widely used method
for managing hazardous waste, is now the least preferred option. Under
HSWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must promulgate
regulations restricting the land disposal of hazardous wastes according
to a strict statutory schedule. As of the effective date of each
regulation, land disposal of untreated wastes covered by that regulation
is prohibited unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no
migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal unit for as long as
the waste remains hazardous.
The statutory schedule set by HSWA divided hazardous wastes into
three broad categories. The first group, which contained wastes
restricted under regulations issued on November 8, 1986, include generic
solvent and dioxin wastes. The second group, whose final rule was issued
on July 8, 1987, covers a group of wastes originally listed by the State
of California and adopted intact within HSWA: the California List
wastes comprise 5 classes of wastes: liquid hazardous wastes with a pH of
less than 2.0 (acidic wastes); all liquid hazardous wastes containing
free cyanides, various metals, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
exceeding statutory concentration levels; and all wastes (liquid or
solid) containing halogenated organic compounds (HOCs) in concentrations
-------
greater than or equal to statutory levels. All hazardous wastes (except
those covered by the solvents and dioxins rule) fall into the last
category, scheduled wastes; HSWA requires EPA to promulgate regulations
for these wastes on a timetable that would restrict at least one-third of
them by August 8, 1988 (today's rule), at least two-thirds by June 8,
1989, and the rest by May 8, 1990.
Under the Land Disposal Restrictions Program, EPA must set levels or
methods of treatment that substantially reduce the toxicity of a waste or
the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste.
Where possible, EPA prefers to define treatment in terms of performance
rather than in terms of specific technical methods. HSWA requires,
however, that levels specified in the regulations be demonstrated and
achievable. Accordingly, EPA's standards are generally based on the
performance of the best demonstrated available technology (BOAT), as
documented by treatment data collected at well-designed and well-operated
systems.
The land disposal restrictions are effective immediately upon
promulgation unless the Agency grants a national variance from the
statutory date because of a lack of available capacity. For every waste
group, EPA considers, on a national basis, both the capacity of available
treatment or recovery technologies and the quantity of restricted wastes
currently sent to land disposal. If the Agency determines that adequate
alternative treatment or recovery capacity is available for a particular
waste or waste group, the land disposal restriction goes into effect
-------
immediately upon promulgation of the rule. If not, the Agency
establishes an alternative effective date based on the earliest date on
which adequate treatment or recovery capacity will be available.
Summary of Capacity Analyses for Previous Land Disposal Restrictions
Previous rules under the land disposal restrictions program include
the final rules for solvent and dioxin wastes and the California List
wastes, and the proposed rule for the First Thirds wastes. Capacity
analyses for these waste groups relied on the best data available at the
time. Their results are summarized below.
Solvents and Dioxins
The November 8, 1986, rule (51 FR 40572) set treatment standards for
F001/F005 spent solvent wastes and F020/023 and F026/F028 dioxin wastes.
These standards were expressed as concentration limits in waste
extracts. Waste exceeding these limits were banned from land disposal.
The capacity analysis supporting this rule relied primarily on data
from the 1981 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) Mail Survey (for volumes
analysis) and a telephone verification and clarification of information
provided in the 1986 National Screening Survey for information on
capacity. Using the physical and chemical characteristics reported for
each waste stream, EPA identified one or more technologies that it
believed would be used to meet the treatment standards for that waste
stream. It concluded the following:
-------
1. Solvents: The capacity analysis indicated shortages of necessary
incineration and wastewater treatment capacity. EPA therefore
granted a 2 year national capacity variance to CERCLA and RCRA
corrective action wastes, small quantity generator wastes, and the
solvent containing wastes with less than 1 percent total F005/F005
solvent constituents (40 CFR 268.30).
2. Dioxins: Estimated shortages of incineration capacity led EPA to
grant a 2 year national capacity variance to dioxin-containing wastes
(51 FR 40617).
The final First Thirds rule reanalyzed these conclusions using
information from the TSDR Survey data set.
California List Wastes
Unlike the solvents and dioxins rule, the California List rule is not
waste code specific. For HOC wastes, the July 8, 1987, rule (52 FR
25760) established incineration as BOAT. For PCBs, EPA defined BOAT as
thermal treatment in accordance with 40 CFR 761.60. The Agency adopted
the statutory limits for acidic corrosive wastes, but did not promulgate
a treatment standard for those wastes. The final rule did not establish
prohibition levels for metal or cyanide wastes; a final determination for
these wastes was to be made in a separate rulemaking.
As for the solvents rule, the capacity analysis for the California
List relied primarily on the 1981 RIA Mail Survey for information on
volumes and on a telephone verification and clarification of information
provided in the 1986 National Screening Survey for information on
capacity. As before, it assigned estimated volumes of wastes that would
be subject to the rule to treatment technologies that would be generally
applicable to these wastes. The analysis concluded:
-------
1. Cyanide and metal wastes: Since the rule did not specify a treatment
standard for these wastes, land disposal is still allowed after the
wastes have been rendered nonliquid. The Agency therefore concluded
that adequate capacity for these wastes exists, and did not grant a
capacity variance for them.
2. PCB wastes: The analysis projected adequate capacity for these
wastes.
3. Acidic corrosive wastes: Since the rule did not specify a treatment
standard for these wastes, land disposal is still allowed after the
wastes have been rendered nonliquid. The Agency therefore concluded
that adequate capacity for these wastes exists, and did not grant a
capacity variance for them.
4. HOC wastes: The capacity analysis projected shortages of
incineration capacity for HOC wastes. The Agency therefore granted a
2 year national capacity variance for HOC wastes requiring
incineration.
Similar to the solvent and dioxin wastes, the final First Thirds rule
includes a reanalysis of required and available treatment capacity for
California List HOC wastes using information from the TSDR Survey data
set.
First Thirds Wastes
The final First Thirds rule contains an analysis of required and
available treatment capacity for all First Third wastes based on
information from the TSDR Survey.
Methodology
The capacity analysis for final First Thirds rule, and the reanalysis
of capacity for wastes granted variances under previous rules, was based
primarily on the TSDR Survey. Review of that survey is discussed below,
-------
followed by a general summary of the methodology used for the various
capacity analyses. Detailed discussions of the capacity methodologies
applied to individual wastes can be found in the full text of this
report.
Review of of the TSDR Survey
The TSDR Survey was mailed to over 2,625 facilities in August of
1987. The deadline for review and analysis of data in support of the
proposed First Thirds rule was April 11, 1988, by which time 2,261
facilities had returned their surveys: All but 115 facilities had
returned their surveys by July 22, 1988, which was the deadline for
consideration of additional data to support the final rule. A summary of
responses that were available for this report is shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Summary of Responses on TSDR Survey Supporting
the Capacity Analysis for First Thirds Wastes
Management Facilities
Technique Reporting
Land disposal 449
Commercial treatment 371
Other commercial 106
treatment and recovery
processes
Commercial 49
combustion
For those facilities that had not returned their surveys by the July
22 deadline, some data were gathered by phone from these facilities, and,
where available, other sources were used for critical items.
-------
The baseline year for the TSDR Survey was 1986. The survey also
requested estimated data on planned changes to existing processes and any
new processes planned for the years 1987 through 1992; responses were
based on plans current when the surveys were filled out.
The general categories of data gathered on treatment and recovery
processes are shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Categories of Data on Treatment and Recovery
Facilities Reported in the TSDR Survey
Category of Data
Description
General categories
(including new or planned
processes)
Key parameters
Waste types
Capacity
Residuals
Equipment
(type of unit)
Type of process
Operating status
Commercial status
Feed rates (by physical form)
Operating hours
Pollution controls
Waste codes managed in 1986
Restrictions or specifications
for waste managed (commercial
facilities only)
Maximum capacity (by physical
form)
Utilization rate for 1986
Planned changes
Quantity generated (by physical
form, percent hazardous)
Further management
Tanks
Containers
Thermal treatment units
Land disposal units (e.g.,
surface impoundments, waste
piles)
-------
The TSDR Survey was designed to provide detailed information on the
types and quantities of all RCRA hazardous waste managed, by specific
land disposal or land placement practice, at all RCRA permitted and
interim status facilities. It also provides waste characterization data
that, although limited, are adequate for identifying applicable treatment
or recovery technologies. These include:
• RCRA waste code (or codes, if more than one is applicable)
• Waste description (physical and chemical form, qualitative
information on hazardous constituents)
• Industry description (general information describing the
industries that generated each type of waste reported at a
particular facility)
• Quantities of wastes that entered land disposal or land
placement in 1986
• Residuals information (if a waste was actually a residual from
onsite hazardous waste management operations)
General categories of data gathered on land disposal units are shown
on Table 3.
-------
Table 3. Categories of Data on Land Disposal and Land
Placement Units Reported in the TSDR Survey
Category of Data Description
General categories Type of unit
Type of process
Permit status (interim status
or permit)
Commercial status
Operating status
Closure plans
Key parameters Liner type (plans for
upgrading)*
Pollution controls
Waste types Waste types and quantities
managed in 1986
Restrictions of specifications
for waste managed
(commercial facilities
only)
Capacity Design capacity
Utilization rate for 1986
Remaining capacity
Planned changes
Residuals Quantities of effluents and
dredged solids
Further management
Allows distinguishing minimum technology requirements.
10
-------
Owners and operators were asked to report on the volume and
characteristics of wastes being land disposed at their site and to
provide technical information and capacity data on available hazardous
waste treatment and recovery technologies. They furnished historical
data on calendar year 1986 activities and estimated data on planned
activities, including changes in capacity, through 1992. Data from the
TSDR Survey was given technical review to ensure completeness,
consistency, and accuracy at the facility level. Analysts considered and
reviewed facility responses to essentially every question in the survey,
including general and detailed schematic diagrams of all onsite hazardous
waste management operations, and followed quality assurance and quality
control procedures throughout the review and reporting of all data used.
Facility followup by phone was often necessary to complete certain parts
or questions of the survey and to verify any corrections that were made.
Additional data sources were used only when necessary to fill obvious
data gaps in the TSDR Survey. These sources primarily provided
supplemental data for facilities that were late in responding to the
survey, or for facilities that had provided incomplete responses and
either would not or could not assist EPA in completing their responses.
Methodology Used for Capacity Analysis
EPA has assessed the adequacy of current capacity on a
waste-stream-by-waste-stream basis, comparing required capacity with
available capacity. Linking required and available capacity depended on
11
-------
defining a waste's treatability those chemical and physical parameters
that determine its suitability for various treatment or recovery
technologies.
Required Capacity
The required capacity (or capacity demand) for a given waste is equal
to the volumes of that waste that will be diverted from land disposal and
require alternative treatment or recovery by the provisions of the
applicable land disposal restriction rule. Capacity demands are
therefore strongly dependent on the exact treatment standard defined for
each waste, which, as noted above, is in turn dependent on the
performance of the appropriate best demonstrated and available technology
(BOAT).
Wastes were sorted into groups according to both land disposal
practices of concern and treatability. The land disposal practices of
concern under HSWA include treatment, storage, and disposal in surface
impoundments, treatment or storage in waste piles, land treatment, and
disposal in landfills. The analysis included adjustments for the rule
that allows treatment in surface impoundments to be conducted only in
impoundments meeting minimum technological requirements; wastes treated
in min-tech surface impoundments were dropped from further analysis since
these wastes are no longer considered as prohibited from land disposal.
Treatability assessments were made on the basis of waste code and
physical/chemical form and characteristics. Each treatability group was
then assigned to the applicable BOAT technology. For instance, all
12
-------
wastes requiring sludge incineration would be placed in the same
treatability group. Combined waste streams (i.e., waste streams
described by more than one waste code), and wastes of a unique or complex
nature, pose special problems because they often require multiple types
of treatment. In these cases, EPA identified treatment trains
combinations of technologies in sequence that could treat all components
within the treatability group. Finally, some treatment methods create
hazardous residuals that in turn require treatment prior to land
disposal. In these cases, the Agency estimated the quantities of
hazardous residuals generated by treatment and included these in capacity
demand estimates.
Available Capacity
Available capacity is the difference between maximum capacity and
currently utilized capacity. It is defined initially at the facility
level and then aggregated upward to the national level.
In the TSDR Survey, facility-level data were reported on a unit
process basis. To obtain estimates of available capacity that could be
directly compared with capacity demand, survey data had to be analyzed at
the facility level in terms of treatment systems. A treatment system is
defined as one or more different processes used together in one or more
units to treat or recover waste. Capacity of the treatment system may
be limited by the capacity of one or more unit processes within the
system.
13
-------
Capacity Analysis
Estimating the adequacy of capacity at the national level involves
comparisons of required and available capacity. The capacity analysis
considered all types of capacity separately private facilities, certain
limited commercial facilities (i.e., private facilities that accept
outside wastes from commercial waste brokers for a fee), and commercial
facilities.
Balancing of supply and demand must take into account the commercial
status of each treatment system and facility. The available capacity of
systems identified as private can only be assigned to wastes sent to land
disposal at that site. Wastes diverted from land disposal for which
alternative onsite treatment or recovery capacity does not exist becomes
part of the aggregate demand for commercial capacity offsite.
The comparative capacity analysis on which the First Thirds rule is
based takes into account the sequential and cumulative effects of
previous land disposal restrictions, and projected capacity changes (both
expansions and contractions) after 1986, the TSDR Survey baseline year.
In actually carrying out the capacity analysis, EPA did not follow the
chronological sequence of the rules (solvents/dioxins, California list,
First Thirds).
Solvent and dioxin wastes were assigned to available capacity first,
then First Thirds wastes, then California List wastes, and finally
estimated contaminated soils wastes. This was done because the First
Thirds wastes are waste-code specific and can therefore be analyzed more
14
-------
accurately than can the generically defined California List wastes. For
clarity, however, the results below are shown in the chronological order
of the HSWA schedule of rules
Results
All RCRA Wastes
Table 4 below presents estimates of the total volume of RCRA wastes
managed through some form of land disposal on an annual basis. These
numbers represent the sums of all waste volumes managed by treatment,
storage, or disposal in land disposal units. To standardize comparisons,
data reported in tons were converted to gallons at a ratio of 240
gallons/ton, based on the density of water. These estimates are based on
reported 1986 volumes and do not include wastes managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or that will be retrofitted
to meet minimum technology requirements by 1988.
Table 4. Estimates of 1986 Land Disposal Wastes
Volumes/Basis: TSDR Survey
Total RCRA/
Land Disposal Volume/Method (million gallons per year)
Storage only
Waste piles 92
Surface impoundments 126
Treatment
Waste piles . 63
Surface impoundments 1,521
Disposal
Landfills 600
Land treatment 83
Surface impoundments 218
Total 2,703
15
-------
These estimates have also been adjusted to eliminate any
double-counting of volumes through sequential placing of wastes in
multiple units, such as storage followed by disposal.
These land disposal volumes are apportioned among the rules of
concern as follows: A total of 113 million gallons per year of wastes
falling under the solvent rule are sent to land disposal, as are 34
million gallons of California list HOC wastes (this last figure includes
16 million gallons of HOC wastes that are covered by both the California
List and the First Thirds rule; to avoid double counting, these are being
included with the First Thirds), and 861 million gallons of First Thirds
wastes.
Not all these wastes require commercial capacity evaluations,
however. Some wastes are only being stored on site. Others either
already meet BOAT requirements for land disposal, or will be treated on
site prior to any disposal. Finally, the Agency is not proposing
treatment standards for some wastes within the First Third; these wastes
will be subject to the soft hammer provisions and may be sent to land
disposal until 1990, or until EPA defines a treatment standard, whichever
comes first.
Note that BOAT treatment for some wastes results in the generation of
hazardous residuals that require treatment, and therefore require
allocation to available treatment capacity. In total, 4 million gallons
of hazardous residuals will be generated each year by the solvents waste
streams and 18 million gallons by the First Thirds wastes.
16
-------
Solvent Wastes
Using the TSDR Survey data set, EPA estimates that 42 million gallons
per year of solvents wastes currently disposed of on land will require
alternative treatment or recovery capacity in commercial facilities.
Commercial capacity requirements for solvents are shown on Table 5.
Table 5. Commercial Capacity Requirements for Solvent
Wastes/Basis: TSDR Survey
Available Commercial Required
Commercial/ Capacity (million Capacity
Technology gallons per year) (million gallons
per year)
Combustion
Liquids 275 1
Sludges/solids 47 38
Stabilization 499 4
Wastewater treatment
Cyanide oxidation 159 <1
Steam stripping
Carbon adsorption
Biological treatment
Wet air oxidation
66
The results of the analysis indicate that adequate capacity exists
for the volume of solvent wastes requiring alternative treatment/recovery
capacity.
California List HOC Wastes
Using the TSDR Survey data set, EPA estimates that approximately 4
million gallons per year of California List HOC wastes currently sent to
land disposal will require alternative treatment or recovery capacity.
17
-------
HOC wastes that also contain solvent wastes (F001/F005) or First Third
wastes for which treatment standards are being promulgated today were
included in the analyses for those rules and are therefore not included
in the volume of HOC wastes. Commercial capacity requirements are shown
on Table 6 below.
Table 6. Commercial Capacity Requirements for California
List HOC Wastes/Basis: TSDR Survey
Available Commercial Required
Commercial/ Capacity (million Capacity
Technology gallons per year) (million gallons
per year)
Combustion/
Liquids 274 <1
Sludge/solids 9 2
Wastewater treatment for HOCs
Steam stripping
Carbon adsorption
Biological treatment
Wet air oxidation
64
The Agency had previously granted a 2 year national capacity variance
to HOC wastes requiring incineration. Since it has now determined that
adequate capacity does exist for the volume of HOC wastes requiring
combustion, the Agency is rescinding the capacity variance for HOC wastes
requiring combustion.
First Thirds Wastes
Using the TSDR Survey data set, EPA estimates that 431 million
gallons per year of First Thirds wastes affected by today's final rule
are currently sent to land disposal and will therefore require
18
-------
alternative treatment or recovery capacity. First Third wastes that also
contain solvent wastes (F001/F005) were included in the solvent analysis
and therefore are not included in the volume of First Third wastes.
Commercial capacity requirements are shown on Table 7 below.
Table 7. Commercial Capacity Requirements for First
Third Wastes
Commercial/
Technology
Combustion
Liquids
Sludges/sol ids
Stabilization
Solvent extraction
Metals recovery
High temperature metals
Wastewater treatment
Chromium reduction
Carbon adsorption and
Chromium reduction
Sludge treatment
Available Commercial
Capacity (million
gallons per year)
274
7
495
1
34
260
12
0
Required
Capacity
(mill ion gallons
per year)
6*/160
231
0*/154
62
40
1
4
6 million gallons of non K048/K052 wastes require sludge/solids
combustion. The amount of K048/K052 sludges/solids requiring
combustion, or ssolvent extraction, is 154 million gallons.
K061 is assigned to both high temperature metals recovery and to
stabilization because stabilization will be the interim BOAT standard
for this waste during the 2 year national capacity variance granted
for high temperature metals recovery.
19
-------
This analysis indicates a serious shortage of capacity for
sludges/solids combustion, solvent extraction, metals recovery, and
sludge treatment. The Agency is therefore granting a 2 year national
capacity variance to K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052 wastes requiring
sludges/solids combustion or solvent extraction, K061 wastes requiring
high temperature metals recovery (although such wastes are subject in the
interim to a standard based on stabilization), and K071 wastes requiring
sludge treatment.
Table 8 below presents commercial capacity requirements for the First
Third wastes affected by today's proposed rule, taking into account the
exclusion of volumes of wastes for which the Agency is granting capacity
variances.
Table 8. Commercial Capacity Requirements for First Third
Wastes Including Allowance for Capacity Variances
Available Commercial Required
Commercial/ Capacity (million Capacity
Technology gallons per year) (million gallons
per year)
Combustion
Liquids 274 <1
Sludges/solids 7 6
Stabilization 495 214
Metals recovery
High temperature metals 34 0
Wastewater treatment
Chromium reduction 260 40
Carbon adsorption and
chromium reduction 12 0
Sludge treatment 0 0
20
-------
The results of this adjusted analysis show that adequate capacity
does exist for the other First Third wastes covered for which the Agency
is promulgating treatment standards.
Contaminated Soils
Because of the unique regulatory and treatability issues associated
with contaminated soils, such wastes have been evaluated separately.
Using the TSDR data set, EPA estimates that 69 million gallons per year
of contaminated soils currently sent to land disposal will require
alternative commercial treatment or recovery capacity.
Estimates of available capacity for contaminated soils were
determined after first assigning the available national capacity to the
non-soil solvent, First Third, and HOC wastes. Commercial capacity
requirements for contaminated soils are shown on Table 9 below.
Table 9. Commercial Capacity Requirements for
Contaminated Soils
Commercial/
Technology
Combustion of soils
contaminated with:
Solvents
First Third wastes
HOC wastes
Stabilization of soils
contaminated with:
Solvents
First Third wastes
Available Commercial
Capacity (million
gallons per year)
264
Required
Capacity
(million gallons
per year)
26
12
i
42
10
II
27
21
-------
The analysis shows that adequate capacity exists for the volume of
soils requiring stabilization. Adequate capacity does not exist,
however, for the volume of soils requiring combustion. Thus, the Agency
is granting a 2-year variance for soils requiring combustion.
HSWA also affects disposal in salt dome and salt bed formations,
underground mines, and caves. Data on this type of disposal are,
however, insufficient for the purposes of this rule, and they have not
been addressed in this analysis. Underground (deepwell) injection,
another form of land disposal, will be covered under a separate
rulemaking and therefore is not analyzed here.
22
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This section contains a brief summary of the legal background on the
Land Disposal Restrictions Program, a summary of the results of capacity
analyses to support prior restrictions, and an introduction to the
capacity analysis for those wastes analyzed for this rule.
1.1 Legal Background
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HWSA) to RCRA, enacted on
November 8, 1984, require the Agency to promulgate regulations that
restrict the land disposal of hazardous wastes. Specifically, the
amendments specify dates when particular groups of hazardous wastes are
restricted from land disposal unless it has been demonstrated that there
will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal unit for
as long as the waste remains hazardous.
The amendments also require the Agency to set levels or methods of
treatment that substantially reduce the toxicity of the waste or the
likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste. Wastes
that meet treatment standards established by EPA are not prohibited and
may be land disposed.
In the November 7, 1986, rulemaking (51 FR 40572), EPA promulgated a
technology-based approach to establishing treatment standards. These
treatment standards are generally based on the performance of the best
demonstrated available technology (BOAT) identified for the hazardous
constituents in a particular waste. EPA may establish treatment
1-1
-------
standards based on the performance of the BOAT treatment either as a
specific technology or as concentration levels in the waste or treatment
residual.
The land disposal restrictions are effective immediately upon
promulgation unless the Agency grants a national capacity variance from
the statutory date based a lack of adequate alternative capacity. To
make this determination, EPA considers, on a national basis, both the
capacity of alternative treatment/recovery technologies and the quantity
of restricted wastes being land disposed. If adequate capacity is
available, the restriction on land disposal goes into effect immediately
upon promulgation. If there is a shortfall in national capacity, EPA may
establish an alternative effective date based on the earliest date on
which adequate capacity that is protective of human health and the
environment will be available.
1.2 Summary of Previous Land Disposal Restrictions
Presented in this section is a summary of the results of the capacity
analyses to support previous land disposal restrictions. These analyses
were performed using the best data available at the time to develop
national estimates of the amount of waste land disposed and of available
alternative commercial treatment capacity. Analyses of waste volumes
affected considered the combination of waste code, physical/chemical
form, and type of restricted management practice for determination of the
amount of alternative capacity required.
1-2
-------
1.2.1 Solvents and Dioxins
The Land Disposal Restrictions Program began with the promulgation of
the solvents and dioxins final rule on November 7, 1986 (51 £R 40572).
The final rule encompassed F001-F005 spent solvent wastes and F020-F023
and F026-F028 dioxin wastes, and it established treatment standards
expressed as concentrations in the waste extract. The rule prohibits
land disposal of solvent and dioxin wastes unless the wastes contain less
than the specified concentrations of hazardous constituents.
For that final rule, EPA performed an analysis of required and
available treatment/recovery capacity. The Agency used the 1981
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) Mail Survey to identify the volume of
land-disposed solvent wastes subject to the restrictions. Although EPA
did not establish required treatment technologies for these wastes, the
Agency used the physical and chemical characteristics that were reported
for each waste stream to identify the technology or technologies that EPA
assumed would be used to meet the treatment standards. The waste volumes
were distributed among the applicable technologies as shown below:
Waste stream
Solvent-water mixtures
Organic liquids
Organic sludges
Inorganic sludges or solids
Applicable treatment and
recovery technologies
Wastewater treatment
Distillation
Fuel substitution
Incineration
Fuel substitution
Incineration
Incineration
1-3
-------
After identifying the required alternative capacity for solvent
wastes, the Agency analyzed the available commercial capacity for these
technologies.
Analysis of available capacity (supply) and required capacity
(demand) showed shortfalls in available capacity for wastewater treatment
and incineration. Consequently, the Agency granted a 2-year national
capacity variance to CERCLA and RCRA corrective action wastes; small
quantity generator (SQG) wastes; and all wastes containing "less than
1 percent total F001-F005 solvent constituents, i.e., solvent-water
mixtures, solvent-containing sludges, and solvent-contaminated soil (40
CFR 268.30 and Ref. I).
EPA determined the volume of dioxin-containing waste generated
annually and affected by the restrictions. Incineration capacity for
these dioxin wastes was determined to be inadequate; therefore a 2-year
national capacity variance was granted (51 FR 40617).
Today's final rule includes a reanalysis of available and required
treatment capacity for solvent wastes using data from EPA's new data set
based on the results of the National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, Disposal, and Recycling Facilities (the TSDR Survey). This data
set is described in more detail in Sections 2 and 3.
1.2.2 California List
Unlike the solvents and dioxins rule, the California List rule is not
waste code specific. The California List includes all liquid hazardous
waste with a pH of <2.0 (i.e., acidic corrosive waste); all liquid
1-4
-------
hazardous waste containing free cyanide, metals, or polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) in concentrations greater than or equal to those
specified; and all hazardous wastes (liquid or solid) containing
halogenated organic compounds (HOCs) in amounts greater than or equal to
the statutory levels.
The California List final rule was promulgated on July 8, 1987
(52 FR 25760). The Agency established BOAT as incineration in accordance
with 40 CFR 264 Subpart 0 or Part 265 Subpart 0 for HOC wastes (except
HOC wastewaters) and thermal treatment in accordance with 40 CFR 761.60
or 761.70 for PCB wastes. EPA codified the statutory prohibition level
for acidic corrosive wastes (those with a pH <2.0) but did not
promulgate a treatment standard for these wastes. The final rule did not
establish prohibition levels for metal or cyanide wastes; a final
determination for these wastes was to be made in a separate rulemaking.
The Agency used data from the 1981 RIA Mail Survey (Ref. 2) to
determine the maximum potential volume of land-disposed waste subject to
the California List restrictions. To determine the required alternative
treatment capacity for these waste volumes, EPA identified those
technologies that it believed would generally be used to treat California
List wastes. The Agency then determined the available alternative
treatment capacity for these wastes.
A comparison of required and available treatment capacity for the
California List wastes for which BOAT has been established showed that
incineration capacity for HOC wastes was inadequate. Consequently, the
1-5
-------
Agency granted a 2-year national capacity variance to HOC wastes
requiring incineration. On the other hand, the Agency determined that
adequate capacity for PCB wastes exists, and thus did not grant a
variance to these wastes. EPA believes that acidic corrosive, cyanide,
and metal wastes can be treated to below the California List statutory
levels by tank treatment methods including neutralization, cyanide
oxidation, chromium reduction, and chemical precipitation. Since EPA did
not establish treatment standards for these wastes, however, they may
still be land disposed after being rendered nonliquid. Consequently, the
Agency believes that adequate capacity for these wastes exists and did
not grant a capacity variance for them (Ref. 3).
Today's final rule includes a reanalysis of required and available
treatment capacity for California List HOC wastes based on the TSDR
Survey data.
1.2.3 First Third Wastes Proposed Rules
The Agency proposed its approach to regulating the land disposal of
the so-called "First Third" wastes in two parts, the first on April 8,
1988 (53 FR 11742), the second on May 17, 1988 (52 FR 17578). These used
different sources of data to estimate capacity needs and requirements.
The April 8 rule relied on the 1981 RIA Mail Survey for estimates of
waste volumes and on a telephone verification and clarification of
information provided in the 1986 National Screening Survey and various
other sources for information on capacity (Ref. 4). All conclusions and
1-6
-------
proposed actions based on this analysis were reevaluated for the May 17
notice using data developed through the TSDR Survey (Ref. 5). The
revised conclusions and proposals were as follows:
• For solvent wastes, the Agency estimated that required alternative
capacity for managing these wastes was adequate.
. For the California List HOC wastes that are not also First Third
wastes that required alternative capacity was adequate.
• For the First Third wastes for which treatment standards had been
proposed on April 8 or May 17, EPA found that capacity was
adequate except the following, for which 2-year national capacity
variances were proposed:
- K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052 wastes requiring solids/
sludges combustion
- K061 wastes requiring high temperature metals recovery
- K106 wastes requiring mercury retorting
• For contaminated soils, the Agency estimated that approximately 48
million gallons will require combustion or stabilization.
Although stabilization capacity was found to be adequate,
combustion capacity was not. The Agency, therefore, proposed a
2-year national capacity variance to soils requiring combustion.
1.3 Introduction to Today's Final Rule
Today's final rule includes a reanalysis of some of the issues
covered in the May 17 proposal. First, some additional late facility
data has been added to the TSDR data set, modifying certain required and
available capacity estimates. Second, some of the proposed treatment
standards have been modified, based on changes in the proposed best
demonstrated and available technologies (BOAT).
Today, EPA is promulgating treatment standards for only some of the
First Third wastes. These are referred to in this document as "First
Third promulgated wastes," and are listed in Table 2.3.1. Those wastes
1-7
-------
for which the Agency is not finalizing a treatment standard are covered
by the so-called "soft hammer" provision of the statute. The soft hammer
allows these wastes, including their associated treatment residuals, to
be disposed of in a minimum technology surface impoundment or landfill if
it can be certified that such disposal is the only practical alternative
to treatment currently available.
Several commenters on the proposed rule felt the Agency has
underestimated the amount of wastes requiring capacity by not including
landfill leachate wastes. These types of wastes when described by a code
for which a standard is being finalized have been included in the
analysis of required capacity. The Agency understands, however, that
often facilities cannot easily assign specific codes to these wastes.
Consequently, specific codes were developed for the TSDR Survey in order
for facilities to report the "derived from" wastes.
In order to evaluate the potential impact of these wastes, the Agency
performed an analysis of leachate generation and mangement at 23
facilities with commercial landfills (Ref. 6). These facilities reported
78.1 million gallons of leachage generated annually. Of this volume,
only 312,000 million gallons was land disposed and therefore directly
affected by this Final Rule. In 1988, the Agency estimates that
58.5 million gallons will be managed in onsite wastewater treatment
systems prior to discharge to a POTW or under a NPDES permit. The
remaining 19.6 million gallons will require offsite treatment. Of the
1-8
-------
19.6 million gallons, 16.7 million gallons were previously treated
offsite as hazardous waste and therefore will not require additional
capacity because it has already been included in the utilized capacity
for the receiving facilities. The remaining 2.9 million gallons is
estimated to require additional offsite capacity in 1988. The necessary
required treatment processes are assumed to include carbon adsorption,
chromium reduction, chemical precipitation, and/or biological treatment.
Although this analysis only included 23 commercial landfills, the Agency
believes this pattern can be extrapolated to all leachate generation.
Therefore, the Agency does not believe that large demands will not be
placed on available capacity due to leachate wastes. The complete
response to this and all other "capacity" related public comments can be
found in the docket for today's Final rule (Ref. 7).
This document presents the results of the capacity analysis completed
for today's final rule, and includes an analysis for solvent, First Third
promulgated wastes, and non-First Third promulgated California List HOC
wastes. Detailed waste code-by-waste code analyses for all First Third
promulgated wastes are presented in Section 2.2.5.
1-9
-------
5245s
Table 1-1 First Third Promulgated Wastes
Waste code
Description
F006 Wastewater treatment sludges from certain electroplating operations
kOOl Bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of wastewater from wood
preserving processes that use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol
1x004 Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of zinc yellow pigments
k008 Oven residue from the production of chrome oxide green pigments
k015 Still bottoms from the distillation of benzyl chloride
k016, K018, Heavy ends or distillation residues from production of certain
K019, K020 halogenated organics
k021 Aqueous spent antimony catalyst waste from fluoromethanes production
k022b Distillation bottom tars from the production of phenol/acetone from
cumene
k024 Distillation bottoms from the production of phthalic anhydride from
naphthalene
K030 Column bottoms or heavy ends from the combined production of
trlchloroethylene and perchloroethylene
K036 Still bottoms from toluene reclamation distillation in the production
of disulfoton
K037 Wastewater treatment sludges from the production of disulfoton
K044 Wastewater treatment sludges from the manufacturing and processing of
explosives
K045 Spent carbon from the treatment of wastewater containing explosives
K046 Wastewater treatment sludges from the manufacturing, formulation, and
loading of lead-based initiating compounds
K047 Pink/red water from TNT operations
K048-K052 Various wastes from the petroleum refining industry
K060 Ammonia still lime sludge from coking operations
1-10
-------
5245s
Table 1-1 (continued)
Wabte code Description
k061 Emission control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel in
electric furnaces
k062 Spent pickle liquor from steel finishing operations of plants that
produce iron or steel
k069 Emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting
k071 Brine purification muds from the mercury cell process in chlorine
production, where separately prepurified brine is not used
k083 Distillation bottoms from aniline production
k086 Solvent washes from cleaning tubs and equipment used in the formulation
of ink from pigments, driers, soaps, and stabilizers containing
chromium and lead
k087 Decanter tank tar sludge from coking operations
k099 Untreated wastewater from the production of 2,4-D
klOl Distillation tar residues from the distillation of aniline-based
compounds in the production of veterinary Pharmaceuticals from arsenic
or organo-arsenic compounds
K102 Residue from the use of activated carbon for decolorization in the
production of veterinary Pharmaceuticals from arsenic or organo-
arsemc compounds
k!03 Process residues from aniline extraction from the production of aniline
k!04 Combined wastewater streams generated from nitrobenzene/aniline
production
a The "First Third promulgated " wastes are those wastes for which a treatment
standard is being finalized today
Only the nonwastewater form of this waste is included as a "First Third promulgated"
waste, wastewaters from this waste are subject to the soft hammer requirements.
1-11
-------
2.0 OVERVIEW
This section of the background document presents general discussions
of the source(s) of data and methodology used for the capacity analyses
in support of this final rule. Also presented are the results of the
analyses of waste volumes affected by the land disposal restrictions, for
alternative capacity, and available capacity.
2.1 General Methodology
2.1.1 Data Set Development
(1) National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal,
and Recycling Facilities.
(a) Background. To improve the quality of data used for
capacity analyses of hazardous waste volumes and management practices in
support of the land disposal restrictions, EPA has conducted the National
Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling
Facilities (the TSDR Survey). The TSDR Survey was designed as a census
of permitted or interim status treatment, recycling, and disposal
facilities, with no weighting factors for statistical analyses to project
national estimates. The survey results therefore provide a comprehensive
source of waste volumes and treatment, recovery, and disposal capacity
data. Only TSDR Survey data available as of July 22, 1988, could be used
to support the capacity analyses for this final rule. There was
extensive technical review and detailed analysis of the facility
responses. Certain facility responses and derived data elements from the
2-1
-------
facility level analysis were incorporated into a specialized PC-based
data set (a series of data systems) developed on land disposal facilities
and commercial treatment and recovery facilities.
(b) Schedule and Status. The TSDR Survey was originally mailed
to over 2,400 facilities in August 1987. Facilities were allowed 60 days
to complete and return the surveys. Many facilities requested and were
granted extensions of 30 days. Since August 1987, an additional 225
facilities that either were initially overlooked or are new have been
identified and sent the TSDR Survey. Over 2,500 facilities had returned
their surveys as of July 22, 1988, the deadline for review and analysis
of data for support of this final rule.
A total of 449 facilities reported onsite land disposal/land
placement of 63 billion gallons of RCRA hazardous wastes during 1986, the
baseline year for the survey. Over 99 percent of the data (by land
disposal volume) were reviewed and included in the data set used to
support this final rule.
Twenty facilities with land disposal have not returned their surveys
to date. However, 15 of these late facilities provided limited
information when contacted by phone. In total, these 15 facilities
account for 797 million gallons of land disposed waste (excluding
underground injection volumes), approximately less than 2 percent of the
total reported volume. This results in a 2 percent error factor in the
analysis. The Agency is assuming that the wastes at these late
2-2
-------
facilities will reflect patterns similar to those of the wastes reported;
therefore, no problems are anticipated as a result of not having all the
data available for this analysis.
A total of 371 facilities with commercial treatment/recovery
technologies have completed and returned surveys, accounting for a
maximum of 22 billion gallons per year of commercial hazardous waste
alternative capacity in 1986. Some of these facilities also reported
land disposal onsite and are included in the 433 facilities noted above.
However, the analysis was limited to only those technologies considered
as the Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT) for, or judged to be
applicable, to the wastes covered by this proposal--solvents,
California List halogenated organic compounds (HOCs), and First Third
wastes, including contaminated soils.
One hundred six facilities reported having commercial processes other
than combustion, mostly wastewater treatment capacity, that may be
applicable as alternative treatment/recovery of the land disposed wastes
of concern for this analysis, accounting for a maximum capacity of
2.5 billion gallons of commercial noncombustion treatment/recovery
capacity in 1988.
Forty-nine facilities reported commercial combustion processes
(incineration or reuse as fuel in industrial kilns) that may be
applicable for burning hazardous waste currently land disposed,
accounting for a maximum capacity of 486 million gallons of commercial
combustion capacity in 1988.
2-3
-------
A total of 54 commercial treatment/recovery facilities have not
returned their surveys to date. To fill known data gaps on these late
facilities, limited phone contact was attempted to gather critical
capacity information; where available, other data sources were also used.
Of the various types of "reuse of fuel" units, only industrial kilns,
not industrial boilers or other furnaces, were considered in the analysis
of commercial combustion capacity. However, the analysis shows that
available capacity at industrial kilns exceeds capacity requirements for
the type of wastes commonly burned in these units (organic liquids).
(c) Technology Capacity Information. The TSDR Survey was
designed to provide comprehensive information on all current and planned
hazardous waste treatment, recycling, and disposal processes at all RCRA
permitted and interim status facilities, including information on exempt
processes at these facilities (e.g., recycling, wastewater
*
treatment). The baseline year for the survey was 1986. Information
on planned changes to existing processes, including closures, and any
new processes planned prior to 1992 was requested.
Exceptions to this include totally enclosed treatment facilities
(TETFs) and closed loop recycling (CLR), which were not required
to be reported. Also, no information was gathered at facilities
with only exempt processes.
2-4
-------
An overview of the information on treatment and recycling processes,
including those taking place in land disposal units (i.e., land placement), is
provided below:
• General categories
(including new or planned
processes)
Key parameters
Waste types
Capacity
Residuals
Equipment
(type of unit)
- Type of process
- Operating status
- Commercial status
- Permit status (exempt,
interim status, final)
- Feed rates (by physical form)
- Operating hours
- Pollution controls
- Waste codes managed in 1986
- Restrictions or specifications for
waste managed (for commercial
facilities only)
- Maximum capacity (by physical form)
- Utilization rate for 1986
- Planned changes
- Quantity generated (by physical form,
percent hazardous)
- Further management
- Tanks
- Containers
- Thermal treatment units
- Land disposal units (i.e., surface
impoundments, waste piles)
For more detail, refer to the complete set of questionnaires and
instructions in the public docket for this final rule (Ref. 8).
(d) Waste Volumes Land Disposed. The TSDR Survey was designed
to provide detailed information on the types and quantities of all RCRA
hazardous waste managed, by specific land disposal/land placement
practices, at all RCRA permitted and interim status facilities. The
survey provides limited but adequate characterization data (refer to
2-5
-------
Section 3.1.2) to assess the treatability potential of the wastes and to
identify applicable alternative treatment/recovery technologies,
including:
• RCRA waste code (or codes, if more than one is applicable);
• Waste description (physical/chemical form and qualitative
information on hazardous constituents);
• Industry description (general description describing the
industries that generated each type of waste at a facility);
• Quantity that entered land disposal/placement in 1986; and
• Residual information (whether this waste was actually a residual
from onsite hazardous waste management operations).
The TSDR Survey also provides valuable information on the individual
units in which land disposal/placement is occurring, including plans for
closures and upgrading/retrofitting to meet the minimum technology
requirements. Through review of the questionnaire responses and the
facility schematics, it is possible to track individual waste streams
managed in more than one type of land disposal unit or managed by more
than one process (treatment, storage, or disposal) in surface
impoundments and waste piles, to avoid double-counting of waste volumes.
An overview of this information is provided below:
• General categories - Type of process
- Permit status
(interim status, final)
- Commercial status - Operating status
- Closure plans
• Key parameters - Liner type (plans for upgrading)
- Pollution controls
2-6
-------
• Waste types - Waste types and quantities
managed in 1986
- Restrictions or specifications
for waste managed (for commercial
facilities only)
• Capacity - Design capacity
- Utilization rate for 1986
- Remaining capacity
- Planned changes
• Residuals - Quantities of effluents and
dredged solids
- Further management
For more details, refer to the complete set of questionnaires in the
public docket for this final rule.
(e) Overview of Data Handling, Technical Review, and Quality
Assurance. Extensive technical review of TSDR Survey data was required
to ensure completeness, consistency, and accuracy on a per-facility
basis. To achieve this goal, the review process was designed to promote
the consistent and efficient identification and resolution of any errors,
inconsistencies, and omissions, including any required facility
followup. The review procedures were comprehensive and required the
consideration and analysis of the facility responses to essentially every
question in the survey (if applicable to that facility), as well as the
review and further development of general and detailed schematics of all
onsite hazardous waste management operations. The detailed review
procedures are presented in the Guidelines for Technical Review of TSDR
Surveys (Ref. 9), available in the public docket for this final rule.
2-7
-------
All surveys from TSDR facilities with onsite land disposal/placement
(whether private or commercial) or commercial treatment/recovery
operations were considered critical for support of the land disposal
restrictions. Therefore, they were categorized as "priority" surveys and
were slated to undergo technical review and analysis immediately.
After a survey was determined to be priority, it was distributed to
the review teams. Members of the review teams conducted the technical
review. Following review, if the responses in a survey indicated that
the facility had onsite land disposal/placement, the required PC data
sheets were completed immediately and the survey package underwent a
preliminary quality control (QC) review by the team leaders. If no land
disposal/placement operations were indicated, the review of commercial
treatment/recovery operations proceeded, and upon completion, the survey
package went to the team leaders for preliminary QC. As part of
preliminary QC, the team leader then worked with the reviewer to correct
or resolve any problems identified during the survey review (see Ref. 9
for details on the survey screening, distribution, and review procedures),
Treatability assessments of each land disposed waste stream were then
conducted (described in Section 3.1.2), and onsite alternative
treatment/recovery technologies "were screened to determine potential
applicability to land disposed/placed wastes. If any technologies were
judged to be applicable, a capacity analysis was completed for those
technologies (described in Section 3.2).
2-8
-------
The last step in the review process consisted of complete or final
QC. Approximately 25 percent of the surveys underwent complete QC (see
Ref. 10 for detailed information on QC procedures). After QC, the
technical review/analysis was considered to be complete.
(2) Other data sources. The TSDR Survey was used as the primary
comprehensive source of data on volumes and characteristics of wastes
land disposed and required and available treatment/recovery capacity to
support the land disposal restrictions under this final rule. Additional
data sources were used only when necessary to fill obvious data gaps with
regard to the TSDR Survey. These sources were primarily used to provide
supplemental data for facilities that were late in responding to the
survey or for facilities that had provided incomplete responses and
either would not or could not assist in completing the responses.
In a very limited number of cases, commercial facilities that
accepted large quantities of a variety of wastes for land disposal
claimed that they were unable (or unwilling because of the excessive
effort required) to provide detailed waste code, waste description, and
quantity information for each land disposed waste stream. To fill such
data gaps in the survey, it was necessary to attempt to gather these data
from other sources. In most cases, facility contacts provided adequate
information; however, for one facility information on hazardous wastes
managed was obtained from the 1985 Biennial Reporting Data System,
maintained by EPA.
2-9
-------
Identifying alternative treatment/recovery technologies (ATRs)
applicable to the hazardous waste of concern required coordination with
the BOAT (Best Demonstrated Available Technology) Program of EPA/OSW's
Waste Treatment Branch. The ATRs used in the analysis of capacity for
this final rule include those specific technologies employed by the BOAT
Program to establish treatment standards for wastes restricted from land
disposal and, in a limited number of cases, other potentially applicable
ATRs (or combinations of these technologies, i.e., treatment trains)
judged to be capable of meeting the treatment standards for certain
wastes with unique characteristics for which the BOAT technology was not
directly applicable (or applicable without pretreatment). In such cases
(for unique treatability groups), various sources of published literature
were used (as described in Section 3.1.2), and engineering judgment were
used when necessary. Except for these few unique waste streams, the BOAT
Program provided the information on ATRs used to assess their
applicability to the wastes of concern and their ability to meet the
treatment standards.
2.1.2 Capacity Analysis Methodology
The Agency is responsible for determining whether sufficient
alternative capacity is available to meet the demand resulting from the
land disposal restrictions. If the Agency determines that capacity is
insufficient, it must then project the earliest date at which adequate
capacity will be available.
2-10
-------
To assess current capacity requirements, an analysis comparing
required capacity with available capacity was performed. The comparison
was performed on a waste stream-by-waste stream basis, by assessing waste
treatability and then using treatability as the link between the volumes
of land-disposed wastes requiring alternative capacity and the
appropriate available treatment/recovery capacity. (Refer to Section
3.1.2 for a more detailed discussion of treatability analysis.)
(1) Required capacity. The required capacity, or capacity demand,
consists of those volumes of wastes currently land disposed that will
require alternative treatment when they are restricted from land
disposal. The waste streams, along with their volumes, were identified
and aggregated by similar treatability and by management practice. The
management practices of concern are those practices classified as land
disposal under HSWA, which include treatment, storage, or disposal in a
surface impoundment; treatment or storage in a waste pile; land
treatment; and disposal in a landfill. Salt dome formations, salt bed
formations, and underground mines and caves are additional methods of
land disposal that are affected by this rulemaking. Currently, there is
insufficient information to document the volumes of First Third wastes
disposed of by these last three methods; therefore, they are not
addressed in the analysis of volumes and required alternative treatment
capacity. Underground (deep well) injection, another form of land
disposal, will be covered under a separate rulemaking; thus, the volume
of underground injected wastes has not been included in this document.
2-11
-------
The volumes of waste reported in the TSDR Survey as land disposed in
1986 that require alternative treatment/recovery capacity were adjusted
to reflect the rule that allows treatment in surface impoundments to be
conducted only in impoundments meeting minimum technological
requirements. Volumes of waste that were reported as continuing to be
treated in non-minimum technology surface impoundments were considered to
require alternative treatment capacity, while those undergoing treatment
in impoundments meeting the requirements by 1988 or in impoundments being
replaced by tank systems by 1988 were dropped from further analysis. The
waste volumes requiring alternative capacity were identified by RCRA
waste code(s) and by their land disposal ban regulatory status (i.e.,
solvents and dioxins, California List, or First Thirds). A detailed
discussion of this methodology is presented in Section 3.1.1.
To determine the type of treatment capacity required by the affected
wastes, a treatability analysis was performed on each waste stream.
Using the waste code, the physical/chemical form data, and the identified
BOAT technology, wastes were placed into treatability groups. For
example, all wastes requiring sludge incineration would be placed in the
same treatability group. The physical/chemical form data were provided
by the facility using qualitative technical criteria, not regulatory
definitions. For example, liquids wastes were identified as "highly
fluid" rather than as "wastes failing the Paint Filter Liquids Test."
2-12
-------
Waste groups (i.e., waste streams described by more than one waste
code) present special treatability concerns because they are often
contaminated with wastes requiring different treatment (e.g., organics
and metals). To treat these wastes, a treatment train must be developed
that can treat all waste types in the group. A more detailed description
of the treatability analysis methodology, including treatment train
development, is presented in section 3.1.2.
A number of the treatment technologies to which wastes have been
assigned create treatment residuals that will require further treatment
prior to land disposal (e.g., stabilization of incinerator ash). In
these cases, the Agency has estimated the amount of residuals that would
be generated by treatment of the original volume of waste requiring
treatment and has included these residuals in the volumes requiring
treatment capacity. A more detailed description of the determination of
residual volumes is presented in section 3.1.2(4).
BOAT for a number of wastes includes treatment of incinerator
scrubber water. Based on TSDR Survey responses, the RCRA permitted
incinerators have adequate air pollution control devices (APCDs)
(including scrubber water treatment at those facilities with wet
scrubbers), and therefore no additional analysis of the volume of
scrubber water was made.
2-13
-------
(2) Available capacity. The analysis of available capacity, or
capacity supply, for treatment/recovery systems began at the facility
level. TSDR Survey capacity data were reported on a unit process basis.
To obtain estimates of available capacity that could be compared with
capacity requirements of affected wastes, a systems analysis approach was
taken. For this analysis, a system is defined as one or more different
processes used together in one or more different units to treat or
recover hazardous waste. The capacity of the treatment/recovery system
may be limited by the capacity of one or more of the unit processes
within the system. The available capacity of the system is determined by
subtracting the utilized capacity of the system from the maximum capacity
of the system. A detailed discussion of system capacity determination
may be found in Section 3.2.2.
Comparing required capacity with available capacity begins at the
facility level and moves to the national level as dictated by the
available capacity and commercial status of applicable treatment/recovery
systems. The available capacity of systems identified as private is
considered only when judged to be applicable to wastes reported as being
land disposed at that facility. The remaining volumes of waste still
requiring treatment capacity are added to determine the national demand
for commercial capacity of each alternative technology.
By comparing the required capacity with the available capacity, the
Agency can identify capacity shortfalls and make determinations
concerning variances. The comparative capacity analysis accounts for the
2-14
-------
sequential and cumulative effects of previous land disposal restrictions
and for projected capacity changes after 1986 (the baseline year).
Solvents and dioxin wastes were assigned to available capacity first,
followed by California List HOCs (other than those that are also First
Third promulgated wastes), First Third promulgated wastes, and finally
soils. In addition, available capacity was first assigned to all
affected wastes land disposed in "surface" units (i.e., waste piles,
surface impoundments, landfills, and land treatment, but not underground
injection wells), and then to contaminated soils. The remaining capacity
will then be assigned to wastes injected underground, which will be
considered in another rule. The Agency believes that land disposal in
surface units may represent a greater threat to human health and the
environment than does the underground injection of wastes. Furthermore,
contaminated soils are generally from cleanup or corrective action
operations, which present an obvious threat.
2.2 Results
2.2.1 All RCRA Wastes
Table 2.2.1 presents estimates of the volumes of RCRA wastes land
disposed annually. These volumes were compiled by adding all waste
stream volumes managed by treatment, storage, or disposal in land
disposal units. Separate waste volumes are shown for storage and
treatment in waste piles; treatment, storage, and disposal in surface
impoundments; and disposal in landfills and land treatment units. The
baseline data for determining the volumes in Table 2-1 were the 1986
2-15
-------
5247s/
Table 2-1 Overview of All RCRA Hazardous
Land-disposed volume3
(million gallons/year)
Storage only
- Waste pi les 92
- Surface impoundments 126
Treatment
- Waste piles 63
- Surface impoundments 1,521
Disposal
- Landf 111s 600
- Land treatment 83
- Surface impoundments 216
Total 2,703
a Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
July 22, 1988), adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or treatment impoundments
retrofit to meet minimum technology requirements.
2-16
-------
data from responses to the TSDR Survey. Data reported in tons were
converted to gallons (using the conversion factor of 240 gallons/ton,
based on the density of water), to allow comparisons to available
capacity in a standard unit. These reported 1986 volumes were adjusted
by subtracting the volumes of waste managed in treatment surface
impoundments that will undergo closure and be replaced by tanks or that
will be retrofit to meet minimum technology requirements by 1988.
To avoid double-counting of wastes that underwent more than one
management operation in the same type of unit (e.g., storage and
treatment in a waste pile), the following procedures were used. In
tabulating volumes.of waste managed in surface impoundments and waste
piles, any wastes that underwent treatment in an impoundment or waste
pile were reported in the "treatment" volume. Wastes stored in a surface
impoundment or waste pile that never underwent treatment in the
impoundment or waste pile were reported in the "storage only" volumes.
In tabulating surface impoundment volumes, wastes that were disposed of
in surface impoundments but not also treated in the impoundment were
included among "disposal" surface impoundment volumes.
Not represented in the estimates presented in Table 2-1 are volumes
of'lahd-disposed waste from facilities that did not return their TSDR
Surveys before July 22, 1988. A telephone survey was conducted for these
late facilities, with those facilities that responded reporting
approximately 797 million gallons of land-disposed waste in 1986. This
2-17
-------
represents less than 2 percent of the reported 1986 volumes of land-
disposed hazardous waste. Sufficient data were not available to
determine specific management practices and RCRA waste codes associated
with these volumes.
2.2.2 Solvents
Table 2-2 presents estimates of the volume of solvents land disposed
annually, by management practice and by type of land disposal unit. The
same procedures described for the analysis of all RCRA wastes were used
for estimating solvent volumes. In addition, as a worst-case condition,
the entire volume of any waste stream, for both single waste streams and
waste groups (waste described by more than one waste code), was
considered if the waste stream contained any solvent wastes.
The volume of land-disposed solvent wastes requiring alternative
commercial treatment capacity, however, will be somewhat less. As
discussed in Section 3, the Agency has assumed that the 13 million
gallons of solvent wastes that were only stored in impoundments or waste
piles do not require alternative treatment capacity (although they may
require alternative storage capacity) because they are treated or
disposed elsewhere. Furthermore, the facility-level waste treatability
and technology capacity analyses conducted on solvent wastes being land
disposed determined that 34 million gallons of these wastes either had
already been treated using the BOAT technology or could be treated
onsite, and therefore were not included in the volumes requiring
2-18
-------
5247s/2
Table 2-1 Overview of Solvents
Land-disposed volume3
(million gallons/year)
Storage only
- Waste pi les 2
- Surface impoundments 11
Treatment
- Waste pi les 3
- Surface impoundments <1
Disposal
- Landfills 71
- Land treatment <1
- Surface impoundments 26
Total 113
a Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
July 22, 1988), adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or treatment impoundments
retrofit to meet minimum technology requirements.
2-19
-------
alternative commercial treatment capacity. Based on this, the Agency
estimates that 66 million gallons of solvent wastes will require
alternative treatment capacity on a commercial basis. This volume
includes 26 million gallons of soil, which are discussed in a separate
section of this document; therefore, it is estimated that only 41 million
gallons of nonsoil solvent wastes will require alternative commercial
treatment capacity. Finally, the Agency estimates that treatment of this
41 million gallons will generate 4 million gallons of waste residuals
that will also require additional alternative treatment capacity.
Table 2-3 presents the estimates of available national commercial
capacity for the alternative technologies that are applicable to solvent
wastes. Also presented are the estimates of annual land-disposed waste
volumes that require alternative commercial capacity (not including
contaminated soils or wastes injected underground. As evident from the
table, the Agency has determined that based on the new data available
from results of the TSDR Survey, there is adequate capacity for all of
the solvent wastes that will require alternative capacity.
The Agency believes that the capacity analysis previously conducted
for these wastes was accurate at the time of promulgation, and therefore
the variances granted at that time were justified (Ref. 1). However,
principally because the data used for today's analysis have been adjusted
for treatment impoundments that are being replaced by tanks or retrofit,
the Agency believes that adequate capacity does now exist for solvent
2-20
-------
5247s/3
Table 2-3 Solvent Capacity Analysis
Technology
Combust ion
- Liquids
- Sludges/solids
Stabi 1 izat ion of
Ava i lable
capacity
(mill ion ga 1/yr)
275
47
499
Requ ired
capacity
(mi 1 1 ion gal/yr)
1
38
4
incinerator ash
Wastewater treatment
- Cyanide oxidation, chemical 159
precipitation, and
sett 1ing/fiItration
- Steam stripping, 66
carbon adsorption,
biological treatment, or
wet air oxidation
2-21
-------
wastes. Also, there were significant increases in available commercial
incineration capacity since promulgation of the land disposal
restrictions rules for solvents.
2.2.3 Nonsolvent RCRA Wastes Containing Halogenated Organic Compounds
Tables 2-4 through 2-6 present estimates of annual land-disposed
volumes for nonsolvent RCRA wastes that are potential California List
wastes containing HOCs at concentrations of 1,000 mg/kg or greater.
Separate tables are presented for total HOC wastes, HOC wastes that are
also First Third promulgated wastes, and all other HOC wastes. The same
procedures used for tabulating all RCRA wastes apply to HOC volumes.
However, the total volume for each management practice in Tables 2-4
through 2-6 represents the sum of all single HOC waste streams (in that
table's regulatory group) and all waste groups containing at least one
potential HOC and a waste in that table's regulatory group but containing
no solvents.
The volume of land-disposed HOC wastes requiring alternative
commercial treatment capacity will be somewhat less. The facility-level
treatability and capacity analyses conducted on the HOC wastes being land
disposed determined that 3 million gallons of these wastes could be
treated onsite and, therefore, were not included in the volume requiring
alternative commercial treatment capacity. Based on this, the Agency
estimates that 15 million gallons of HOC wastes will require alternative
treatment capacity on a commercial basis. This volume includes 6 million
2-22
-------
5247s/a
Table ?-4 Overview of Potential California List Wastes
Containing Halogenated Organic Compounds
Land-disposed volume3
(million gallons/year)
Storage only
- Waste pi les 1
- Surface impoundments <1
i
Treatment
- Waste pi les 7
- Surface impoundments 6
Disposal
- Landf i 11s 20
- Land treatment <1
- Surface impoundments <1
Total 34
Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
July 22, 1988), adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or treatment impoundments
retrofit to meet minimum technology requirements
2-23
-------
bZ47s/9
Table Z-5 Overview of Promulgated First Third Wastes
Containing Halogenated Organic Compounds
Land-disposed volume3
(million gallons/year)
Storage only
- Waste piles 1
- Surface impoundments <1
Treatment
- Waste pi les 7
- Surface impoundments <1
Disposal
- Landfi11s 8
- Land treatment <1
- Surface impoundments <1
Total 16
Baseline was TSOR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
July 22, 1988), adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or treatment impoundments
retrofit to meet minimum technology requirements.
2-24
-------
5247s/10
Table L'-6 Overview ot All Other Wastes Containing
Hdlogenated Organic Compounds
Land-disposed volume3
(mi 1 lion gallons/year)
Storage only
- Waste pi les <1
- Surface impoundments cl
Treatment
- Waste pi les <•!
- Surface impoundments 6
Disposa 1
- Landfills 12
- Land treatment *1
- Surface impoundments <1
Total 18
a Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
July 22, 1988), adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or treatment standards
retrofit to meet minimum technology requirements.
2-25
-------
gallons of soil, which are discussed in a separate section of this
document (2 million gallons of HOC soils were assigned to onsite
treatment); therefore, it is estimated that only 9 million gallons of
nonsoil HOC wastes will require alternative commercial treatment capacity.
Table 2-7 presents the results of the capacity analysis for HOC-
containing wastes (not including underground injection waste volumes).
Similarly, to eliminate double-counting, this table does not include
wastes that contain First Third promulgated wastes or solvents.
Based on the data from the TSDR Survey, the Agency has determined
that adequate capacity exists for the volume of HOC wastes requiring
combustion. Consequently, the Agency is today proposing a recission of
the national capacity variance previously granted to these wastes.
2.2.4 First Third Wastes
(1) First Third wastes. Table 2-8 presents the estimates of all
First Third wastes land disposed annually, by management practice and by
type of disposal unit. These are the first of the scheduled wastes, and
they are required to be evaluated by August 8, 1988. The same procedures
described for the analysis of all RCRA wastes (Section 2.2.1) were used
for estimating First Third waste volumes. However, in the worst-case
analysis for First Third wastes, the total volume for each category in
Table 2-4 represents the sum of all single First Third waste streams and
all waste groups containing at least one First Third waste but no
solvents. This prevents double-counting of multiple waste streams that
contain both First Third wastes and solvents.
2-26
-------
5247s/13
Table 2-7 Capacity Analysis for HOC Wastes
(Excluding First Third Proposed HOCs)
Techno logy
Available Required
capacity capacity
(million gal/yr) (million gal/yr)
Combust ion
- Liquids 274
- Sludges/solids 9
Wastewater treatment (for organics) 64
-------
5247s/4
Table 2-6 Overview of All First Third Wastes
Land-disposed volume3
(million gallons/year)
Storage only
- Wabte piles 49
- Surface impoundments 6
Treatment
- Waste piles 29
- Surface impoundments 32b
Disposal
- Landfi 11s 302
- Land treatment 76
- Surface impoundments 71
Total 861
a Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
July 22, 1988), adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or treatment impoundments
retrofit to meet minimum technology requirements.
2-28
-------
(2) First Third promulgated wastes. Table 2-9 presents estimates of
First Third promulgated wastes land disposed annually, by management
practice and type of disposal unit. These are the First Third wastes for
which treatment standards are being finalized today. The same procedures
described for the analysis of all RCRA wastes were used for estimating
First Third promulgated waste volumes. In the worst-case analysis for
First Third promulgated wastes, the total volume for each category in
Table 2-8 represents the sum of all single First Third promulgated waste
streams and all waste groups containing at least one First Third
promulgated waste but no solvents. This prevents double-counting of
multiple waste streams that contain First Third promulgated wastes and
solvents.
Table 2-10 presents the estimates of national capacity for the
alternative technologies applicable to the First Third promulgated
wastes. Also presented are the estimates of annual land disposed waste
volumes requiring alternative commercial capacity excluding First Third
promulgated wastes that are underground injected or soils contaminated
with First Third promulgated wastes. In most cases, there is adequate
available capacity to treat all of the First Third promulgated wastes and
mixed waste groups containing a First Third promulgated waste.
As Table 2-10 shows, four technologies have required capacity
(demand) exceeding the available capacity (supply): acid leaching of
sludges, high temperature metals recovery, solvent extraction, and
2-29
-------
5247S/5
Table 2-9 Overview of First Third Promulgated Wastes3
Land-disposed volume
(million gallons/year)
Storage only
- Waste pi les 41
- Surface impoundments 4
Treatment
- Waste piles 27
- Surface impoundments 320
Disposal
- Landfills 274
- Land treatment 76
- Surface impoundments 70
Total 812
a First Third promulgated wastes are those wastes for which treatment
standards are being finalized today.
Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
July 22, 1988), adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or treatment impoundments
retrofit to meet minimum technology requirements
2-30
-------
5247s/7
Table 2-10 1988 Capacity Analysis for
First Third Promulgated Wastes
Required
Available commercial
capacity capacity
Technology (million gal/yr) (million gal/yr)
Combustion
- Liquids 274 <1
- Sludges/solids 1 6 - 160
Stabilization 495 231b
Solvent extraction 1 0-154
Metals recovery
- High temperature metals 34 62
recovery (not secondary
smelt ing)
Wastewater treatment
- Chromium reduction, chemical 260 40
precipitation, and
settling/filtration
- Carbon adsorption and 12 1
chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation, and
sett 1ing/fiItration
Sludge Treatment
- Acid leaching, chemical 0 4
oxidation, and dewatenng of
sludge and sulfide precipi-
tation of effluent
6 million gallons of non-K048-K052 wastes require sludge/solids
combustion Amount of K048-K052 sludge/solids requiring combustion
may be as much as 154 million gallons. The alternative BOAT
technology for these wastes is solvent extraction
This volume includes 62 million gallons of "high zinc" K061 also
assigned to high temperature metals recovery.
2-31
-------
combustion of sludges/solids. Therefore, because BOAT for K071 is acid
leaching of the sludge, the Agency is finalizing a 2-year national
capacity variance for K071 wastes.
The required capacity for the combustion of sludge/.sol ids is divided
into two numbers: the total amount of waste that requires sludge/solid
combustion, 160 million gallons, and the amount of First Third
promulgated waste other than K048-K052 waste that requires sludge/solids
combustion, 6 million gallons. The BOAT standard for K048-K052 is also
based on solvent extraction; however, because of a shortfall of
sludge/solids incineration and solvent extraction capacity, the Agency is
granting a 2-year national capacity variance for K048-K052 wastes.
High temperagure metals recovery (HTMR) is the BOAT for "high zinc"
K061 (i.e., K061 containing .>15 percent zinc). Therefore, the Agency is
finalizing the 2-year capacity variance to the HTMR standard for high
zinc K061. However, during this 2-year variance period, the Agency is
requiring that high zinc K061 meet the standard for low zinc K061 which
is based on stabilization.
The volume of land-disposed First Third promulgated wastes requiring
alternative commercial treatment capacity, however, will be somewhat less
than the volume presented in Table 2-9. The Agency has assumed that
35 million gallons of the 45 million gallons that were only stored in
impoundments or waste piles do not require alternative treatment capacity
(although they may require alternative storage capacity) because they are
2-32
-------
treated or disposed elsewhere. The 10 million gallons of "stored only"
wastes that do require alternative capacity were determined to have
undergone "long-term storage" and therefore would not have been reported
elsewhere as treated or disposed (for more detail on "stored only" waste
volumes see Section 3.1.1). Furthermore, the facility-level waste
treatability and technology capacity analyses conducted on First Third
wastes being land disposed determined that 341 million gallons of these
wastes either had already been treated using the BOAT technology or could
be treated onsite and therefore do not require alternative commercial
treatment capacity. This volume includes 290 million gallons of
wastewater from one facility assigned to onsite dewatering in tanks.
Based on this analysis, the Agency estimates that 436 million gallons
of First Third promulgated wastes will require alternative commercial
treatment capacity. This volume includes 18 million gallons of soils
which are discussed in a separate section of this document; therefore, it
is estimated that 418 million gallons of nonsoil First Third promulgated
wastes will require alternative commercial treatment capacity. Finally,
the Agency estimates that treatment of the 418 million gallons will
generate 18 million gallons of waste residuals that will require
additional alternative treatment capacity. In addition, the BOAT
standard for "high zinc" K061 is based on high temperature metals
recovery (HTMR); however, because of a lack of capacity for HTMR, EPA is
today setting an interim standard for "high zinc" K061 based on
2-33
-------
stabilization. Therefore, 62 million gallons of K061 wastes have been
"double-counted" on Table 2-10 under stabilization and HTMR. Also,
because the BOAT for K048-K052 is based on either sludge incineration or
solvent extraction, the required capacities for these technologies are
presented as ranges on Table 2-10. The total volume of K048-K052 wastes
requiring capacity is 154 million gallons.
(3) First Third (not promulgated) wastes. Table 2-11 presents
estimates of annual land disposed volumes for "not promulgated" First
Third wastes, by management practice and type of disposal unit. These
are the First Third wastes for which no treatment standards are being
finalized in today's rule. The same procedures described for the
analyses of all RCRA wastes were used for estimating not promulgated
First Third waste volumes. However, in the worst-case analysis for First
Third not promulgated wastes, the total volume for each category in Table
2-11 represents the sum of all single, First Third not promulgated waste
streams and all waste groups containing at least one First Third not
promulgated waste, but no First Third promulgated wastes or solvents.
This prevents double-counting of multiple waste streams that contain
First Third not promulgated wastes, First Third promulgated wastes, and
solvents.
2.2.5 Waste Code-Specific Capacity Analysis
This section presents the results of the analysis of required
capacity for each alternative technology on a waste code-by-waste code
2-34
-------
5247s/6
Table 2-11 Overview of First Third Wastes Not Being Promulgateda
Land-disposed volume
(million gallons/year)
Storage only
- Waste piles 8
- Surface impoundments 2
Treatment
- Waste piles 2
- Surface impoundments ^
Disposal
- Landfills 28
- Land treatment <1
- Surface impoundments 1
Total 48
a The First Third wastes other than those wastes for which treatment
standards are being finalized today
b Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
July 22. 1988), adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or treatment impoundments
retrofit to meet minimum technology requirements
2-35
-------
basis. The tables show both the total amount of required treatment
capacity for each of the First Third promulgated waste codes and the
amount of required capacity for each technology. Tables 2-12 through
2-32 present waste code-by-waste code analysis of the treatment capacity
required by each First Third promulgated waste.
The TSDR Survey data were sorted by waste code and type of
alternative treatment required. The information was then combined and
summarized to create the technology-specific and waste code-specific
capacity analysis tables for First Third promulgated wastes.
Also presented are discussions for each waste code. Each discussion
contains a description of the waste, identifies the hazardous
constituents for which it is listed, and identifies the BOAT technology
used to set the treatment standard.
For a limited number of waste streams, it was not feasible to assign
them directly to the BOAT technology; therefore, the wastes were assigned
to alternative technologies. In these few cases, the waste code
discussions explain why the waste stream could not be directly assigned
to BOAT and how the stream was handled. (Section 3.1.2 explains the
methodology used to assign alternative technologies.) In addition, the
Agency is not finalizing the proposed treatment standard for K106, but
rather is allowing the soft hammer requirements to take effect.
2-36
-------
F006
RCRA hazardous waste F006 is described as wastewater treatment
sludges from certain electroplating operations. It is listed as a
hazardous waste because of the presence of cadmium, hexavalent chromium,
nickel, and cyanide (complexed). The Agency has identified the BOAT
technology for nonwastewater F006 to be stabilization. The Agency had
promulgated a "no land disposal" standard for F006 wastewaters; however,
this standard is not being finalized. F006 wastewaters will therefore be
subject to the soft hammer requirements. Table 2-12 shows the volumes of
F006 estimated to require alternative treatment based on the results of
the TSDR Survey. The table also identifies the alternative treatment
technologies determined to be necessary for F006.
As shown in Table 2-12, most of the F006 requiring alternative
treatment was assigned to the BOAT technology. Several waste streams
reported in the TSDR Survey and determined to require alternative
treatment were described as sludges or solids consisting of F006 and
organic wastes such as K016. These waste streams were assigned to
incineration with chromium reduction and chemical precipitation of the
scrubber water, and stabilization of the scrubber water treatment sludge
and the incinerator ash. Table 2-12 shows the volume of F006 that will
require this treatment.
Several F006 waste streams reported in the TSDR Survey were described
as untreated plating sludge with cyanides and metal-cyanide
salts/chemicals. The Agency does not consider stabilization to be a
2-37
-------
5247s/16
Table 2-\2 Cupacity Aridlysii for F006d
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 volume needing
alternative capacity
(gal Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids
Stabilization of incinerator ash
Stabilization of scrubber water
treatment sludge
Stabi 1 ization
Total
253,920
50,784
2,539
128,443,001
126,750.244
Baseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of July 22, 1986), Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils.
2-38
-------
demonstrated technology for F006 with treatable levels of cyanides. The
Agency is currently investigating the use of technologies such as
electrolytic oxidation, alkaline chlorination, wet air oxidation,
ozonation, and other chemical oxidation as applicable technologies for
F006 wastes that contain treatable quantities of cyanide. EPA will
determine which of these technologies should be the basis of the BOAT
standard when these data become available later this year. Since EPA has
insufficient information to establish either a separate treatability
group for F006 nonwastewaters containing treatable levels of cyanide or a
treatment standard for the cyanide contained in them, the Agency is
identifying the treatment standard as "reserved" until a standard can be
promulgated later this year. Until a standard for cyanide in F006
nonwastewaters is promulgated, those F006 nonwastewaters containing
cyanides may be land disposed, as long as they do not exceed the
statutory cyanide concentration prohibited under the statutory
"California List" restrictions (liquid hazardous wastes containing free
cyanides at concentrations of 1,000 ppm or greater). Therefore, for
today's rule, the Agency has assigned these waste streams to
stabilization in order to meet the California List restrictions. Also,
the Agency is not setting a standard in today's rule for F006
wastewaters, but instead is allowing the soft hammer requirements to take
effect.
2-39
-------
Some commenters were concerned that commercial facilities with
available stabilization capacity were not permitted specifically for F006
waste. However, Review of TSDR Survey data indicates that there is
approximately 270 million gallons of existing (not planned) available
capacity at facilities that accepted F006 for stabilization in 1986 or
said they will accept F006 for stabilization. These facilities include
GSX Services of South Carolina; CID Landfill; U.S. Pollution Control
Inc.; Environmental Waste Resources; Peoria Disposal Inc.; and several
CBI facilities. Because they have accepted F006 for stabilization in the
past, the Agency assumes these facilities are permitted to stabilize F006
wastes. Based on the information in the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes
that adequate incineration and stabilization capacity exists for F006,
and is not granting a capacity variance from the ban effective date for
F006 waste requiring alternative treatment.
2-40
-------
K001
RCRA hazardous waste K001 is described as bottom sediment sludge from
the treatment of wastewater from wood preserving processes that use
creosote and/or pentachlorophenol. K001 is listed as a hazardous waste
because of the presence of toxic organics. The Agency has identified the
BOAT technology for K001 to be incineration with chemical precipitation
of the scrubber water and stabilization of the scrubber water treatment
sludge and incinerator ash. As shown in Table 2-13, all of the K001
identified from the TSDR Survey as requiring alternative treatment was
assigned to this BOAT technology.
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes
that adequate incineration and stabilization capacity exists for K001.
Therefore, the Agency is not granting a capacity variance from the ban
effective date for K001 wastes requiring alternative treatment.
2-41
-------
5247s/17
Table 2-13 Capacity Analysis for k001a
1988 volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids 3,301.278
Stabilization of incinerator ash 333,224
Stabilization of scrubber water 33,013
treatment sludge
Total 3,667,515
aBaseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of July 22, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
2-42
-------
K016
RCRA hazardous waste K016 is described as heavy ends or distillation
residues from the production of carbon tetrachloride. K016 is listed as
a hazardous waste because of the presence of toxic organics. The Agency
has identified the BOAT technology for K016 to be incineration. As shown
in Table 2-14, all of the K016 identified from the TSDR Survey as
requiring alternative treatment was assigned to this BOAT technology.
The BOAT treatment of K016 would not normally require chromium reduction
and chemical precipitation of the scrubber water, and stabilization of
the scrubber water treatment sludge and the incinerator ash. However,
because several facilities reported mixed waste streams of K016 and
metal-bearing wastes, the Agency assumed that these mixed waste streams
would require this additional treatment. Table 2-14 also shows the
volume of K016 estimated to require this treatment.
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes
that adequate incineration and stabilization capacity exists for K016.
Therefore, the Agency is not granting a capacity variance from the ban
effective date for K016 wastes requiring alternative treatment.
2-43
-------
5247s/18
Table 2-14 Capacity Analysis for K016a
1986 volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
t reatment/recovery (ga 1 Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids
Stabilization of incinerator ash
Stabilization of scrubber water
treatment sludge
Total
aBaselme volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of July 22, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
2-44
-------
K019
RCRA hazardous waste K019 is described as heavy ends from the
distillation of ethylene dichloride in ethylene dichloride production.
K019 is listed as a hazardous waste because of the presence of toxic
organics. The Agency has identified the BOAT technology for K019 to be
incineration. As shown in Table 2-15, all of the K019 identified from
the TSDR Survey as requiring alternative treatment was assigned to this
BOAT technology. The BOAT treatment of K019 would not normally require
chromium reduction and chemical precipitation of the scrubber water, and
stabilization of the scrubber water treatment sludge and the incinerator
ash. However, because several facilities reported mixed waste streams of
K019 and metal-bearing wastes, the Agency assumed that these mixed waste
streams would require this additional treatment. Table 2-15 also shows
the volume of K019 estimated to require this treatment.
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes
that adequate incineration and stabilization capacity exists for K019.
Therefore, the Agency is not granting a capacity variance from the ban
effective date for K019 waste requiring alternative treatment.
2-45
-------
5247s/19
Table 2-15 Capacity Analysis tor k019d
1988 volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids
Stabilization of incinerator ash
Stabilization of scrubber water
treatment sludge
Total
aBaselme volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of July 22, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
2-46
-------
K020
RCRA hazardous waste K020 is described as heavy ends from the
distillation of vinyl chloride in vinyl chloride monomer production.
K020 is listed as a hazardous waste because of the presence of toxic
organics. The Agency has identified the BOAT technology for K020 to be
incineration. As shown in Table 2-16, all of the K020 identified from
the TSDR Survey as requiring alternative treatment was assigned to this
BOAT technology. The BOAT treatment of K020 would not normally require
chromium reduction and chemical precipitation of the scrubber water, and
stabilization of the scrubber water treatment sludge and the incinerator
ash. However, because several facilities reported mixed waste streams of
K020 and metal-bearing wastes, the Agency assumed that these mixed waste
streams would require this additional treatment. Table 2-16 also shows
the volume of K020 estimated to require this treatment.
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes
that adequate incineration and stabilization capacity exists for K020.
Therefore, the Agency is not granting a capacity variance from the ban
effective date for K020 wastes requiring alternative treatment.
2-47
-------
5247s/20
Table 2-16 Capacity Analysis for K020a
1988 volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids 14,400
Stabilization of incinerator ash 360
Stabilization of scrubber water 50
treatment sludge
Total 14,810
aBaseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of July ZZ, 1986). Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
2-48
-------
K022
RCRA hazardous waste K022 is described as distillation bottom tars
from the production of phenol/acetone from cumene. K022 is listed as a
hazardous waste because of the presence of phenol and tars (polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons). The Agency has identified the BOAT technology
for nonwastewater K022 to be incineration followed by stabilization of
the incinerator ash. For today's rule, the Agency is not finalizing the
promulgated standard of no land disposal for K022 wastewaters, but
instead is allowing the soft hammer requirements to take effect. Because
the soft hammer requirements for K022 wastewaters will include scrubber
water resulting from the incineration of K022 wastes, the Agency has not
included the treatment of scrubber water in its estimates of required
capacity for K022. As shown in Table 2-17, all of the K022 identified
from the TSDR Survey as requiring alternative treatment was assigned to
the BOAT technology.
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes
that adequate incineration and stabilization capacity exists for
nonwastewater K022. Therefore, the Agency is not granting a capacity
variance from the ban effective date for nonwastewater K022 wastes
requiring alternative treatment.
2-49
-------
Table 2-17 Capacity Analysis for
1988 volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids
Stabilization of incinerator ash
Total
aBaseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of July 2.2, 19S6). Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
2-50
-------
K024
RCRA hazardous waste K024 is described as distillation bottoms from
the production of phthalic anhydride from naphthalene. K024 is listed as
a hazardous waste because of the presence of phthalic anhydride and
1,4-naphthoquinone. The Agency has identified the BOAT technology for
K024 to be incineration. As shown in Table 2-18, all of the K024
identified from the TSDR Survey as requiring alternative treatment was
assigned to this BOAT technology. The BOAT treatment of K024 would not
normally require chromium reduction and chemical precipitation of the
scrubber water, and stabilization of the scrubber water treatment sludge
and the incinerator ash. However, because several facilities reported
mixed waste streams of K024 and metal-bearing wastes, the Agency assumed
that these mixed waste streams would require this additional treatment.
Table 2-18 also shows the volume of K024 estimated to require this
treatment.
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes
that adequate incineration and stabilization capacity exists for K024.
Therefore, the Agency is not granting a capacity variance from the ban
effective date for K024 wastes requiring alternative treatment.
2-51
-------
S247s/22
Table 2-18 Capacity Analysis for k024
a
1988 volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids 195,705
Baseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of July 22, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
2-52
-------
K030
RCRA hazardous waste K030 is described as column bottom or heavy ends
from the combined production of trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene.
K030 is listed as a hazardous waste because of the presence of toxic
organics. The Agency has identified the BOAT technology for K030 to be
incineration. The BOAT treatment of K030 does not require the treatment
of scrubber water and incinerator ash. As shown in Table 2-19, all of
the K030 identified from the TSDR Survey as requiring alternative
treatment was assigned to this BOAT technology. K030 was not reported in
the TSDR Survey as being mixed with any metal-bearing wastes; therefore,
the treatment of scurbber water and incinerator ash for mixed waste
streams was not necessary.
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes
that adequate incineration capacity exists for K030. Therefore, the
Agency is not granting a capacity variance from the ban effective date
for K030 wastes requiring alternative treatment.
2-53
-------
5247s/23
Table 2-19 Capacity Analysis for K030a
1988 volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids 10,560
Baseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of July 22, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
2-54
-------
K037
RCRA hazardous waste K037 is described as wastewater treatment
sludges from the production of disulfoton. K037 is listed as a hazardous
waste because of the presence of toluene and phosphorodithioic and
phosphorothioic acid esters. The Agency has identified the BOAT
technology for K037 to be incineration. The BOAT treatment of K037 does
not require treatment of scrubber water and incinerator ash. As shown in
Table 2-20, all of the K037 identified from the TSDR Survey as requiring
alternative treatment was assigned to this BOAT technology. K037 was not
reported as being mixed with any metal-bearing wastes in the TSDR Survey;
therefore, the treatment of scrubber water and incinerator ash for mixed
waste streams was not necessary.
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes
that adequate incineration capacity exists for K037. Therefore, the
Agency is not granting a capacity variance from the ban effective date
for K037 wastes requiring alternative treatment.
2-55
-------
5247s/24
Table 2-20 Capacity Analysis for K037
1988 volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids 11,131
^Baseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of July 22, 1986). Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
2-56
-------
K044
RCRA hazardous waste K044 is described as wastewater treatment
sludges from the manufacturing and processing of explosives. K044 is
listed as a hazardous waste because the waste is reactive. The Agency
has identified the BOAT technology for K044 to be open detonation. Based
on the results of the TSDR Survey, the Agency identified two K044/K046
mixed waste streams that will require alternative treatment. K046 is
also generated in the processing of explosives and is listed as a
hazardous waste because of the presence of lead.
One K044/K046 mixed waste stream was reported by a commercial
landfill. Based on the information reported in the TSDR Survey for this
facility, the Agency assumed that the waste no longer displayed explosive
properties. Therefore, the waste was no longer reactive and did not meet
the characteristic of K044 waste. Because' of this, the entire volume of
this waste stream was treated as K046. The other K044/K046 mixed waste
stream was described as "dry" lime or metal hydroxide solids not
"fixed." Again, based on the information reported in the TSDR Survey,
the Agency assumed that the waste stream no longer met the characteristic
of K044 (reactive). Therefore, the K044 volume was treated as K046.
Based on the information in the TSDR Survey, the Agency has
identified no waste streams showing the characteristic of K044 that will
require alternative treatment. Therefore, the Agency is not granting a
capacity variance from the ban effective date for K044 wastes.
2-57
-------
K046
RCRA hazardous waste K046 is described as wastewater treatment
sludges from the manufacturing, formulation, and loading of lead-based
initiating compounds. K046 is listed as a hazardous waste because of the
presence of lead. Today's rule promulgates a final treatment standard
only for those K046 nonwastewaters that are nonreactive. The Agency has
identified the BOAT technology for nonwastewater, nonreactive K046 to be
stabilization. For today's rule, the Agency is not finalizing the
proposed standards for reactive K046 and K046 wastewaters, but instead,
is allowing the soft hammer requirements to take effect. As shown in
Table 2-21, the volume of K046 waste identified by the Agency as
requiring alternative treatment (nonreactive nonwastewaters) was assigned
to the BOAT technology. Based on the results of the TSDR Survey, the
Agency identified two K044/K046 mixed waste streams. One was a K044/K046
mixed waste stream reported by a commercial landfill. Based on the
information reported in the TSDR Survey for this facility, the Agency
assumed that the waste did not display the characteristic of K044 waste
(reactive). The Agency, therefore, believes that the appropriate
treatment for this waste stream is stabilization.
The second K044/K046 mixed waste stream was described as "dry" lime
or metal hydroxide solids not "fixed." Again, based on the information
reported in the TSDR Survey, the Agency assumed that the waste stream did
not meet the characteristic of K044 waste. Therefore, the Agency assumed
that the waste stream would also require stabilization.
2-58
-------
One commenter was concerned that commercial facilities with available
stabilization capacity were not permitted specifically for K046 wastes.
However, a limited review of the TSDR Survey data indicates that one CBI
facility stated that they are permitted for K046 and their process is
capable of meeting the BOAT treatment standard. Furthermore, the
existing (not planned) capacity at this facility is more than enough to
handle the volume of K046 requiring stabilization.
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes
that adequate stabilization capacity exists for K046. Therefore, the
Agency is not granting a capacity variance from the ban effective date to
K046 wastes requiring alternative treatment.
2-59
-------
5^47s/^5
Table 2 21 Capacity Analysis for k046rt
1988 volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Stabilization 1,56
-------
K048 through K052
The petroleum refining industry generates five hazardous wastes
listed in the Code of Federal Regulations: K048, K049, K050, K051, and
K052. K048 is described as dissolved air flotation (DAF) float; K049 is
described as slop oil emulsion solids; K050 is described as heat
exchanger bundle cleaning sludge; K051 is described as API separator
sludge; and K052 is described as tank bottoms (leaded). K048, K049, and
K051 are listed for containing hexavalent chromium and lead; K050 is
listed for containing hexavalent chromium; and K052 is listed for
containing lead. The vast majority of waste generated by the petroleum
refining industry is K048, K049, and K051. The Agency has identified the
BOAT for K048-K052 waste streams to be solvent extraction followed by
stabilization of residuals or incineration, with chromium reduction and
chemical precipitation of the scrubber water, and stabilization of the
scrubber water treatment sludge and the incinerator ash.
Table 2-22 shows the volumes of K048-K052 wastes that, based on the
results of the TSDR Survey, will require alternative treatment.
Table 2-22 also shows the treatment technologies assigned to the K048-
K052 wastes.
Treatability analysis and assignment of treatment technologies to the
petroleum refining wastes is influenced by two factors: waste
composition and physical form. All five of the petroleum refining wastes
can be described as an organic sludge containing metals; hence, they can
be assigned to the same BOAT treatment technology.
2-61
-------
5247s/26
Table 2-22 Capacity Analysis for k048-k052a
1988 volume needing
Waste Type of alternative alternative capacity
code treatment/recovery (gallons/year)
K048 Solvent extraction or combustion of 33,407,730
sludges/sol ids
K048 Stabilization of solvent extraction residues 3,340,773
or incinerator ash
K048 Stabilization of scrubber water 334,077
treatment sludge
t
K049 Solvent extraction or combustion of 26,455,250
sludges/sol ids
K049 Stabilization of solvent extraction residues 2,983,115
or incinerator ash
k049 Stabilization of scrubber water 284,553
treatment sludge
K049 Wastewater treatment - carbon adsorption 902,640
and chromium reduction
K049 Stabilization of wastewater 9,026
treatment sludge
K050 Solvent extraction or combustion of 10,611,680
sludges/solids
K050 Stabilization of solvent extraction residues 1,086,370
or incinerator ash
k050 Stabilization of scrubber water 106,117
treatment sludge
K051 Solvent extraction or combustion of . 70,279,848
sludges/solids
K051 Stabilization of solvent extraction residues 7,163,678
or incinerator ash
k051 Stabilization of scrubber water
treatment sludge
-------
5247s/27
Table 2-22 (Continued)
Waste
code
Type of alternative
treatment /recovery
1988 volume needing
alternative capacity
(gal Ions/year)
K052 Solvent extraction or combustion of 11,207,605
sludges/sol ids
k052 Stabilization of solvent extraction residues 1,139,558
or incinerator ash incineration residues
R05? Stabilization of scrubber water
treatment sludge 113.078
Total 172,127,096
aBaseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of July 22, 1986). Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils.
2-63
-------
Most of the petroleum refining waste, approximately 154 million
gallons, were reported in the TSDR Survey as sludges (as described
above) and, therefore, are assigned to the BOAT technologies. However,
there were some notable exceptions. One facility described its K049
waste stream as a wastewater or an aqueous mixture. From the facility
schematic, it was determined that this stream resulted from tank
cleaning. The Agency believes this waste would be too low in organic
content to be incinerated; instead, this stream was determined to require
carbon adsorption, chromium reduction, and chemical precipitation, with
stabilization of the wastewater treatment sludge. The carbon adsorption
would remove the organics, followed by chromium reduction and chemical
precipitation to remove the metals from the wastewater stream.
A second case was a K051 waste stream identified by a facility as an
aqueous mixture. From the facility schematic it was determined that the
waste stream comes from a tank that has only sludge entering it and two
streams exiting, one an aqueous stream that is recycled back into the
wastewater treatment plant. The stream in question is the only other
stream exiting the tank, and it is then sent to land treatment. This
waste stream was therefore determined to be a sludge and was assigned to
sludge incineration.
There were also two cases of facilities reporting K048-K051 as
organic liquids. In one case, the stream is an effluent from a
2-64
-------
dewatering tank which is sent to land treatment. This type of treatment
typically results in generation of a sludge; therefore, this volume was
assigned to solvent extraction or sludge/solid incineration. In the
other case, however, the organic liquid enters a surface impoundment for
evaporation before land treatment. Through review of the survey
responses, the Agency believes that there is adequate onsite tank storage
capacity to sufficiently dewater the waste without continuing to rely on
land placement; therefore, only that volume of sludge that is sent to
land treatment will require solvent extraction or sludge/solid
incineration.
At one facility, K048-K052 wastes were reported as entering surface
impoundments for dewatering (volume reduction). Rather than assuming
that the entire volume that enters the surface impoundments requires
alternative treatment, the Agency considered only the volume that settles
out in the impoundments. The Agency believes that dewatering, which
presently occurs in surface impoundments, can be done instead in existing
onsite tanks.
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency does not
believe that adequate alternative capacity currently exists for K048-
K052. The Agency does not believe that adequate combustion capacity will
be available until 1990. Also, based on an Agency report analyzing the
time required to site and construct new hazardous waste treatment
facilities (Ref. 11), EPA estimates that a treatment system can generally
2-65
-------
be installed in 19 to 24 months. This estimate includes the time
required for conceptual planning and design, detailed engineering design,
bid solicitation and evaluation, construction, and start-up. The
estimate does not include the additional time required for preparation
and approval of RCRA and/or State permit applications.
Therefore, the Agency is granting a 2-year national capacity variance
from the ban effective date for K048-K052 wastes requiring alternative
treatment.
2-66
-------
K061
RCRA hazardous waste K061 is described as emission control
dust/sludge from the primary production of steel in electric furnaces.
K061 is listed as a hazardous waste because of the presence of hexavalent
chromium, lead, and cadmium. For K061 containing >.15 percent zinc (high
zinc K061), the Agency has identified the BOAT technology to be high
temperature metals recovery. For K061 containing <15 percent zinc (low
zinc K061), the Agency has identified the BOAT technology to be
stabilization. The TSDR Survey does not contain data that would allow
the Agency to differentiate between high zinc and low zinc K061.
However, based on information from public comments on the proposed rule,
the Agency estimates that 75 percent of the K061 requiring alternative
treatment is high zinc K061. Table 2-23 shows the volumes of K061 waste
identified by the Agency as requiring alternative treatment.
One waste stream reported in the TSDR Survey (67,920 gallons) was
reported as a mixed K061 and K062 stream. After reviewing the survey
information, it was determined that the waste stream had been received
/
from an offsite facility and was directly landfilled. Because of this
information and the characteristics of the waste codes involved, the
Agency assumed that the waste stream is an inorganic solid. The Agency
believes that these wastes will likely be segregated upon promulgation of
the land disposal restrictions and, therefore, will no longer be
generated as a mixed waste stream. To conservatively estimate the
volumes of K061 and K062 that will require alternative treatment, the
2-67
-------
5247s/28
Table
23 Capacity Analysis tor k061c
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1986 volume needing
alternative capacity
(gal Ions/year)
High temperature metals recovery
Stabi1ization
62,357,226
20,785,742
Total 83,142.968
aBaseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of July 22, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
2-bB
-------
entire volume of this waste stream was assigned to the BOAT technologies
for both K061 and K062, with no resulting impact on capacity variance
determinations for those wastes (see below).
The Agency believes that sufficient high temperature metals recovery
capacity does not exist for high zinc K061. For the proposed rule
(Ref.4, Ref. 11), EPA analyzed the length of the required to install a
BOAT treatment system for K061 waste. Based on this analysis, EPA
estimates that a BOAT treatment system could be constructed within two
years. This estimate does not include the time required for preparation
and approval of RCRA and/or State permit applications because high
temperature metal-recovery is considered recycling, and as such, is
exempt from RCRA permitting.
Therefore, the Agency is granting a 2-year national capacity variance
from the ban effective date for K061 wastes requiring high temperature
metals recovery. However, the Agency is setting an interim standard for
high zinc K061 based on stabilization.
Several commenters were concerned that commercial facilities with
available stabilization capacity were not permitted specifically for K061
waste. However, review of the TSDR Survey data indicates that there is
approximately 205 million gallons of existing (not planned) available
capacity at facilities that accepted K061 for stabilization in 1986 or
said they would accept K061 for stabilization. These facilities included
GSX Services of South Carolina, Peoria Disposal Inc., and several CBI
2-69
-------
facilities. Because they have accepted K061 for stabilization in the
past, the Agency assumes the facilities were permitted to stabilize K061
wastes.
Based on the information in the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes that
adequate stabilization capacity exists for high zinc and low zinc K061.
Therefore, the Agency is not granting a capacity variance from the ban
effective date for K061 wastes based on stabilization.
2-70
-------
K062
RCRA hazardous waste K062 is described as spent pickle liquor from
steel finishing operations of plants that produce iron and steel. K062
is listed as a hazardous waste because of the presence of hexavalent
chromium and lead. The Agency has identified the BOAT technology for
K062 to be chromium reduction followed by chemical precipitation and
sludge dewatering. As shown in Table 2-24, all of the K062 identified by
the TSDR Survey as requiring alternative treatment was assigned to this
BOAT technology. The BOAT technology identified for K062 waste does not
normally require stabilization of the wastewater treatment sludge.
One waste stream reported in the TSDR Survey (67,920 gallons) was a
mixed K061 and K062 stream. After reviewing the survey for this
facility, it was determined that the waste stream had been received from
offsite and was directly landfilled. Because of this information and the
characteristics of the waste codes involved, the Agency assumed the waste
stream to be an inorganic solid. The Agency believes that these wastes
will likely be segregated upon promulgation of the land disposal
restrictions and, therefore, will no longer be generated as a mixed waste
stream. To conservatively estimate the volumes of K062 and K061 that
will require alternative treatment, the entire volume of this waste
stream was assigned to the BOAT technologies for both K062 and K061. The
K062 waste was assumed to require slurrying prior to chromium reduction,
chemical precipitation, and sludge dewatering.
2-71
-------
5247s/29
Table 2-24 Capacity Analysis for k062a
1988 volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year)
Wastewater treatment- chromium reduction 40,114,690
aBaseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of July 22, 1986). Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils.
2-72
-------
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes
that adequate capacity is available for chromium reduction and
stabilization (if necessary) of K062 wastes. Therefore, the Agency is
not granting a capacity variance from the effective date to K062 wastes
requiring these technologies.
2-73
-------
K071
RCRA hazardous waste K071 is described as brine purification muds
from the mercury cell process in chlorine production, where separately
prepurified brine is not used. K071 is listed as a hazardous waste
because of the presence of mercury. The Agency has identified the BOAT
technology for K071 to be acid leaching followed by chemical oxidation,
dewatering of sludges, and sulfide precipitation of metals in the
effluent. The resultant wastewater treatment sludge from the BOAT
treatment of K071 is classified as K106 waste, which is discussed later
in this section. As shown in Table 2-25, all of the K071 identified from
the TSDR Survey as requiring alternative treatment was assigned to this
BOAT technology.
Based on the information in the TSDR Survey, the Agency does not
believe that adequate capacity is available for K071 wastes. For the
proposed rule (Ref. 4, Ref. 11), EPA estimated that the proposed BOAT
treatment system for K071 could be installed in within two years. This
estimate included the time required for conceptual planning and design,
detailed engineering design, bid solicitation and evaluation,
construction, and start-up. The estimate does not include the additional
time required for preparation and approval of RCRA and/or State permit
applications.
Therefore, the Agency is granting a 2-year national capacity variance
from the ban effective date to K071 wastes requiring alternative
treatment.
2-74
-------
5247s/30
Table 2-25 Capacity Analysis for R071a
1988 volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Acid leaching, chemical oxidation, 3,886,584
and dewatering of sludges and sulfide
precipjtation of metals in effluent
aBaseline volumes data from TSOR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of July 22, 1986). Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
2-75
-------
K083
RCRA hazardous waste K083 is described as distillation bottoms from
aniline production. K083 is listed as a hazardous waste because of the
presence of aniline, diphenylamine, nitrobenzene, and phenylenediamine.
The Agency is finalizing a treatment standard of no land disposal for
K083 nonwastewaters with less than 0.01 percent by weight ash. For
today's rule, however, the Agency is not finalizing the proposed standard
of no land disposal for K083 wastewaters and for K083 nonwastewaters with
greater than or equal to 0.01 percent by weight ash, but instead is
allowing the soft hammer requirements to take effect. Because the TSDR
Survey data does not contain the data needed to differentiate between the
two subcategories of nonwastewater K083, the Agency has conseratively
assumed that the entire volume of land disposed nonwastewater K083 will
require alternative treatment/recovery.
As shown in Table 2-26, all of the K083 identified from the TSDR
Survey as requiring alternative treatment was assigned to the BOAT
technology. K083 was not reported as being mixed with any metal-bearing
wastes in the TSDR Survey; therefore, the treatment of scrubber water and
incinerator ash for mixed waste streams was not necessary.
Based on information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes that
adequate incineration capacity exists for K083. Therefore, the Agency is
not granting a capacity variance from the ban effective date for K083
wastes requiring alternative treatment.
2-76
-------
S247S/31
Table 2-26 Capacity Analysis for KOB3a
1988 volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids 75,732
aBaseline volumes data from TSOR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of July 22, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
2-77
-------
K086
RCRA hazardous waste K086 is described as solvent washes and sludges,
ink residues, and wastewaters from cleaning tubs and equipment used in
the formulation of ink from pigments, driers, soaps, and stabilizers
containing chromium and lead. K086 is listed as a hazardous waste
because of the presence of lead and hexavalent chromium. BOAT treatment
standards have been set only for K086 solvent washes and sludges. The
BOAT treatment standards for K086 ink residues and wastewaters have been
deferred and, therefore, are not included in this analysis. The Agency
has identified the BOAT technology for K086 solvent washes and sludges to
be incineration with chromium reduction and chemical precipitation of the
scrubber water, and stabilization of the scrubber water treatment sludge
and incinerator ash. As shown in Table 2-27, the K086 waste identified
from the TSDR Survey as requiring alternative treatment was assigned to
this BOAT technology.
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes
that adequate capacity exists for incineration and stabilization of K086
solvent washes and sludges. Therefore, the Agency is not granting a
capacity variance from the ban effective date for K086 wastes requiring
alternative treatment.
2-78
-------
5247s/32
Table 2-27 Capacity Analysis for K086a
1988 volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Combustion of
Combustion of
Stabi 1 izat ion
Stabi 1 izat ion
1 iquids
sludges/sol ids
of incinerator ash
of scrubber water
Total
204,828
960
2,144
2,058
209,990
aBaseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of July 22, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils.
2-79
-------
K087
RCRA hazardous waste K087 is described as decanter tank tar sludge
from coking operations. K087 is listed as a hazardous waste because of
the presence of phenol and naphthalene. The Agency has identified the
BOAT technology for K087 to be incineration with chemical precipitation
of the scrubber water and stabilization of the scrubber water treatment
sludge and the incinerator ash. As shown in Table 2-28, all of the K087
waste identified from the TSDR Survey as requiring alternative treatment
was assigned to this BOAT technology.
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes
that adequate incineration and stabilization capacity exists for K087.
In addition, much of this waste is (or can be) recycled into the coking
process. Therefore, the Agency is not granting a national capacity
variance from the ban effective date for K087 wastes requiring
alternative treatment.
2-80
-------
5247s/3
Table 2-28 Capacity Analysis for k087d
1988 volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (ga1 Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids 1,235,850
Stabilization of incinerator ash 123,585
Stabilization of scrubber water 12,359
treatment sludge
Total 1,371,794
aBaseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 19B6 (facility responses as
of July 22, 1986). Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
2-11
-------
K101 and K102
RCRA hazardous wastes K101 and K012 are described as residues from
the production of veterinary Pharmaceuticals from arsenic or
organo-arsenic compounds. K101 and K102 are listed as hazardous wastes
because of the presence of arsenic. The Agency has identified the BOAT
technology for K101 and K102 to be incineration with chemical
precipitation of the scrubber water and stabilization of the scrubber
water treatment sludge and the incinerator ash. The data used for the
capacity analysis of K101 and K102 came from the 1985 Biennial Report
data base, not the TSDR Survey. The volumes reported in Table 2-29
represent the total volume of K101 and K102 waste generated, rather than
the total volume land disposed. Therefore, the volumes represent a
"worst-case" conservative analysis. As shown in Table 2-29, all of the
K101 and K102 wastes identified were assigned to this BOAT technology.
Based on the information from the 1985 Biennial Report data base, the
Agency believes that adequate incineration and stabilization capacity
exists for K101 and K102. Therefore, the Agency is not granting a
capacity variance from the ban effective date for K101 and K102 wastes
requiring alternative treatment.
2-82
-------
Table 2-29 Capacity Analysis for klOl and k!02J
1988 volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery - (gallons/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids 95.000
Stabilization of incinerator ash 9,500
Stabilization of scrubber water 950
treatment sludge
Total 105,450
aBaseline volumes data from the 1965 Biennial Report Data Base
Volumes do not include underground injection quantities or contaminated
soi Is
2-83
-------
K103
RCRA hazardous waste K103 is described as process residues from
aniline extraction from the production of aniline. K103 is listed as a
hazardous waste because of the presence of aniline, nitrobenzene, and
phenylenediamine. The Agency has identified the BOAT technology for K103
to be solvent extraction followed by steam stripping, carbon adsorption,
and carbon regeneration. This BOAT was identified for liquid K103 waste
streams. However, as shown in Table 2-30, only K103 sludges/solids were
identified from the TSDR Survey as requiring alternative treatment. The
Agency believes that incineration of the K103 sludges/solids will meet
the BOAT treatment standard.
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes
that adequate incineration capacity exists for K103. Therefore, the
Agency is not granting a capacity variance from the ban effective date
for K103 wastes requiring alternative treatment.
2-84
-------
5247s/35
Table 2-30 Capacity Analysis for K103a
1988 volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids 66.372
aBaseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of July 22, 1986). Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
2-85
-------
K104
RCRA hazardous waste K104 is described as combined wastewater streams
generated from nitrobenzene/aniline production. K104 is listed as a
hazardous waste because of the presence of aniline, benzene,
diphenylamine, nitrobenzene, and phenylenediamine. The Agency has
identified the BOAT technology for K104 to be solvent extraction followed
by liquid incineration, steam stripping, carbon adsorption, and carbon
regeneration. This BOAT technology was identified for K104 as described
in 40 CFR 261.32 (wastewater); however, as shown in Table 2-31, only K104
sludges/solids were identified from the TSDR Survey as requiring
alternative treatment. The Agency believes that incineration of K104
sludges/solids will meet the BOAT treatment standard.
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes
that adequate incineration capacity exists for K104. Therefore, the
Agency is not granting a capacity variance from the ban effective date
for K104 wastes requiring alternative treatment.
2-86
-------
5247s/36
Table 2-31 Capacity Analysis for k!04a
1988 volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (ga 1 Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids 16,320
aBaseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of July 22, 1986). Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
2-87
-------
3.2.6 Contaminated Soils
Because of the unique treatability and regulatory issues associated
with contaminated soils, they have been handled separately in this
document. Table 2-32 presents estimates based on TSDR Survey data of the
total volume of contaminated soils land disposed at Subtitle C facilities
and a breakdown of the total volume land disposed per regulatory group
affected by today's final rule. Contaminated soils were identified by
the waste description code associated with each waste stream, and do not
include contaminated debris unless specifically stated by the facility.
The survey does not contain data on the volume of contaminated soils
generated, only on the volume land disposed. Furthermore, no data are
available on the source generating the waste volume being land disposed
(e.g., corrective actions, spill cleanups, etc.)
Available capacity was first assigned to the nonsoil land-disposed
wastes analyzed in this document (i.e., solvent, HOCs, and First Third
promulgated wastes). The remaining capacity was then used as available
for contaminated soils. Table 2-33 presents the results of the capacity
analyses conducted for soils contaminated with solvents, HOC wastes
(excluding First Third promulgated wastes containing HOCs) and First
Third promulgated wastes .
The results show that adequate capacity exists for the volume of
contaminated soils requiring stabilization (i.e., soils contaminated with
metal bearing wastes). However, capacity is not adequate for the volume
2-88
-------
5847S/14
Table ?-3? Volume of Contaminated Soils Lann Disposed
Regulatory group
Land-disposed volume
(million gallons/year)
Solvents
First Third (proposed) wastes
First Third (not proposed) wastes
containing HOCs
Al 1 other HOC wastes
Other RCRA wastes
A I I RCRA wastes
26
IB
2
11
64
-------
5247S/15
Table 2-33 Contaminated Soils
Capacity Analysis
Available Required
capacity capacity
Technology (million gal/yr) (million gal/yr)
Combust ion of soiIs
(sludges/sol ids)
- Solvents 26
- First Third promulgated 1 12
- HOCs (excluding above) 4
Stabi1iZJtion of soiIs
contaminated with:
- Solvents (other) <1
- Solvents (combustion residues) 10
- First Third promulgated 264 6
(combustion residues)
- First Third promulgated (other) 11
2-90
-------
of soils requiring combustion (i.e., soils contaminated with organics).
Therefore, the Agency is granting a 2-year national capacity variance for
contaminated soils requiring combustion.
2-91
-------
3.0 CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
This section of the background document presents a detailed
discussion of the methodology (approach) and rationale for the capacity
analyses to support this final rule.
Section 3.1, Data Set Generation, includes a brief discussion of the
data sources and the technical review and quality control procedures
associated with the creation of the new waste volume data set used for
capacity analysis. Section 3.1 presents a detailed discussion of the
methodology used for determination of required alternative capacity for
land disposed wastes (capacity demand). Section 3.2 presents a detailed
discussion on the determination of available alternative capacity
(supply) and the creation of the alternative capacity data sets used for
the analysis. Finally, Section 3.3 presents the methodology and the
results for the comparative analysis of waste volumes and the associated
demand for the alternative capacity against the supply of available
capacity, to determine if adequate capacity exists to support the land
disposal restrictions.
3.1 Determination of Required Treatment Capacity
This section presents a detailed discussion of the analytical
methodology used to determine the demand for alternative treatment
capacity required by wastes affected by today's final rule.
3.1.1 Waste Volumes Affected
As mentioned previously, this document presents an analysis of
required and available treatment capacity for solvent wastes, HOC wastes,
3-1
-------
and First Third promulgated wastes, including contaminated soils. To
assess the requirements for alternative treatment capacity that will
result from the restrictions, it was necessary to identify waste volumes
by land disposal method, waste code, and physical/chemical form. With
this information, it is possible to identify which treatment technologies
are applicable to the waste volumes and to determine required alternative
treatment capacity.
(1) Data sources. The TSDR Survey data base described above was the
primary source used to estimate waste volumes. The 1985 Biennial Report
data base was used to estimate waste volumes for K101 and K102 wastes as
well as waste volumes at one large commercial landfill that did not
provide data in the TSDR Survey.
(2) Identification o f w a s te .voljjmes_. Only solvent, First Third
promulgated, and HOC wastes have been included in this document. These
wastes were identified on a waste code basis. For solvent or First Third
promulgated wastes described by a single waste code, the volume was
allocated to the appropriate regulatory group (i.e., solvents or First
Third promulgated).
For waste groups (mixed wastes and/or wastes described by more than
one RCRA waste code), the entire volume was included in the regulatory
group of the highest priority code in the group. For example, if a waste
group was described by both a solvent waste code (F001-F005) and a First
Third promulgated code, the entire waste volume was assigned to solvents
because they were restricted prior to First Third promulgated wastes.
3-2
-------
The solvent wastes include the following spent solvent waste stream:
F001, F002, F003, F004, and F005.
The First Third promulgated wastes include those wastes identified in
Table 1-1. However, not all First Third promulgated wastes have been
included in the analysis of required treatment capacity. For some of the
First Third promulgated wastes, a treatment standard of "No Land
Disposal" was proposed because EPA has determined that these wastes are
not currently generated or that they can be totally recycled. A "No Land
Disposal" standard was proposed for K004, K008, K021, K036, K060, and
K073 and for wastewaters from F006, K022, K046, K061, and K069 because
EPA believed that these wastes are no longer generated. However, in
response to commenters who noted that these wastes are being generated as
landfill leachates, the Agency is not finalizing a standard for
wastewaters from these wastes, but instead is allowing them to be covered
by the soft hammer requirements.
Similarly, the Agency proposed a "No Land Disposal" standard for K069
waste believing it could be totally recycled and therefore no longer land
disposed. However, some K069 wastes containing high levels of calcium
sulfate cannot be recycled. The Agency is not finalizing the no land
disposal standard for K069 wastes containing calcium sulfate. These
wastes will therefore be covered by the soft hammer requirements.
EPA is, however, finalizing a standard of "No Land Disposal" for
K044, K045, and K047 wastes because open burning and open detonation of
reactive wastes is not considered to be land disposal.
3-3
-------
Although the TSDR Survey contains data showing that some of the
wastes discussed above were land disposed in 1986, the Agency is
excluding these wastes from the analysis of required capacity for First
Third promulgated wastes on the basis of more recent data obtained by
EPA's BOAT Program.
HOC wastes were also identified on a waste code basis. Any waste
described by a waste code listed in 40 CFR Part 261 for containing a
halogenated organic (except F001-F005 solvent wastes) was conservatively
assumed to be a potential California List HOC waste (i.e., contains
£1,000 ppm HOCs). HOC wastes were identified as either "HOCs and First
Third proposed," or "all other HOCs." However, because HOC wastes that
are also First Third promulgated wastes and HOC waste groups that also
contain a First Third promulgated waste have already been included under
the capacity analysis for First Third promulgated wastes, they have been
excluded from the capacity analysis for HOC wastes.
(3) Determination of affected volumes. Solvent, First Third
proposed, and HOC land-disposed wastes are affected by the restrictions
and will require alternative treatment capacity. Land disposal is
defined under RCRA as any placement of hazardous waste into or on the
land. Therefore, storage and treatment of hazardous waste in or on the
land is also considered land disposal. Land disposal methods can be
divided into numerous categories. Four of these methods are addressed in
detail in this document: disposal in landfills; treatment and storage in
3-4
-------
waste piles; disposal by land application; and treatment, storage, and
disposal in surface impoundments. Utilization of salt dome formations,
utilization of salt bed formations, and utilization of underground mines
and caves are additional methods of land disposal that are affected by
this rulemaking. Currently, there is insufficient information to
document the volumes of First Third wastes disposed of by these last
three methods; therefore, they are not addressed in the analysis of
volumes and required alternative treatment capacity. Underground (deep
well) injection, another form of land disposal, will be covered under a
separate rulemaking; thus, the volume of underground injected wastes has
not been included in this document.
Estimates of the volume of affected wastes that have been stored (but
not treated or disposed of) in surface impoundments or waste piles are
presented: Storage implies a temporary placement of wastes in the
surface impoundment or waste pile. EPA has assumed that all of the
affected wastes stored in surface impoundments are eventually treated or
recycled or that they are routed to permanent disposal in other existing
units. To avoid double-counting in this analysis (i.e., counting waste
volumes once when they are stored and again when they are finally
disposed of), the volumes of wastes reported as being stored in surface
impoundments or waste piles were not included in the estimates of volumes
requiring alternative treatment capacity. Nevertheless, these wastes
will be affected by the restrictions and will require alternative storage
3-5
-------
capacity. However, if it were determined during the facility level
analysis that wastes were being stored indefinitely in the impoundment or
waste pile (i.e., long-term storage), these volumes were included as
requiring alternative treatment capacity because they would not be
counted elsewhere. Long-term storage of hazardous waste was determined
by examining the responses to the TSDR Survey regarding waste piles and
surface impoundments. If hazardous waste entered the waste pile or
surface impoundment for storage in 1986 but was not reported as having
been removed from the impoundment or waste pile for treatment or disposal
previous to or during 1986, the waste was considered to have undergone
long-term storage.
HSWA requires that all surface impoundments must be in compliance
with certain minimum design and operating criteria (minimum technology
requirements; see RCRA Section 3005(j) to continue receiving, treating,
or storing hazardous waste beyond November 8, 1988. Furthermore, the
land disposal restrictions, upon promulgation, forbid placement of
restricted wastes in surface impoundments, except for treatment. These
treatment impoundments, however, must meet the minimum technology
standards mentioned above. Consequently, most surface impoundments will
either be replaced by tanks, retrofit to meet the minimum technical
standards, or closed entirely by November 1988. Because the baseline
year for the TSDR Survey is 1986, however, the 1986 land disposed volumes
do not reflect these changes. Therefore, a special analysis of the
management of wastes in surface impoundments was conducted. As described
3:6
-------
in Section 2.1.1, if it could be determined from the survey responses or
through facility followup that a treatment surface impoundment was being
closed without a replacement (i.e., the surface impoundment will be
bypassed because it is not crucial to effective operation of the
treatment system), being replaced by tanks, or being retrofit, then the
volume was dropped from further analysis of waste requiring alternative
treatment capacity.
For surface impoundments used for treatment and long-term storage or
for treatment and disposal that were being replaced by tanks or retrofit,
it was sometimes necessary to include the volume of treatment residual
generated in the impoundment in 1986 in the volume requiring alternative
treatment capacity. Because the impoundment was used for long-term
storage or disposal of the treatment residual, the volume was not counted
elsewhere as land disposal. Assuming that the treatment residual would
continue to be generated after retrofit or replacement, the volume of
treatment residual generated on an annual basis, not the entire volume
entering the impoundment for treatment, was included as requiring
alternative treatment capacity. For example, if a facility reported that
in 1986 it used a surface impoundment for treatment (settling) and
disposal of a First Third promulgated hazardous waste but in 1988 it was
replacing the impoundment with a settling tank, the volume of waste
entering the impoundment in 1986 would not require alternative treatment
capacity because it would no longer be land disposed in 1988. However,
3-7
-------
the volume that was settling for disposal in 1986 would still be
generated in the tank (clarifier) in 1988 and would require alternative
treatment capacity prior to disposal. The treatment residual volume
would therefore be included in the volume of wastes requiring alternative
treatment capacity. If, however, it was determined that the impoundment
was a flow-through impoundment and only incidental settling occurred
(i.e., less than 1 percent of the volume entering was settled), then it
was assumed that there would be essentially no settling when replaced by
a tank.
3.1.2 Treatability Analysis
Those wastes that will require alternative treatment/recovery because
of the land disposal restrictions have been identified and must be
analyzed to determine the types of alternative treatment required. This
process is referred to as treatability analysis. This section discusses
the methodology used to perform treatability analyses on the wastes
identified as requiring alternative treatment/recovery. The results of
the treatability analysis conducted on the waste streams used for this
rulemaking are contained in a report in the public docket (Ref. 12).
(1) Waste characterization. Respondents to the TSDR Survey were
asked to provide limited waste characterization, including a waste
code(s) and a waste description code (A/B codes), for each waste stream
being land disposed. The A/B codes classify wastes by the following
general categories and also provide limited qualitative information on
3-8
-------
hazardous constituents in the waste: inorganic liquids, sludge, solids
and gases and also organic liquids, sludges, solids, and gases. The
waste code and A/B codes combinations were the primary source of
characterization data used to assess treatability of the wastes.
A limited number of facilities, however, did not provide these
codes. If during technical review of the survey or facility followup,
the facility was either unwilling or unable to provide these codes,
engineering judgment was used to assign a waste description code. All
available information from the survey was used to assign the waste
description codes, including the survey responses and the facility
schematic. These sources could provide information on previous
management (e.g., whether the waste was a treatment residual), the origin
of the waste (e.g., mixture ruled and derived from the rule wastes), and
how the waste was being land disposed.
In addition, for F and K coded wastes for which the facility did not
provide waste description codes, the waste description in 40 CFR Part
260, as well as information contained in a report characterizing these
wastes (Ref. 13), was used to assign the waste to the most common
physical/chemical form. Occasionally, it was not feasible to assign the
waste to the most common form. For example, if the available information
indicated the waste was commonly a solid but the waste was being
underground injected, it was assumed to be a liquid rather than a solid.
3-9
-------
P and U coded wastes for which the facility did not provide waste
description codes were generally assigned to either off-spec or discarded
products, contaminated solids, or aqueous cleanup residue, depending on
the volume, management, and assumed physical form of each waste. Again,
any assumptions regarding the physical form were based on any available
information from the schematic or survey, including the methods of
management. For example, landfilled wastes were assumed to be either
sludges or solids, and underground injected wastes were assumed to be
liquids. If the volume of waste without description being land disposed
was large (i.e., greater than 50 tons for solids or 1,000 gallons for
liquids), the waste was assumed to be a contaminated soil or aqueous
waste derived from cleanup residue. This was based on the assumption
that, for economic reasons, only small volumes of off-spec products are
likely to be produced, and therefore only small volumes would be land
disposed.
Characteristic hazardous wastes (i.e., D waste codes) for which the
facility did not provide waste description codes were generally assigned
a waste description based on the type of land disposal, any information
from the schematic or other survey responses, and the characteristic
represented by the particular D code. For example, pesticides wastes
characteristically hazardous for toxicity were generally considered
organic, while toxic metal wastes were considered inorganic.
3-10
-------
(2) Treatability grouping. As previously mentioned, EPA is required
to establish treatment standards for those wastes being restricted from
land disposal. The Agency has the option of either specifing the use of
a particular technology or setting a concentration standard based on the
performance of the best demonstrated available technology (BOAT). For
solvent and First Third promulgated wastes, the Agency has generally
established concentration standards based on BOAT; however, EPA has
established that nonwastewater HOCs require incineration (including
industrial kilns).
Using the characterization data provided by the survey, the waste
code and A/B code combinations, and considering the BOAT technologies
identified by EPA, wastes were assessed for treatability and assigned to
treatability groups. These treatability groups were then assigned to
BOAT treatment, or in some cases alternative treatment, that the Agency
believes is capable of meeting the BOAT treatment standard. For example,
if the BOAT technology was identified as rotary kiln incineration, it was
assumed that other types of incineration with the appropriate feed system
would be able to achieve the BOAT standard. In addition for this
analysis, reuse as fuel in an industrial kiln was also assumed to be
equivalent to incineration.
Wastes with similar A/B codes that require the same BOAT were
assigned to the same treatability groups. Appendix D shows the
treatability groups to which the various waste code and A/B code
3-11
-------
combinations were assigned. Appendix E presents the alternative
treatment/recovery technologies associated with each treatability group,
and Appendix F contains a description of each alternative
treatment/recovery technology.
(3) Alternative technologies. In limited cases, waste could not be
assigned to the treatability group representing the BOAT treatment
because the physical/chemical form of the waste was incompatible with the
BOAT treatment. In these cases, an engineering analysis of the waste
stream was conducted to assign the waste to an alternative technology
believed capable of achieving the BOAT treatment standard. The results
of these analyses for each waste stream are presented in the waste
code-by-waste code discussions in Section 2.2.5. The TSDR Survey does
not contain data on the performance of treatment technologies; therefore,
several alternative sources (Refs. 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18) and "best
engineering judgment" were required to identify potential alternatives to
BOAT.
A similar analysis was conducted for waste groups (i.e., mixed
wastes). Waste groups are hazardous wastes that are described by more
than one RCRA waste code, and present special treatability problems in
that they are often contaminated with hazardous constituents that may
fall under more than one treatability group (e.g., organics and metals).
Such waste groups can generally not be assigned to only the BOAT
technology for one specific waste type. Instead, a treatment train that
3-12
-------
is capable of treating each waste type in the group sequentially must be
developed. Often these treatment trains can be developed by combining
BOAT treatments in sequence, or by adding pre- or post-treatment steps to
the BOAT technology. Treatment trains were developed using the
references mentioned above and engineering judgment.
(4) Treatment residuals. Treatment technologies generate residuals
that create capacity demand. For example, K048 wastes require sludge
incineration followed by stabilization of the incinerator ash and
chromium reduction and chemical precipitation of the scrubber water
followed by stabilization of the resultant wastewater treatment sludge.
Based on the TSDR Survey responses, it was determined that RCRA permitted
incinerators have adequate air pollution control devices (APCD)
(including scrubber water treatment at those facilities with wet
scrubbers) and that the facility considered the capacity of the APCD when
determining the capacity of their incinerator; therefore, no attempt was
made to evaluate capacity for treatment of scrubber waters. Wastewater
treatment sludges requiring stabilization, however, were included in the
estimate of treatment residuals requiring capacity. Consequently, in the
example used above, the K048 waste stream would require incineration and
stabilization capacity.
Although the entire volume would require incineration, only a portion
of the original volume would require stabilization because the amount of
ash and wastewater treatment sludge generated would be less than the
3-13
-------
original volume incinerated. To account for these changes in the volume
within a treatment train, volume adjustment factors were developed.
These factors were developed using engineering judgment and are dependent
on the type of treatment and the physical/chemical form of the waste.
The factor represents that percent of the original volume exiting the
technology of concern. In the example used above, K048 is an organic
sludge being incinerated. The volume adjustment factor used to estimate
the volume of ash generated from incineration of an organic sludge is
0.1, or 10 percent of the original volume, and the volume of wastewater
treatment sludge is estimated at 0.01 or 1 percent of the original
volume. Therefore, if 100 gallons were incinerated, the volume
adjustment factor would estimate that 10 gallons of ash and 1 gallon of
wastewater treatment sludge would be produced.
(5) Previous management. Another important factor considered during
the treatability analysis of a waste was any previous management. Using
information contained in the TSDR Surveys and the facility schematics, it
was possible to evaluate the previous management, if any, for wastes
being land disposed. Whenever possible, the previous management of land-
disposed wastes was evaluated in an attempt to determine if the waste had
already been treated by the BOAT technology or a technology believed
capable of achieving the BOAT treatment standard. If it could be
determined that the waste had been previously treated by such a
technology, the waste was assumed to meet the BOAT treatment standard.
3-14
-------
Such wastes would therefore not be prohibited from land disposal and were
consequently not included in further analysis of the volume of wastes
requiring alternative treatment/recovery capacity.
(6) Wastes excluded from further analysis. Similarly, because of
the unique treatability issues associated with lab packs, these wastes
were not included in the volume of wastes requiring alternative
treatment/recovery capacity. Furthermore, these volumes represent only a
small portion of the volume of wastes affected by today's proposal. Less
than 75,000 gallons of solvent, First Third Proposed, or HOC lab pack
wastes were reported as land disposed in the TSDR Survey.
3.2 Determination of Available Treatment Capacity
This section presents a detailed discussion of the analytical
methodology used to determine the estimates of alternative "combustion"
and "other treatment/recovery" capacity available for wastes affected by
today's proposed rule. These processes include combustion in
incinerators or industrial kilns, solidification/stabilization, solvent
and liquid organic recovery for reuse, metals recovery, acid leaching of
sludges, neutralization, and wastewater treatment for cyanides, metals
and organics. A discussion of combustion capacity is separate from the
discussion of other treatment capacity. Combustion is predominately a
single unit process system; therefore, the combustion system analysis
does not require locating and quantifying a limiting unit within a
treatment train of unit processes as in the analysis of other treatment
systems.
3-15
-------
3.2.1 Determination of Combustion Capacity
(1) Introduction. The combustion data set was established to
determine the following data elements for incineration and reuse as
fuel: (1) the utilized capacity during the base or reference year of
1986; (2) the maximum capacity during 1986 and any planned changes
through 1990; (3) the unused or available capacity during the periods
1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989-1990; and (4) the possible interchange of
capacity between the various hazardous waste forms (feed capabilities)
for these time periods should excess capacity exist for certain forms and
shortfalls exist for others. The data set was generated by technical
review and engineering evaluation of the survey responses, transfer of
data to computer data entry sheets, and eventual data consolidation and
aggregation to arrive at national totals.
At this time, only commercial facility capacity data are included in
the data set. This represents the most readily available capacity, on a
national level, to treat the waste that is currently being considered
under the land disposal restrictions rule. Because of time constraints,
the capacity indicated by the commercial data set does not include
information on two other potential categories of waste treatment
capacity, limited commercial and captive facility capacity. "Limited
commercial" facilities are those that accept wastes from only a limited
number of facilities not under the same ownership—in many cases, only
from their customers and/or clients. "Captive facilities" are those that
3-16
-------
treat wastes from other facilities under the same ownership. Data are
not yet available to include this analysis. However, the Agency does not
believe that a significant amount of available capacity will result from
these sources.
The capacity data set was compared to estimates of waste volumes
currently being land disposed that will require combustion capacity, to
determine if there is adequate incineration and reuse as fuel capacity
for all waste forms. Combustion technologies lend themselves well to
wastes that are difficult to treat by conventional treatment
technologies, and are very versatile in that they can treat the various
waste forms (liquids, solids, sludges, and gases) with some
interchangeability.
(2) Approach and methodology. The data set was generated by review
and engineering evaluation of TSDR Survey responses, transfer of data in
the questionnaires to computer data entry sheets, and final consolidation
of all facility capacities to arrive at national totals.
The questionnaires pertaining to incineration and reuse as fuel in
the TSDR Survey were Questionnaire B, "Incineration," and Questionnarie
C, "Reuse as Fuel," respectively. A copy of the two questionnaires can
be found in the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 6). The
questionnaires were designed not only to provide actual utilization and
maximum capacity data by facility, but also to provide other design and
3-17
-------
operational information to enable the reviewer to evaluate the accuracy
of the facility responses. These other data elements were:
• Operating/downtime information;
• Percent utilization;
• Maximum practical thermal rating;
• Average heating value of the hazardous and nonhazardous waste
being treated;
• Maximum practical feed rate for each waste form;
• Planned capacity increases/decreases by time period;
• Type of solids that can be fed to the unit; and
• Waste characteristics that exclude or limit acceptance for
treatment.
The above information was used by the reviewer, using heat balances
and other methods, to evaluate the validity of the facility responses to
utilized and maximum capacity questions and to determine if additional
maximum capacity was available over and above what the facility
reported. If additional capacity was apparent, the reviewer would
contact the facility by telephone to verify such findings and, if
agreeable to the facility, would adjust the data.
In addition, technical review of reported capacity data included the
evaluation of incinerator or kiln support systems such as waste feed
handling systems, air pollution control devices, scrubber water treatment
systems, and ash handling systems.
The types of incinerators considered in the TSDR Survey were as
follows:
Liquid injection
Rotary (or rocking) kiln
Rotary kiln with liquid injection
Two stage
Fixed hearth
3-18
-------
Multiple hearth
Fluidized bed
Infra-red
Fume/vapor
Pyrolytic destructor
Other (specify).
The types of units that were considered in the Reuse as Fuel
questionnaire were as follows:
Cement kiln
Aggregate kiln
Asphalt kiln
Other kiln (specify)
Blast furnace
Sulfur recovery furnace
Smelting, melting, or refining furnace
Coke oven
Other furnace (specify)
Industrial boiler
Utility boiler
Process heater
Other reuse as fuel (specify).
The computer data sheets used to gather capacity data from
Questionnaires B and C included the following information (brief
explanation of each data element):
1. Facility ID - The USEPA identification number for the facility.
2. Facility Name
3. Unit No. - data was gathered on a unit basis since some
facilities have more than one incinerator or kiln
3. Commercial status - the two commercial categories are
(1) commercial - accepts waste from the general public and
(2) accepts waste from a limited number of facilities not under
the same ownership
5. Unit type - a code for the type of incinerator (kiln, industrial
furnace, or boiler) as described earlier
3-19
-------
6. Fixed or Mobile unit (F/M)
7. Exempt (Y/N) - RCRA permit status
8. Thermal Rating, MBtu/hr
9. Waste Feed Mix (Y/N)
(a) liquid
(b) sludge
(c) solids
(d) gases
10. Unique (Y/N): If yes, explain.
11. Capacity 1986
A. Hazardous Waste Quantity - this amount represents the
quantity of RCRA hazardous waste treated in the subject unit
during calendar year 1986. This quantity is also referred to
as utilized capacity.
B. Nonhazardous Waste Quantity - this is the quantity of
nonhazardous waste that was treated in the same unit, either
concurrently or separately, during 1986.
C. Hazardous Waste Maximum Quantity (Capacity) - the maximum
quantity of hazardous waste that the treatment unit could
have treated during 1986.
D. All Waste Maximum Quantity (Capacity) - the maximum quantity
of both hazardous and nonhazardous waste that could have been
treated in 1986.
The above data were used to manually tabulate and develop the
combustion capacity data set, the results of which will be discussed in
Section 3.2.3, Development of the Treatment Capacity Data Set and Results.
The data are compiled in a personal computer data base, for more
convenient data management. A copy of the PC data sheets, along with a
description of their use, may be found in Ref. 19.
3-20
-------
To determine flexibility in the proportion of waste capacity by
physical form and to determine whether early startups of planned units
had occurred, several facilities were contacted. The results of the
telephone contact indicated that one rotary kiln with liquid injection
unit planned for 1989 has already started up and is operational. The
national capacity estimates for 1988 were prepared by using the capacity
from this new unit and assessing the potential for varying capacity to
manage several physical forms at rotary kilns with liquid injection.
To make the necessary comparisons for this analysis, it was required
that the original facility responses be converted to one standard unit,
volume in gallons. Data reported in short tons (2,000 Ib/ton) by the
facility were consistently converted to gallons by using a conversion
factor of 240 gallons/ton (based on the density of water) for all waste
forms other than gases. Gases are reported in standard cubic feet (SCF)
in the initial data and were converted to tons by assuming an average
molecular weight of 29. However, the analyses were done in the
appropriate units (e.g., tons for solids) and simply converted to gallons
for consistent presentation of units.
Data through 1990 are presented because the long-range plans of many
facilities extend to these latter years, and projections of future
capacity may be necessary for variance determinations. It is also
assumed that the unit installations reported as operational in 1986 with
no closure dates reported will continue to operate through 1990.
3-21
-------
Although the TSDR Survey has been in progress for almost 12 months,
some facilities (about 5 percent) that have not yet returned their
completed survey as of July 22, 1988. Among these, there could be a few
facilities that operate or plan to operate commercial incinerators or
kilns. This fact is especially applicable to facilities with cement
kilns, many of which were identified after the initial mailout and thus
received the survey late. Cement kilns are rapidly expanding into the
hazardous waste management industry because of favorable economic
factors. The cement kilns burn primarily hazardous waste organic liquids
such as waste solvents and waste oils. However, a small number of these
kilns are considering possibly accepting limited amounts of sludges and
solids. Thus the capacities of these late kilns will not have a
significant affect on today's proposed rule because the available
capacity for liquid combustion is already greater than that required and
the available capacity for sludges/solids from the late kilns is expected
to be small.
Since July 22, 1988, was the cutoff date for data for the analysis to
support this final rule, the data set may be an underestimate of
available combustion capacity at this time because of late facilities.
The Agency has made every effort to encourage these facilities to
participate in a timely fashion in the survey. The data set will be
updated as these late facilities return their surveys..
3-22
-------
3.2.2 Determination of Other Treatment System Capacities
The capacity data set also includes data on treatment systems other
than combustion that may be able to treat solvents, First Third wastes,
and California List wastes down to their respective treatment standards.
These technologies include solidification/stabilization, solvent and
liquid organic recovery for reuse, metals recovery, and wastewater
treatment processes. Because the TSDR Survey data for these treatment
processes are reported on a unit process basis, a method was developed to
derive a system capacity from the unit process data. The results of this
analysis were aggregated into a hazardous waste treatment system capacity
data base (PC-based) for comparison with required capacity.
(1) Unit process capacity. The TSDR Survey obtained capacity data
on a process-specific basis. A process is defined in the TSDR Survey as
one or more units of equipment acting together to perform a single
operation on a waste stream. A system is defined in the TSDR Survey as
one or more processes that work together to treat a waste stream.
Figure 3-1 presents the process codes provided for the TSDR Survey
respondent to report his treatment process information.
During technical review, three different interpretations of the
process capacity questions were identified, which determined the method
of system capacity analysis.to be employed.
Case I: Each unit process was reported separately. In such a case,
process units must be agglomerated into treatment systems
so that the capacity of the systems may be calculated from
the reported maximum and utilized process capacities.
3-23
-------
Figure 3-1
PROCESS CODES
These process codes were developed specifically for this survey to describe the onsite hazardous waste management
operations at a facility.
TREATMENT AND RECYCLING
Incineration/thermal treatment
11 Liquid injection
21 Rotary (or rocking) kiln
31 Rotary kiln with a liquid
injection unit
41 Two stage
51 Fixed hearth
61 Multiple hearth
71 Fluidized bed
81 Infra-red
91 Fume/vapor
101 Pyrolytic destructor
111 Other incineration/thermal
treatment
Reuse as fuel
1RF Cement kiln
2RF Aggregate kiln
3RF Asphalt kiln
4RF Other kiln
5RF Blast furnace
6RF Sulfur recovery furnace
7RF Smelting, melting, or refining
furnace
8RF Coke oven
9RF Otner industrial furnace
10RF Industrial boiler
11RF Utility boiler
12RF Process heater
13RF Other reuse as fuel unit
Fuel blending
1F5 Fuel blending
Solidification
1S Cement or cement/silicate
processes
2S Pozzolanic processes
35 Asphaltic processes
45 Thermoplastic techniques
55 Organic polymer techniques
65 Jacketing (macro-
encapsulation)
75 Other solidification
Recovery of solvents and liquid
organics for reuse
1SR Fractionation
2SR Batch still distillation
3SR Solvent extraction
4SR Thin-film evaporation
SSR Filtration
6SR Phase separation
7SR Dessicanon
SSR Other solvent recovery
(including pretreatment)
Recovery of metals for reuse
1MR Electrolytic
2MR Ion exchange
3MR Reverse osmosis
4MR Solvent extraction
5MR Secondary smelting
6MR Liming
7MR Evaporation
8MR Filtration
9MR Sodium borohydnde
10MR Other metals recovery (including
pretreatment)
Wastewater treatment
Equalization
1VVT Equalization
Cyanide oxidation
2WT Alkaline chlonnation
3WT Ozone '
4WT Electrochemical
5WT Other cyanide oxidation
General oxidation (including disinfection)
6WT Chlorination
7WT Ozonation
8WT UV radiation
9WT Other general oxidation
Chemical precipitation
10WT Lime
11WT Sodium hydroxide
12WT Soda ash
13WT Sulfide
14WT Other chemical precipitation
Chromium reduction
15WT Sodium bisulfite
16WT Sulfur dioxide
17WT Ferrous sulfate
18VVT Other chromium reduction
Comolexed metals treatment (other than
chemical precipitation by pH adjustment)
19WT Complexed metals treatment
Emulsion breaking
20WT Thermal
21WT Chemical
22WT Other emulsion breaking
Adsorption
23WT Carbon adsorption
24WT Ion exchange
25WT Resin adsorption
26VVT Other adsorption
Stripping
27WT Air stripping
28WT Steam stripping
29WT Other stripping
Evaporation
30WT Thermal
31VVT Solar
32WT Vapor recompression
33WT Other evaporation
Filtration
34WT Diatomaceous earth
35WT Sand
36WT Multimedia
37WT Other filtration
3-24
Sludge dewatermg
38WT Gravity thickening
39WT Vacuum filtration
40WT Pressure filtration (belt, plate and
frame, or leaf)
41WT Centrifuge
42WT Other sludge dewatermg
Air flotation
43WT Dissolved air flotation
44WT Partial aeration
45WT Air dispersion
46WT Other air flotation
Oil skimming
47WT Gravity separation
48WT Coalescing plate separation
49WT Other oil skimming
Other liquid phase separation
50WT Decanting
51WT Other liquid phase separation
Biological treatment
52WT Activated sludge
53WT Fixed film—trickling filter
54WT Fixed film—rotating contactor
55WT Lagoon or basin, aerated
56WT Lagoon, facultative
57WT Anaerobic
58WT Otner biological treatment
Other wastewater treatment
59WT Wet air oxidation
60WT Neutralization
61WT Nitrification
62WT Denitrification
63WT Flocculation and/or coagulation
64WT Settling (clarification)
65VVT Reverse osmosis
66WT Other wastewater treatment
OTHER PROCESSES (TREATMENT OR
RECOVERY)
1TR Other treatment
2TR Other recovery for reuse
ACCUMULATION
1A Containers
2A Tanks
STORAGE
1ST Container (i.e., barrel, drum)
2ST Tank
3ST Waste piles
4ST Surface impoundment
5ST Other storage
DISPOSAL
1D Landfill
2D Land treatment
3D Surface impoundment (to be
closed as a landfill)
4D Underground injection well
-------
Case II: The same process was conducted in several different units
(tanks or surface impoundments) that are found in different
systems. The capacity of each unit process was combined
and reported as one process by the facility. Responses to
the tank and/or surface impoundment questionnaires were
used to obtain the utilized capacity of each tank and/or
surface impoundment using the process of concern. The
maximum capacity of these tanks and/or surface impoundments
was obtained by facility contact. The unit process data
were then agglomerated into treatment systems as in Case I.
Case III: Survey respondent reported the entire treatment system as
one process. The utilized and maximum capacities reported
for the process were used to represent the entire system.
If the individual unit processes that make up the treatment
system could not be identified by examining the facility
schematic and responses to other questions in the survey,
the facility was contacted to obtain that information. The
respondent's system data were then inputted into the
capacity data set.
Upon completion of technical review the following information was
obtained and examined prior to use in the system capacity analysis:
• All processes that compose the system and the units in which
they occur were identified and a flow diagram constructed;
• The amount of hazardous and nonhazardous waste that enters and
leaves the system was quantified such that a mass balance around
the system could be conducted;
• The utilized and maximum capacities of each unit were determined;
• If surface impoundments were used in the treatment system, it
was determined whether they met minimum technological
requirements. The effect of closing, retrofitting, or replacing
the surface impoundment with a tank or new minimum technological
surface impoundment on system capacity was determined.
• Also noted were any other planned changes to the system and how
they may affect the maximum capacity of the unit and/or system.
(2) Hazardous waste treatment/recovery system identification. Using
the facility flow diagram with revisions made as a result of technical
review, hazardous waste treatment/recovery systems and their respective
3-25
-------
unit processes were identified. For purposes of the capacity analysis, a
hazardous waste treatment/recovery system was identified by each
hazardous waste entry point into a unit process or sequence of unit
processes. The system begins at the process unit where the hazardous
waste stream(s) first enters and consists of all other treatment or
recovery process units downstream from the point of entry.
The following examples demonstrate system identification. Figure 3-2
shows a simple hazardous wastewater treatment system. Hazardous waste
can enter the three unit processes for treatment at only one point, the
chemical precipitation process. Therefore, there is only one hazardous
waste treatment system. The system consists of chemical precipitation,
clarification/settling, and sludge dewatering (filter press) processes.
Note that by this method, recycle streams and nonhazardous waste streams
do not affect system identification.
Figure 3-3 depicts three hazardous waste treatment systems. Three
hazardous waste entry points exist at three different units, which
perform three different processes. The chromium waste treatment system
consists of chromium reduction, chemical precipitation of chromium,
settling, and sludge dewatering processes. The cyanide waste treatment
system consists of a cyanide oxidation process followed by chemical
precipitation of metals, and settling and dewatering of the resultant
treatment sludge. The third is a treatment system for a general metal -
containing waste consisting of chemical precipitation of metals,
3-26
-------
HAZARDOUS
WASTE (HW)
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
oo
i
NON-HAZARDOUS
WASTE (NHW)
CLARIFICATION/
SETTLING
DISCHARGE UNDER
NPDES PERMIT
FILTER
PRESS
FILTRATE RECYCLE
FILTER CAKE
TO SECURE
LANDFILL
Figure 3-2
FLOW DIAGRAM OF A SIMPLE SYSTEM
-------
HW
100 GAL
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
(A)
A MAX = 400 GAL
A UTIL = 100 GAL
A AVAIL = 300 GAL
HW
100 GAL
CYANIDE
OXIDATION
(B)
NW
100 GAL
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
(C)
C MAX n 400 GAL
C UTIL = 300 GAL
C AVAIL = 100 GAL
ro
CO
B MAX
B UTIL
400
100
GAL
GAL
BAVAIL = 300 GAL
CLARIFICATION/
SETTLING
(D)
240 GAL
DISCHARGE UNDER
NPDES PERMIT
D MAX
D UTIL
400 GAL
300 GAL
D AVAIL B 100 GAL
FILTRATE RECYCLE
FILTER
PRESS
FILTER CAKE
TO SECURE
LANDFILL
60 GAL
E
MAX
UTIL
75 GAL
60 GAL
E AVAIL. 15 GAL
Figure 3-3 FLOW DIAGRAM OF THREE SYSTEMS WITH UNIT PROCESS CAPACITIES
-------
settling, and sludge dewatering. Note that the three systems share some
of the same unit processes. These three systems may be linked together
by competing for the capacity of the shared units. If system capacity
determination reveals that at least one of the shared units limits the
capacity of at least one of the treatment systems, then the three systems
are considered linked systems.
At first glance, Figure 3-4 appears to show two systems because there
are two hazardous waste entry points. Upon close examination, it can be
seen that the two waste streams feed into two different tanks that
conduct the same process in parallel. For purposes of capacity analysis,
these two units are considered as one process, with the utilized and
maximum capacities of the "agglomerated unit" equal to the sum of the
utilized and maximum capacities of each of the individual units.
Therefore, Figure 3-4 depicts only one hazardous waste treatment system.
(3) Determination of system capacity. To determine the capacity of
a treatment system, the utilized and maximum capacity of each unit
process must be examined. Where several systems share unit processes,
such as in Figure 3-3, all the unit processes that make up each of the
potentially linked systems must be considered together for this portion
of the analysis.
The capacity determination takes a "snapshot" approach, treating
batch and continuous processes similarly by conducting a mass balance
based on the amount of waste that was treated and could be treated during
3-29
-------
HW
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
GO
I.
o
HW
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
CLARIFICATION/
SETTLING
DISCHARGE
UNDER NPDES
PERMIT
SLUDGE TO
SECURE
LANDFILL
Figure 3-4
FLOW DIAGRAM OF ONE SYSTEM WITH TWO UNITS
CONDUCTING THE SAME PROCESS
-------
the entire year. Survey respondents reported unit capacities as the
amount of hazardous waste entering the unit in 1986, the amount of
nonhazardous waste entering the unit in 1986, the hazardous waste maximum
capacity, and all waste maximum capacity. Volumes from internal recycle
streams are considered in the volumes respondents reported for utilized
and maximum unit capacities; therefore, recycle streams are not
considered separately when conducting systems analysis.
The available capacity for each unit was calculated by subtracting
the utilized from the maximum capacity. The available capacities of
upstream units were compared with each unit in the process string to
locate the limiting unit(s) in the system(s). The overall system
capacity was based on the restrictions imposed by the limiting unit.
The above methodology assumes a 1986 baseline for hazardous and
nonhazardous wastes already being treated in the system and uses only
that portion of the system's remaining capacity that the respondent
claims may be used for hazardous waste treatment. It was assumed that
when a survey respondent reported hazardous waste maximum capacity to be
less than all waste maximum capacity the respondent considered how much
nonhazardous waste must be treated using the system when reporting the
hazardous waste maximum capacity for the unit.
The available capacity of a simple system is the available capacity
of the limiting unit. In Figure 3-5, B is the limiting unit because it
has the smallest available capacity. If one were to try to treat 50
3-31
-------
NHW
HW
^
A
^
"— — —^
^>
CO
CO
rv
A
A
MAX
UTIL
100
50
A AVAIL = 50
B MAX = 100
B UTIL = 75
B AVAIL = 25
C MAX
C UTIL
130
75
C AVAIL = 55
Figure 3-5
FLOW DIAGRAM WITH UNIT CAPACITIES
-------
gallons of additional hazardous waste using this system, there would be a
bottleneck at unit process B because it has room for only an additional
25 gallons of waste. Therefore, the system has only 25 gallons of
available hazardous waste treatment capacity. The maximum hazardous
waste treatment system capacity would be 75 gallons, or 50 gallons of
hazardous waste capacity already utilized plus the additional 25 gallons
of available capacity based on limiting unit B.
When analyzing more complicated systems, care must be taken that the
total available capacities that affect a downstream unit are considered.
Referring to the unit capacities provided in Figure 3-3, if the amount of
waste being treated in units A and B were increased by 300 gallons in
each unit (i.e., if they were run at their maximum capacities), unit C
would become a bottleneck because it has only 100 gallons of available
capacity. In other words, when units directly upstream of the unit of
concern are in parallel, one must add the available capacities of the
upstream units before comparing them with the available capacity of the
unit of concern to determine whether that unit limits (imposes a
restriction on) the maximum capacity of the upstream units
(Example: AA .. + Bft . = 600 gal and 600 gal > C ...
Avail Avail Avail).
The effective available capacity of an upstream unit must be
calculated for comparison with the downstream unit's available capacity
when only a portion of the waste treated in the upstream unit is also
treated in the downstream unit of concern. Referring to Figure 3-3, the
3-33
-------
effluent stream from the clarifier being discharged under NPDES permit
must be considered when determining the effect of using the available
capacity of the clarifier on the available capacity of the filter press.
That fraction of waste being treated in the upstream unit that continues
to the downstream unit is calculated. Under the assumption that as the
utilized capacities of these units are increased the percent of waste
that is treated in both upstream and downstream units remain constant,
the calculated percent is applied to the reported available capacity of
the upstream unit before comparing that capacity with the available
capacity of the downstream unit.
In Figure 3-3, fraction of waste (D ) going from the clarifier to
P
the filter press (Unit E) is calculated by:
n n „
Dp = _ = _ =0.2
Dut11 300
Twenty percent of the waste treated by unit D gets treated by unit E.
Now the available capacity of the clarifier affecting the filter press
(D ,) is calculated:
ear
Deal = (°p) (°avail) = (°-2) (10°) = 20 gallons
If the amount of waste being treated in the clarifier is increased to its
maximum capacity then 20 more gallons of waste would flow to the filter
press. Comparing the effective available capacities, however, indicates
that the filter press limits the maximum capacity reported for the
clarifier:
^avail < Deal or 15 gallons < 20 gallons
3-34
-------
Considering the fact that the filter press limits the maximum
capacity of the clarifier, the "new" available capacity of the clarifier
must be compared to the capacity of the upstream unit, the chemical
precipitation unit. The limiting effect of the filter press on the
available capacity of the clarifier (D ) is quantified as follows:
nac
Eavail 15 ,c „
Dnac = = = 75 gallons
Dp 0.2
Based on the comparison of the "new" available capacity of the clarifier
with the upstream chemical precipitation unit and the earlier comparison
made between the chemical precipitation unit and the parallel upstream
units, the filter press limits the capacities of all the other units in
the process string.
At this point, the capacity analysis switches from a unit-by-unit
analysis to a systems analysis. The affect of the limiting unit on the
system's available and maximum capacity is determined. As previously
discussed, Figure 3-3 shows three hazardous waste treatment systems. The
utilized capacity of each of these systems is the amount of waste that
enters each system for its respective treatments. The utilized
capacities for the chromium waste treatment, cyanide waste treatment, and
metals waste treatment are 100 gallons each. The available capacity of
each system, as determined by the effect of the limiting unit, is
75 gallons. This quantity, which was derived above, reflects the
effluent stream that exits the systems upstream from the limiting filter
3-35
-------
press. The maximum capacity of each system equals the utilized capacity
of the system plus the available capacity of the system. The maximum
capacities of the chromium waste, cyanide waste, and metals waste
treatment systems equal 175 gallons each.
When waste treatment systems share a limiting unit, as exemplified by
the three systems shown in Figure 3-3, they compete for the available
capacity of that limiting unit. Because of this competition for scarce
capacity, these linked systems cannot all operate at their maximum
capacities as calculated above. A linked system can operate at its
maximum capacity only if all the other systems to which it is linked
continue to operate at the utilized capacities reported for 1986. The
maximum capacities of each of the linked systems serve as end points when
trying to find sufficient capacity for waste volumes requiring
treatment. Using the example shown in Figure 3-3 to illustrate, if
additional chromium waste is sent to the chromium treatment system, then
there is that much less additional capacity for cyanide waste and metals
waste treatment. If the chromium waste treatment system operates at
maximum capacity, then no additional waste may be sent to the cyanide
waste or metals waste treatment system. A methodology was developed so
that capacity tradeoffs may be made between linked systems, using more
available capacity for the crucial treatment system at the expense of the
maximum capacities of the other, less crucial linked systems. Tradeoffs
would be determined by the demand, as quantified by the required capacity
analysis, for the various types of treatment systems.
3-36
-------
To avoid overestimating of available treatment capacity and to
provide a starting point upon which available capacity tradeoffs between
linked systems may be made, a proportioned system capacity is calculated
for linked systems. The proportioned system capacity is based on how
much of the limiting unit's capacity was devoted to each linked system
during the TSDR Survey base year of 1986. First, the fractional flow of
hazardous waste contributed by each linked system to the limiting process
is determined. Using the systems shown in Figure 3-3:
Fractional flow of chrome treatment system = CRp
Fractional flow of cyanide treatment system = CNp
Fractional flow of metals treatment system = Mp
CRuti1 100 100
CRD = = = = 0.333
H CRutil + CNuti] + Mutil 100 + 100 + 100 300
CNp = 0.333; Mp = 0.333
Note that M ., is the utilized capacity of the metals treatment
util
system, not the utilized capacity of the chemical precipitation unit.
The utilized capacity of the chemical precipitation unit is the sum total
of the utilized capacities of all three systems.
The effect of the limiting unit on each available system capacity is
proportioned to each system based on the fractional flow determination.
Continuing the calculation to determine the proportioned available
capacity (CR ) using the above example:
pac
(CRp) (°nac) = I-333) (75) = 25 gallons
3-37
-------
CNpac = (CNp) (Dnac) = 25 gallons
Mpac - (Mp) (°nac) = 25 gallons
Note that D , the previously calculated "new" available capacity of
nac
unit D, reflects the effect that the limiting unit has on all three
systems and accounts for the effluent stream that exits the system before
reaching the limiting unit.
When a linked system has an unshared limiting unit upstream from the
mutually shared limiting unit of the other linked system(s), the system's
calculated proportioned available system capacity must be compared with
the available capacity of its limiting unit. If the limiting unit's
available capacity is less than the calculated proportioned available
system capacity, the final proportioned available system capacity equals
the available capacity of the unshared limiting unit. The remainder of
the calculated proportioned available system capacity is redistributed to
the remaining linked systems based on how much the mutually shared
limiting unit is devoted to the remaining linked systems. In the example
shown in Figure 3-3, the limiting unit for all three systems is the
shared filter press; therefore, no comparisons are necessary.
The proportioned maximum system capacity equals the utilized system
capacity plus the proportioned available system capacity. The
3-38
-------
proportioned maximum system capacities (PMC) for the systems displayed in
Figure 3-3 are:
CRPMC = CRutil + CRpac = 100 + 25 = 125 gallons
= 125 gallons
= 125 gallons
(4) Projections of available capacity. The TSDR Survey obtained
capacity data for the baseline year 1986 and for changes or new
operations planned through 1992. Only capacity data presented for the
years 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989-1990, were used to support the First
Third promulgated rule. Projections of capacity beyond 1986 were
obtained from the TSDR Survey by engineering analysis of information
regarding new treatment/recovery systems being installed and equipment
changes being made to the systems operating in 1986 -that result in
changes in system capacity.
For new systems, capacity analysis was conducted as described above
and the results were input into the treatment system PC data base for the
appropriate years. Reported equipment changes to treatment systems
operating in 1986 were examined to determine their affect on the system
capacity. If the change involved the system's limiting unit or
influenced the effect of a limiting unit on the system, then capacity
analysis was performed again, incorporating the capacity changes for that
year.
3-39
-------
3.2.3 Development of the Treatment Capacity Data Set and Results
The treatment/recovery capacity data set consists of a PC
incineration/reuse as fuel data set and a PC other treatment systems data
set. System capacity data derived from data reported in the TSDR Survey,
as described above, were entered onto PC data entry sheets. The purpose
of these forms was to standardize information required for assessing
available treatment capacity that was to be obtained from the TSDR Survey
and entered into a PC data base. The PC data base is described in a
report that may be found in the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 20).
A detailed discussion of the PC data entry sheets may also be found in
the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 19).
The following discussion presents the results of the incineration/
reuse as fuel data set.
(1) Incineration/reuse as fuel data set results. Table 3-1
summarizes the commercial capacity for hazardous waste incineration.
This table presents the utilized, maximum, and available capacity for
incineration of liquids, sludges, solids, and gases in 1986, and maximum
and available capacity for 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990. The analysis
assumes that hazardous waste capacity not utilized in 1986, as well as
all new hazardous waste capacity from 1987 and beyond, will be available
for incineration of hazardous wastes.
Table 3-2 summarizes the commercial capacity of industrial kilns for
reusing hazardous wastes as fuel. The table presents the utilized,
maximum, and available capacity for combustion of liquids, sludges, and
3-40
-------
Table 3-1 Commercial Hazardous Waste Incineration Capacity (Million Gallons/Year)
Physical form
of waste
1986
Utilized Maximum Available
capacity capacity capacity
1987
Maximum Available
capacity capacity
1988
Maximum Available
capacity capacity9
1989-1990
Maximum Available
capacity capacity3
Liquids
Sludges
Solids
Gases
63
3
17
0
79
8
27
I
16
5
10
1
100
8
27
1
37
5
10
1
131
14
50
2
68
11
33
2
310
97
183
2
247
94
166
2
CO
TOTAL
83
115
32
136
53
197
112
592
509
Source: TSDR Survey results as of July 22, 1988.
a Projected based on maximum capacity for that year minus utilized capacity for 1986 This considers that capacity not utilized in
1986 and all new capacity (from 1987 and beyond) will be available for incineration of hazardous wastes being land disposed that
may be affected by the land disposal restrictions
-------
oo
I
re
TOTAL
Tanle 3-2 Commercial Capacity of Industrial fin? for "Krjsr. as fuel" of Ha/ar'lc.,s Wastt
Physical form
of waste
L -quids
S ludges
Solids
1986 1937
Utilized Maximum Available Maximum Available
capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity5
79 269 190 315 236
<1 <1 '1 <1 1
<1 1 ' 1 1 1
1988
Max imum Ava i lable
capacity capacity6
286 207
2 2
1 1
;9i9-;990
Max --lum A^a i lable
capacity capacity^
:70 291
,5
1 1
79
270
191
317
289
210
307
Source TSDR Survey results as of July 22, 1988.
NOTE For cases where capacity was added to existing units or new units were added, all facilities indicated that new capac't/ would le
available 100 percent for hazardous waste
Projected based on maximum capacity for that year minus utilized capacity for 1986 This considers that capacity not ut'lizec m 1986 arm
new capacity (from 1987 and beyond) will be available for burning (reuse as fuel) cf hazardous wastes being lard disposed t^at -na. lie ^ffe-
the land disposal restrictions
-------
solids as fuel in 1986, and maximum and available capacity for 1987,
1988, and 1989-1990. Again, the analysis assumes that hazardous waste
capacity not utilized in 1986, and all new hazardous waste capacity from
1987 and beyond, will be available for combustion of hazardous wastes.
(2) Development of the PC data base for other treatment systems. PC
data entry sheets were filled out for other treatment systems, and the
data were entered into a PC data base. The data base contains data entry
fields as well as calculated fields used to perform the capacity
analysis. A more detailed explanation of the data fields contained in
the data base may be found in a report in the docket for this proposed
rule (Ref. 20).
The data base has four major treatment system categories, each of
which is divided into subcategories. A more detailed discussion of how
and why the categories were developed is given below. The categories and
subcategories, along with the codes used to represent them within the
data base, are listed as follows:
I. Wastewater Treatment
Process Code
- Cyanide Oxidation WW, CO
- Chrome Reduction WW, CR
- Organics/Metals Treatment WW, OMT
- Organics/Metals Biological Treatment WW, OMB
- Sulfide Precipitation WW, SP
- General Chemical Precipitation WW, GCP
- Steam Stripping WW, SS
- Air Stripping WW, AS
- Biological Treatment WW, BT
- Carbon Adsorption WW, CA
- General Oxidation WW, GO
- Wet Air Oxidation WW, WAO
- Neutralization WW, N
3-43
-------
II. Solvent Recovery
Process Code
- Thin Film Evaporation SR, TF
- Fractionation/Distillation SR, FD
- Solvent Extraction SR, SE
- Other Solvent Recovery SR, 0
III. Metals Recovery
Process Code
- High Temperature Metals Recovery MR, HT
Retorting MR, R
- Secondary Smelting MR, SS
- Other Metals Recovery MR, OMR
IV. Solidification
Process Code
- Solidification SL, S
The maximum, utilized, and available capacities were totaled for all
systems in the data base that fell under each category. Each category is
mutually exclusive so that the capacity of a treatment system would not
be double-counted. The treatment systems were categorized by using the
computer to search each record for key unit types (process codes) that
would identify the appropriate category under which the system should be
placed. For example, records indicating systems with unit types
identified by process codes 2WT," 3WT, 4WT, or 5WT, and 10WT through 15WT
were categorized under cyanide oxidation. These categories are used
because the BOAT Program has identified them as treatment methods that
3-44
-------
may be effective in attaining the treatment standards established under
the solvents and dioxins, California List, and First Third proposed
rulemakings.
(3) Treatment capacity data set results. Only a subset of the
treatment systems that compose the treatment capacity data set were
required by solvents, California List HOCs, and First Third promulgated
wastes. These treatment categories have been identified under the BOAT
Program as being effective in attaining the applicable treatment
standards. Under each category, only commercial treatment systems were
aggregated to establish a national supply of available treatment capacity
that may be used to meet the demand created by the Land Disposal
Restrictions Rule.
Table 3-3 presents the maximum, utilized, and available capacities of
commercial treatment systems (other than combustion) of concern for
reporting baseline year 1986 and capacity projections through 1990. The
1986 utilized capacities of these treatment systems were assumed to
remain constant for the subsequent years in making these projections.
Where a linked system exists, the proportioned system capacity for the
linked system is used to avoid overestimating available capacity. For
commercial treatment systems that closed between 1986 and 1988 or will
close in 1989 or 1990, the utilized capacity of that system remained in
the analysis under the assumption that the waste volumes the system was
treating will require commercial capacity elsewhere. Keeping the
3-45
-------
TatPe 3-3 Commercial Treatment S
Technology
description
.Stabi 1 izat ion
High temperature metals recovery
Cyanide oxidation and chemica1
prec ipitat ion
Chromium reduction and chemical
precipitat ion
Carbon adsorption and chromium
reduct i on/chemical prec ipitat ion
Carbon adsorption and chemical
precipitat ion
CO
I
O^ Chemical precipitation
Sulfide precipitation
Neutral izat ion
Steam stripping
Carbon adsorption
Biological treatment
Wet air ox ulat ion
Secondary smelting
Fractionation/distillation
Solvent extraction
Thin film evaporation
Utilized
118
34
30
177
4
6
89
64
18
1
5
106
3
47
37
'1
38
Maximum
capac i ty
530
67
105
379
16
33
222
320
51
12
7
140
3
56
100
1
30
1986 19b7
Available Ma/imutr Available
capacity capacity capar.ty
463 589 472
34 67 34
75 105 75
202 379 202
12 16 12
28 33 28
133 2?2 133
256 319 255
33 51 33
11 12 11
2 7 2
35 140 35
• 1 <1 • 1
9 T--I 12
63 11? 74
1 1 1
42 b'-< 51
1988 P8'- 19rnO
Maximum Available Maxir'jTi Available
capacity capacity capa^it/ capacity
617 499 1.7C6 1,583
67 34 67 24
169 159 200 171
437 260 437 260
16 12 16 12
42 37 106 101
222 133 255 166
319 255 334 270
95 77 96 73
12 11 12 11
72 19 14
157 51 157 M
2 5 2
92 46 ^r. ^
10r-< 72 lit ?•<
11 11
95 57 134 :-"!,
Numbers may not add exactly because of rounding.
-------
utilized capacity of the closed system in the analysis results in
reducing the available commercial capacity for that category. The data
in this table was summarized from a report on commercial treatment
capacity (Ref. 20).
Table 3-4 is a summary of the 1988 capacity data for all commercial
treatment systems of concern for this final rule. The combustion data
includes incineration and reuse as fuel in industrial kilns. These data
represent the supply (available capacity) for the demand (required
capacity) presented earlier.
3.3 Capacity Analysis (Comparison of Required and Available
Treatment Capacity)
As previously described, the Agency is responsible for determining
whether sufficient capacity exists to meet the requirements of the land
disposal restrictions. This involves the comparison of required and
available capacity. Available treatment capacity can be obtained from
the following sources:
• Onsite (private capacity) - facilities that manage only waste
generated onsite.
• Captive capacity - facilities that manage only waste from other
facilities under the same ownership.
• Limited commercial capacity - facilities that manage waste from
a limited number of facilities not under the same ownership.
• Commercial capacity - facilities that manage waste from any
facility.
3-47
-------
5251s
Table 3-4 Overview. 1980 Capacity for Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technologies
Technology description
Combust ion
- Liquids
- Sludges
- Solids
Maximum capacity
(million gallons/year)
417
16
51
Ut i lized capac ity
(million gallons/year)
142
3
17
Ava i lable capacity
(million gallons/year)
?75
13
34
Stabi1ization
Solvent extraction
Metals recovery
- High temperature metals recovery
(not secondary smelting as identified
in the TSDR Survey)
617
1
67
118
499
34
34
Wastewater treatment
- Cyanide oxidation, chemical
precipitation, and settling/
f i Itration
- Chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation, and settling/
f i Itration
- Carbon adsorption and chromium
reduction, chemical precipitation,
and settling/filtration
- Neutralization
- Steam stripping
- Carbon adsorption
- Biological treatment
- Wet air oxidation
Sludge treatment
- Acid leaching, chemical oxidation,
and dewatering of sludge and
sulfide precipitation of effluent
189
437
16
95
12
7
157
5
30
177
18
1
5
106
3
159
260
12
77
11
2
51
2
a Numbers may not add exactly because of rounding.
3-48
-------
Available capacity from these sources is contained in the TSDR Survey
data base. The data base contains information from baseline year 1986
and information on planned changes to 1986 management methods and new
processes to be installed from 1987 through 1992. The methodology for
determining the amount of available treatment capacity was described in
Section 3.2.
Required capacity consists of wastes previously land disposed that
will require treatment to meet a treatment standard prior to being land
disposed. These volumes of waste were identified and underwent
treatability analysis as was described in Section 3.1. The result of
treatability analysis was the assignment of waste volumes to treatability
subgroups.
The comparison of required and available capacity was performed on a
facility-by-facility basis. This was done to match treatability
subgroups with available capacity of applicable treatment/recovery
systems. Available onsite treatment capacity was matched only to volumes
that were previously land disposed onsite and were determined to require
alternative treatment. If the appropriate treatment/recovery technology
was not available onsite, or if adequate available capacity was not
present to manage the waste, then the remaining volume of waste requiring
alternative treatment was aggregated into a national demand for
commercial capacity. The final aggregate of national demand was then
compared with the final estimates of national commercial capacity to
3-49
-------
match treatability subgroups with appropriate treatment technologies.
This methodology was used by the Agency to make final determinations
concerning variances.
3-50
-------
4.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. USEPA. 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Background document for solvents to support 40 CFR Part 268,
land disposal restrictions. Final rule. EPA Contract No.
68-01-7053. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2. USEPA. 1984. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National
survey of hazardous waste generators and treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities regulated under RCRA in 1981. EPA/530-SW-005,
GPO Pub. #5/N055-000-00239-8.
3. USEPA. 1987. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Background
document for California List wastes to support 40 CFR Part 268 land
disposal restrictions. Final rule. EPA Contract No. 68-01-7053.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
4. USEPA. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Background
document for First Third wastes to support 40 CFR Part 268 land
disposal restrictions. Proposed rule. EPA Contract No.
68-01-7053. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
5. USEPA. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Background
Document for First Third Wastes to support 40 CFR Part 268 land
disposal restrictions. Proposed Rule—Part II. EPA Contract No.
68-01-7053. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
6. Versar. 1988. Capacity analysis of leachate generation and
management at TSDR facilities with commercial landfills and/or
surface impoundments. Memorandum report to Jo-Ann Bassi, USEPA,
from Versar, August 3, 1988.
7. USEPA. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Response to
capacity related comments submitted on the First Third proposed land
disposal restrictions rule. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
8. USEPA. 1987. National survey of hazardous waste treatment,
storage, disposal, and recycling facilities. OMB No. 2050-0070.
9. Versar. 1988. Technical review procedures for the TSDR Survey.
Prepared for the Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
10. Versar. 1988. Quality assurance plan. Prepared for the Office of
Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
4-1
-------
11. Jacobs Engineering Group. 1986. Time requirements for the siting,
permitting, and construction of new hazardous waste treatment
facilities. EPA Contract No. 68-01-7053. Prepared for Office of
Solid Waste/Waste Treatment Branch. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
12. DPRA. 1988. The TSDR Survey waste volumes land disosed data base.
Prepared for the Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
13. Environ. 1985. Characterization of waste streams listed in 40 CFR
Section 261: waste profiles. Volumes I and II. Prepared for Waste
Identification Branch of Characterization and Assessment Division,
Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
14. USEPA. 1985. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Physical-chemical properties and categorization of RCRA wastes
according to volatility. EPA-450/3-85-007. Research Triangle
Park, N.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
15. IT Enviroscience, Inc. 1983. Survey of industrial applications of
aqueous-phase activated-carbon adsorption for control of pollutant
compounds from manufacture of organic compounds. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory.
16. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1985. Technologies applicable to hazardous
waste. Briefing presented for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
17. Versar. 1985. Assessment of treatment technologies for hazardous
waste and their restrictive waste characteristics. Draft Final
Report for the Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
18. USEPA. 1986. Best demonstrated available technology (BOAT)
background document for F001-F005 spent solvents. Volumes 1-3.
EPA/530-SW-86-056. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
19. Versar. 1988. Procedures for completing PC data sheets for
priority TSDR facilities. Prepared for the Office of Solid Waste.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
20. Versar. 1988. The commercial treatment/recovery TSDR Survey data
set. Prepared for the Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
4-2
-------
APPENDIX A
Capacity Analysis for Solvent Wastes
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A: Capacity Analysis for Solvent Wastes
The tables in this appendix present the results of the analysis of
required capacity for each alternative technology on a waste code-by-
waste code basis. The tables show the amount of required treatment
capacity in 1988 for each solvent waste code. The tables also total the
amount of required capacity for each technology.
The original TSDR Survey data were sorted by waste code and type of
alternative treatment required to generate these tables. The tables were
then combined and summarized to create the technology-specific capacity
analysis table for solvent wastes contained in Section 2 of this document,
A-Z
-------
5253s/!
APPENDIX A
Capacity Analysis by Technology per
Waste Group/Code for Solvents
Technology Combustion of liquids
Waste code
Required capacity 1968
Without underground
injection wastes
(gal Ions/year)
F001
F002
F003
F004
F005
244,621
382,368
216,663
19,765
491,606
1,355,023
A-3
-------
5253s/2
APPENDIX A (cont mued)
SOLVENTS
Technology Combustion of sludges/solids
Waste code
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
(gal Ions/year)
F001
F002
F003
F004
F005
5,309,039
10,848,053
7,663,155
3,529,976
10,457,802
37,808,025
A-4
-------
5253s/:
APPENDIX A (continued)
SOLVENTS
Technology Solidification/stabilization
Waste code
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
inject ion wastes
(gal Ions/year)
F001
F002
F003
F004
F005
72,053
1,203,551
1,205,566
62,678
1.214,326
3,758,174
rt-5
-------
5253s/4
APPENDIX A (continued)
SOLVENTS
Technology. Wastewater treatment - steam stripping, carbon adsorption,
biological treatment, wet air oxidation
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
F001 839,760
F002 278,930
F003 215,065
F005 206.160
1.539,905
A-b
-------
APPENDIX B
Capacity Analysis for California List
Halogenated Organic Compound Wastes
B-l
-------
APPENDIX B
The tables in this appendix present the results of the analysis of
required capacity for each alternative technology on a waste code-by-
waste code basis. The tables show the amount of required treatment
capacity for each of the HOC waste codes. The tables also total the
amount of required capacity for each technology.
The original TSDR Survey data were sorted by waste code and type of
alternative treatment required to generate these tables. The tables were
then combined and summarized to create the technology-specific capacity
analysis tables for HOC wastes contained in Section 2 of this document.
-------
5253s/5
APPENDIX B
Capacity Analysis by Technology per Waste Group/Code for
Halogenated Organic Compounds (HOC) - First Third (Promulgated)
Technology Combustion of sludges/solids
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
3,301,276
K016 539,040
K019 80,400
k02C 9,600
K030 10,560
k065 960
U037 2,664
U077 12.24C
3,956,742
B-3
-------
52S3S/6
APPENDIX B (continued)
First Third (Promulgated)
Technology Stabilization of incinerator ash
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
kOOl 333,224
K016 483.504
K019 768
K020 240
U077 768
818,504
b-4
-------
5253s/7
APPENDIX B (continued)
First Third (Promulgated)
Technology Stabilization of scrubber water treatment sludge
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
kOOl
KOI6
K019
K020
U077
B-b
-------
5253s/8
APPENDIX B (continued)
First Third (Not Promulgated)
Technology Combustion of liquids
Required capacity 1986
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
U044 4,320
LI226 5,520
U227 3.600
13,440
B-b
-------
5253S/9
APPENDIX B (continued)
First Third (Not Promulgated)
Technology Combustion of sludges/solids
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
K017
k085
P004
P037
P123
U036
U037
U044
U061
U071
U072
U080
U129
U158
U192
U208
U209
U210
U211
U226
U228
U239
U240
U247
68,400
98,640
336
576
1,680
5,376
3,180
4,608
4,080
320
320
3,468
618
250,080
1,440
48
4,800
3,900
848
9,408
3,660
1,680
1,440
336
469,242
B-7
-------
5253s/10
APPENDIX B (continued)
First Third (Not Promulgated)
Technology Wastewater treatment
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
11080 2,654,520
U210 1,700
U227 2,654,520
5,310,740
B-a
-------
5?53s/ll
APPENDIX B (continued)
First Third (Not Promulgated)
Technology Stabilization of incinerator ash
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
K017 12,528
U156 49,248
61,776
B-9
-------
5?53s/l?
APPENDIX B (continued)
First Third (Not Promulgated)
Technology Stabilization of scrubber water treatment sludge
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
K017 626
U158 ?,462
3,088
B-1U
-------
5253s/13
APPENDIX B (continued)
Not First Third
Technology Combustion of liquids
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
P024 480
U073 240
U060 960
1,680
B-li
-------
5253s/14
APPENDIX B (continued)
Not First Third
Technology Wastewater treatment
Required capacity 198B
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
D014 1,920,000
k!05 4,560
1,924,560
-------
5253s/15
APPENDIX B (continued)
Not First Third
Technology Combustion of solids
Waste code
Required capacity 1966
Without underground
injection wastes
(gallons/year)
D012
D013
D014
D015
0016
P024
P02B
U030
U071
U072
U076
U131
U156
U240
U142
451,200
437,760
720
720
199,920
3,120
720
240
480
218,880
8,880
144,000
1,440
21,360
240
1,489,6«0
B-I3
-------
Lann Disposal Capacity (millions ot gallons)
D iscosa 1 practice
Number of
facilitIBS
1986
ut 11 i:en
capacit>
Remain•
cost . •;
capac•:
lonrrerc ;a 1
- lanjf i 1 1
- land treatment
- surface impoundment
- underground iniection
Non-cormercia 1
- landf i "i 1
- lane treatment
- surface impounament
- jnaergrcund inject-on
-------
APPENDIX C
Capacity Analysis for Contaminated Soil Wastes
C-i
-------
APPENDIX C
The tables in this appendix present the results of the analysis of
required capacity for each alternative technology for contaminated
soils. The tables show the amount of required capacity for each
technology.
To generate these tables, the original TSDR Survey data were sorted
by waste description code (i.e., those described as soils) and by type of
alternative treatment required. The tables were then combined and
summarized to create the technology-specific capacity analysis tables for
contaminated soils contained in Section 2 of this document.
C-2
-------
5263s/16
APPENDIX C
Capacity Analysis by Technology per
Waste Group/Code for Contaminated Soil Wastes
Technology Combustion of soils
Required capacity 1988
Solvents
First Third proposed
F006
kOOl
k019
K020
K022
K048
1^049
K050
K051
K052
K104
HOCs (First Third not proposed
and not First Third)
Total
25,736,413
15,360
1,680,240
4, OHO
4,080
610,320
1,002,601
7,307,130
12,872
946,413
31,053
84,960
4.174,281
41,609,803
C-3
-------
S253s/17
APPENDIX C (continued)
Technology Stabilization of incinerator ash from the combustion of soils
Required capacity 1988
Solvents
First Third promulgated
F006
K001
k022
K048
K049
k050
K05J
k052
HOCs (First Third not promulgated
and not First Third)
Total
9,736,000
15,206
1,633,438
604.217
992,575
7,234,059
12.743
936,949
30,742
0
21,195,929
C-4
-------
52535/18
APPENDIX C (continued)
Technology Stabilization of scrubber water treatment sludge from the
combust ion of soiIs
Required capacity 1988
Solvents
First Third promulgated
F006
kOOl
k022
k048
K049
K050
k051
k052
HOCs (First Third not promulgated
and not First Third)
Total
99,689
154
16.802
6,130
10,026
73,071
129
9,464
311
0
215,776
C-5
-------
5253s/19
APPENDIX C (continued)
Technolog> Solidification/stabilization of soils
Required capacity 1988
Solvents 133,200
First Third promulgated
F006 3,328,320
k061 1,364,160
K062 1,042,560
5,868,240
C-fa
-------
5253s/20
APPENDIX C (continued)
Technology Chromium reduction ot soils
Required capacity 1986
First Third promulgated
K06Z 235,200
C-7
-------
APPENDIX D
Treatability Groups
D-l
-------
5254s/!
APPENDIX D
Treatabi1ity Groups
TRD
Group Waste Code/A-B Codes
k022 A06.A09, k035.A06,A09; K036:A06,A09, k037 A06.A09,
kQ45-A06,A07,A09, k047 A06.A09, klOl•A06,A07,A09,
U02 A06,A07,A09, k!06 A09, F020:A06.A09, F021 A06.A09.
F022 A06.A09, F023 A06.A09, F026.A06,A09, F027 A06.A09,
F028 A09, F001 A09, F002.A09, F003.A09, F004 A09, F005 A09,
F024 A06.A09. kOOl A09, K009 A06.A09, kOlO-A06.A09,
k015 A06.A09, k016.A06,A09; k017 A06.A09, K018 A06.A09.
k019.A06,A09, k020 A06.A09, k021.A09, k02».A09, k029.A06.A09,
k030.A06,A09, k032 A06.A09, k033.A06,A09, K034-A06.A09,
k041 A06.A09, K042:A06,A09; k043 A06.A09, k073.A06,A09,
k085-A06,A09, k095.A06,A09, k096 A06.A09, K097 A06.A09.
k098 A06.A09, K.099 A06.A09, K105.A06.A09, kl!6 A06.A09,
F007 A09, F008 A09, F009.A09, F011 A09, k005,A09, k007 AOy,
kOll A06.A09, k013 A06.A09, K014 A06.A09, k060 A06.A09,
k023-A06,A09, K024 A06.A09, k048 A09. k049 A09, k050 A09,
k051 A09, kO&2 A09, k!03.A09, k!04 AQ9, 0012.B36. 0015 Bib.
D014-B36; 0015:636; D016 B36, 0017:636, U072.AEB, U036 A06,
LI066 A06; U080'A06, U226-A06; (D015.P123-B36),
(F002,F005:B36). (F001,F003,F005 B36),
(P044,P050,P071,P089.B36), (U220.U159.636},
(U226,U080,P054,F002:B36); (U240,P094:B36); U051.A06.
U073;A06; U122:A06; (D016.D017-B36); (F003,F005:B36);
(F003,F005,U019,U154:B36); U051:A06; U122:A06(S); U188:A06(S),
U223.A06(S); U226.A06(S); U228.A06(S), {D001,F002:B36).
(D001,F001,F002,F003,B005:B36); (0001,F002:B36);
(D001,F002,F003,F005 B36); (D001,F002,F005 B36);
(F001,F002,F003:B36), (F001,F002,F003,F004,F005:B36),
(F002,F003:B36); (F002,F003,F005:B36); (F002,F005:B36),
(F002,U019,U037,U070,U071,U072:B36); U009:A06;
(F001,F002,F003,F005-B36); (KOll.K013-B36); P063-A06;
U108-A06(S), (F002'A06(S)); KOOl A06(S); U036-A06;
(F001,F002,F003,F004,F005.A09), U223.A061S), U037.A06(S),
U061 A06(S); U077 A06(S), K001.A06. k035 A06, P020.A06,
P050 A06; P071.A06, U188-A06, (P020,P050.P071,P120,P037-B36),
(D001,D002,U019,U211,U188 B36), (U051.KOOl•B36);
(D001,D002,U037,U077,U067:B36), (D001,DQ02,F002,U226.B41),
(Ul05,Ul06:636); (U002,U154,U159,U161,U239.B36),
(U147,U182,U219:B85), (U188,U122•AEI); P037-A08; P081.A09,
U208:A06; PQ63:A06, FOOl'AOS; F002:A06; F003:A06; F004 A06;
F005.A06, U031.A06, U072:A06, U154.A06, P094 A06; U080.A06;
U069.A06; U188 A06; U210:A06; P089:A06(S);
(F001,F002,F003,F005•B43); (F002,F003,F005,U019•B36);
(F002,F003,U012,P030,P004,P064 B42), (F002 B82, F003:B42,
F005:B42); (F024,K019,K020,U077:B36); (K022.U188, U055.-B36),
(P123,U061:B36); (U022'B45; UD80,U226:B36); (K104:A06);
(U031,U220,U239:B36), (U003:A06), (U188.U052-B52);
(U051,U165-B36)(U081,U188 B36)(U083.U140,U226-636), U221 A06,
U239 A06, U248 A06
D-2
-------
5254s/2
APPENDIX D (Continued)
TRD
Group Waste Code/A-B Codes
2 0012 B80,681,686,689, 0013.680,681,B66,B89,
0014.680,681,686,689, D015 680,681,686.689,
D016:B80,681,686,689, D017-680,881,B86,B89; K034 A07,
K043,kll8 A07, U067 A06, U240.K061 A08,
(P063 B!D,BXA,U009.BID,6XA,k011 BID.K013 BID),
(F001,F002,F004,F005.B89), U122:A07(S), (U019.U165.U220 B90),
(U051.U052 B90), U072 A08(S), (U122,U159,U188,U220 B90),
(U220,U226:B90); D001,0002,0003 664, U188,U223,U051 A08,
U221 A07(S), (F003,F005,P063.B11(S)); U069 A08. U080 A08,
U156.A13; U188 A08,A09,A13, U210 A08, U228:A13,
U188.U223.U051 A08, 0012.680, D016:B80, (P071,P123,U239 BB1),
U061 A08, (F002.F002-B84, F003.F004.F005-B90),
(F002:B89,F004-B90), (M)22,k083,U012 .U055.U188 B45), U210.A08.
U211.A08, U220 A08, (0001.F003.F004 B69) (0001,D002 682)
(D001,D002,D003:B82) (D002,F003,F005 B89) (0001,0014 B80)
(0001,F003:B89) (0001,U122 689) (0002,P089-B90)
(D001,F003,F005 B89) (D002.F001,F005 689), (U240.U192 681)
(F003,F004,F005.689) (F004.D001 689) (0001,F002,F003,F005 B»9)
(K001,U051:B89) (0001,0014,U240.U093 680) (k022,K083.B90)
(U012.U221-690) (D014,U036,U093,P020-B80) (U070,U071,U072:B89)
(U159.U220-B90) (0001,F001,F002,F003,F004 B89)
(U180.U170.U226 690) (U211.U044.U080.B89) (U213,U159.B90)
(U220,U209:B89) (U239,U220'B90), (F001.F002.F003.FC05.B89)
(F001,F002.F003,F004,F005:B89) (F001,F002,F003,F005,D001-B89)
(F002,F005,U165,U239,U107:B90) (F024,U077,K019,K020:B89)
(k022,K083,U012,U055,U188:B90) (U036,U129,U247,P004,P037:B89)
(U044,U080,U208,U211,U226:B89) (U070.U071,U072,U211:B89)
(U037,U080,U210,U220,U228:B89) (K022,K085,U012,U055,U188:B90)
3 K009,K017,K029,M)42,10)95,K.096,mi6-.A07, t;014.A05,A07,
D001:B69; 0002:659; 0012,0013,0014,0015.0016,0017:664;
(0001-662, D002-B05); (F001,F002,F003,F004,F005:B66);
U007-A08; U080:A08; (U188:A08(L)). (U209:A08(L)),
(U210.A08(L)), U220:A08(L); U044-.RECODE, U074.A13,
U012-A08(L), U044.A08(L), U122 A08, U151 A08, U154.A08,
U159 A08, UZ27 A08, (F001,F002,F003,F004•A08), U180.A06,
U169-A11, U030 All, U073-A08. U122-A11. U156A11
4 F001,F002,F003,F004,F005.A04, (F001,F002,F003 671)
5 R047.A05.A07, (P071,P059.P050.614), 0003.664, (0001,0002 664).
(0001.0002:604), U122.A05
D-3
-------
5254s/3
APPENDIX D (Continued)
TRD
broup Waste Code/A-B Codes
6 D004 866,668,673,674,677, D005.B66,B68,B73,B74.B77,
D006.B66,B68,B73,B74,B77, D007.666,868,B73.B74,B77,
0008-666,668,673,674,677, D009.666,668,673,B74,B77,
0010•B66,B68,B73,B74,B77 , 0011•B66,B68,B73,674,B77,
(D007,P008-674), (0004,0006,0007,0008-630), 0007 B30,
(K027,0007,0008.675), F019.A04, (0007,0006.674),
(F001,F002,F003,F005,D007 B40), (F003,F005,F006,K04H 640,
k049 B), (K086 A04)
7 K010 A07, U154 A08
8 M06-A07, (IU 06,0009 B51)
9 F001.A01.A02, F002A01.A02, F004.A01,A02, F005A01.A02.
U070A08(L), (D001,U054,F001,F003,F005 B5B), (U210.FQ01.659),
(F002,F003,F005-B61), (F002.U226-659), (0001,0002 B61),
(0001,F002,F003,F005•B61), (F003,F005.661),
(D001,F003,F008.B61)
10 F007-A05.A07; F009'A05,A07; F011•A05,A07; F008.F010-A05;
0003 B07.B14,B16, 0004,0005,0006,0008,0009,0010,0011-B07.
(F006.B04,F007-B07,F008:F09), (F007.607,FOO«.B09), P063.AOa,
(D002,F009' 607), (0002,D003,0008,0009:B09),
(F002,F 003,F005,0007,D008:B38)
11 F008.A07.A08, 0003.B24, 0004.624,625, 0005:624,625,
0006:624,625; 0008:624,625, 0009:624,625; 0010:624,625;
0011-624,B25, F008,F009:624; 0007,F006 624; (F006.F008-B31),
(F006:B47; F007:651) (F006.F008.B47); (F008,F009:642)
12 D004-.B14; 0005:603,B06,BIO,614,B16; D006:B03,B06,BIO,614,616;
D008:B03,B05,B06,B10,B13,B14,B15,616;
0009.803,606,610,614,616,617,
0010.B02,BOS,B06,BIO,613,B14.B16, 0011 803,606,610,614,616,
K046 A05, (0002,0008,0009-603), P122 A05, (0009 605) ,
D008-RECODE; (0002,0008.614), (0006,0008 B14),
(0002,0005,0006,0008:603); (0002,0004-803). (0006,DOOH 603),
(0002,0004,0006.603), (0006,0008,0010.B14)
13 0005623,631,632, 0006-823,631,632, 0010-623,631,632,
0011 623,631,632, 0009.B23,B3i,B32,B34, (0005,0006,0008.631),
0002,0004.623, P010.P011,P012:A05.A08
-------
S254S/4
APPENDIX D (Continued)
TRD
Group Waste Code/A-B Codes
14 D007 B03.B06,610.B13,B14.B16, (0002,0007 B03). 0002 803,610,
D007.BAC, (D006,D007,F007,F009:BOS),
(0002,0007,0008,0009 603); (M)48 B01,k049.B02),
(0002,0007,0009 BOS), (0002,0007 BOS), (D002 605, D007 B13,
F019-B03. F001-B01); (D007-B13, F019 603); (D002 BOS,
D007 606). (0005,0007,0008,0011-602), (0002.D007,DOOB B06),
(0002,0006,0007,0008,F007.F009 605), F006.A06,
(P011.U032 614), (0002,0005,0006,0007,0008-613);
(0002,0006,0007,D008•603); (0002,D003,D007•609),
(0002,0003,0006,D008- 603), (0002,0004,0006,0007.0009 B14).
(0002.0007,0010.614), (0002.BOS, 0007.606), K051 A05
15 D007 623,631,632,635, K062 AEA,
(0004,0005,0006,0007.0008.0009.0010,0011 B23), (k069 A06),
(K062 A06), (0004,0006,0007,0008,0010 B20)
16 0003 B08, P030-A05, (0002,0003 B09)
17 D003 B75, P030 A06,A07,A08
IS 0004-B20.B22, D005-B20.B22; D006-B20.B22, 0007 620,622,630,
0008-BEA, D009.B20.B22; D010.620.B22, 0011-620,622,
FQ06.A06,A07,A10,A11,A05S,AAB, F019 A06.A07.A10;
M)02:A06,A07,A10,B20; k003:A06,A07.A10.B20, k004.A06.A07.A10;
K005-A06,A07,A10,B20; K006-A06,A07.A10,620;
k007:A06,A07,A10,B20, k'008: AOB.A07 ,A10, k044 A07.A10,
k046:A06,A07,A10; K048.A10; MJ49-.A10, kOSO:A10; M)51:AIO;
k052-A10; k062 A06.A10.AAB, (F019.0007 B22), U032.A06,
(k061,k062-6ID),(D007,0008,K061,F006-BIO); D002,0006-B19;
(0002,0008:620); F006:BAB; XASH.-B39. K061:A10;
(k061,0008:637); (D008:B36); (K044:A07); (0002,0004,0010:620);
(F006,0007,0008:637); P012.P110:A06; P015.AAF; P120:A06;
(0005,0006,0007,F006.B41); (F006.F019 B41); (D008.F006-B51),
(K044.k046.B41), (F005.D008 B38), (F006,0005,0006,0007-B51),
(K.031,0006 B37), (P015 A08), (U144.A08)
19 K097:A05,A07, K098'A05,A07; K099-A05.A07; K073•AOS,A07(L),
k033.A05.A07, D012.B02,616, 0013.602,616, 0014 601,602,616,
D015:B02,B16, D016 802,616, 0017.602,616
D-5
-------
5254s/5
APPENDIX D (Continued)
TRD
Group Waste Code/A-B Codes
20 k028 A06.A07, kQ44,k049,k050,k051,k052 A06,
(0007,0008,F002,F003,F005:B82), (0008,F003,F005.B36),
(D008.F003-B36), (0001,0002,0003,0004,
0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,0010,F003,F004,F006.F019 B56),
(0001,0002,0003,0004.0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,F001,F002,F003,
FQ04.F005,F006,k061,k062 BIk), (D001,0002,0003,D004.0005,
0006,0007,0008,D009.F001,F002.F006 B36), (0001,0002,0003,
0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0010,0011,F001,F002,F006 B36);
(0001,0006,F002,F003,F005•B36); (0001,0006.D007,0008,F001,F002
F003,F004,F006.BIk), (0001,0007,0008,F002.B36),
(0001,0008,F002.F003 B36); (DOD1,0008,F002,F005 B36),
(0001,F006:B36), 0002,F006,F007,F009,K062'BIk),
(0002,0003,0004,0005,0006.0007,0008,0010,0011,F001,F003,F006,
F007,FOOti,F009 BIk). k04« A06(S), P120 A13(S),
(0004,0008,0009,U061 B36), k051 All(S), (0007,F002 B82),
(D007,F005:B82), (F001,F002,F003,F004,F005 B89,
0004,0005,0006,0007,0008.0009,0010,0011.0012,0013,0014,0015,
0016,0017-840, k086 B90,
F006,F007,F008,F009,F010,F011,F012 B4D), (F005,F006,D007 B36),
(U188.U158-B42; 0006,0007,0008:643); (0008,U221-690)
(D001.F003.F008 B89) (D002.F008.B89) (F003.D008 B89)
(F003,0009.689), (0005,0006,0008,U026.U190.B90)
(F003,F004,D008:B89) (K016.K031,F006,U101.U188-B90)
(F006,K016,K031:B47) (F003,F019:B51) (kOll ,tC013,F008:B90)
(K027,0007:890) (D004,K016,K031,U188'B52)
21 k!05:A05,A07, U185:A05;
22 F010:A07
23 K111:A05,A07
24 (K016.K037.A07); (U061,U142:A08)
25 K018.A07, P039.A08
26 k019:A07, k020 A07, k030 A07
D-6
-------
5254s/6
APPENDIX D (Continued)
TRD
Group Waste Code/A-B Codes
27 k04B.A07.All, K049.A07, k050 A07, k051.A07, k052 A07,
k086-A07(M), (k048,k049,k051:B73); (K050,k051:B73);
(k048,k049.k050,K051-B73); P120-A08;
(k046,k049,k050,k051,k052.B90), (k048,k049.k051.690),
k049 All, kOSO.All, kOSl.All, (k048,K049,K050,k051 B73),
K049.AAC, k049 AAD, (k048,k051•B73), (k048,k049,kOSl.BQB),
(D003.K051 B26), (D002,k049-B73),
(k048,k049,k050,k051,k052 B73), (k049,k051-B62(S)),
(k049,k051.B22), (k048,k049.673). (k049,k051-B90),
(k048,k051-B90), (k048.k051:B73)
28 k071 A05.A07, (k071 ,U06'B52), (k071 ,k'106,D002. D009 B51)
29 K103 A05.A07, k!04 A05.A07, (K083.U012 B02)
30 k061 A07.AEA, U151 A08, D006 B20.B22
31 k062.A05,A07, (K062.D002 603)
32 k015:A07
33 F003:A01,A02
34 K031.A06.A07
35 0002:604,605,B14.B35; (K062 B04, D002:B05); D002:BMB,B52,
(K062:604,0002-BOB); F006:B04; U134:A05; D009:B30, F005:B20(M)
36 K.011.A07; k013.A07, (kOll ,kQ13,P063,U009:B64), P069.A08,
U009:A08; 0008:669; (D002,D003,U012,U037,U015:B64);
(U012,U070:B64)
37 F020.A07(M), F021.A07, F022:A07; F023A07; F026.A07, F027.A07,
K073:A07; K060 A07 (sludges)
38 FQ20.A05,A07(L), F021 A05.A07, F022 A05.A07, F023 A05.A07,
F026 A05.A07, F027 A05.A07, K060.A05 (liquids)
D-7
-------
5254s/7
APPENDIX D (Continued)
TRD
Group Waste Cocle/A-B Codes
39 k001,k022,kD35,k036,F024,k032,k041,k083,k08S,KO«7 A07,
D012-622,630,671,879, D013-B22,B30,B71,B79;
D014•B22,B30,B71.B79; D015•B22,B30,B71,B79,
D016.B22,B30,B71.B79, D017 B22,B30,B71,B79, F001 A03,
F002.A03, F003.A03.B74, F004-A03,B74, F005 A03.674,
P024,P089,P094,P123 A08, (F003,F005-B77); (K027,0002 675).
(F001 B61, F002.B71, F003 B72, F005.B63, XOIL B63),
K083:A07(M); (F001.F002 B71)
40 F001 A05.B01.B05, (U188.U031.U037-B01), F002 A05, FOOS'AOS,
F004.A05; F005.A05, P020 A05, U210 A05, 1)177 A05, U211 A05,
U244 A05, (F003.F004,1)008: BOS),
(U159,U04i,U077,U083,U084 B01), (F001.U162 BOS),
(FQOi,F004,F005 B01); (F001,FOO?,F003,F004 B01),
(F001.F003,F004,F005 B01), (U154.U239.F003,F005 B14),
(k019,k030.B02), (U034,U044,U045,U220 B02),
(D001,F002,F003,FDDS B01), D001 B01
4j k073 A06
42 U031 A05, U154 BOS, K016:AEE
43 POOS B06
44 D004 B66,B68,B63; D005:B66,B68,B63; D006'B66,B68,B63;
D007-B66,B68,B62,B63; D008'B66,B68,B63; 0009:B66,B68,B63,
D010 B66,B68,B63, D011.666,868,663; (0001:662, k08'6:B66);
k086.B66, (P005:B06, 0001:669), k086.A02,
(0001,0002,0007:663); (k046,K050:B62); (k048,K049 ADS)
45 (K022,U188,U055,U002,D007:B02); (P056,D007:B14);
(D001,D007,F002,F003,FOOS:B01)
46 (k022,U188,U055,U002-B02); U188:A05
47 U147 A05, U170 AOS
48 (k062.D002,F003,F004,U008,U009 BOS), (0006,0007,F001 B09)
D-8
-------
5254s/8
APPENDIX 0 (Continued)
TRD
Group Waste Code/A-B Codes
49 kOll ,k013 A05, 11009 AOS.B05, (KOI 1 ,K013 A05).
(k011,k013,K014 B02), (kOll.K013,k014 602,0002.605),
(MU1,M)13,U009.U154,U162,U192,U008.U007,P069,P063,F001 BOS),
(kOll,k013,U009,U192,U008,UQ07,P069,P063.BOS),
(k022,k013,P003 B02, P063.B08), (U009'A06(L),
(k011.k013A014 B02, 0002-605), (D002 BAG)
50 k015 A05
51 D004 606,603,610,B16.B18, (D002.D004-BIO)
52 D004 623,631,832
53 D004 B07
54 F010.F011 A07, F012.A05
55 k024 A07
56 K045.FOOl.A10. kQ62,P120:All, (F003,F005'B38),
(D006,D008,F001,F002,F003,F005,F006,KQ48,KQ49,K051 B40),
57 Lab packs
58 (k011,K013,K014:B30); K011:AED
59 (D008.F001.B51)
60 Soil/debris
61 K069.A07
62 F008-A04, (D004,D006,D008-B30); K084 A07(M)
63 None assigned
64 None assigned
K (D007,D008.D001.K061,F006 BID); (0007.D008 882),
(D001,D005,D006,D007,D008,D010 682), (D001,0006,0007 B82),
(D008 B82); (0001,0007,K017-B82); (D001,D008:B82),
(0001,0009:632), K049.K050:A06(S); (K051,0008-890);
(D001,F001:B82); (F001,F005:B82)
D-':-
-------
5254s/9
APPENDIX D (Continued)
TRD
broup Waste Code;A-B lodes
66 (F006,P029.P074,P121 B47), (F007 ,F008. F010.F011, ("012 BID),
F007.F008 A06, (F007,F009:B46), (F006,F012,k044,k046 B41),
(F006.F012 B41(E)), (P029.A06) (P106 A06)
66 (K048 B01, k049'B02, K051 B21. XWWL 662, XWWS B82)
69 (0004,0008,0009 B26)
70 M)49 A05
71 0008 B2S.B29,631,632
72 None assigned
73 (k022,D001,DOOZ,F001,F002,F003,F004,F005,P012,P01b,POL-:,P056.
P075,P098,P105,P106.P119,U001,U002,U004.U005,U006,U006,U012,
U019,U031,U037,U044,U045,U052,U055,U056.U066,U06?.U070,U071,
U072,U077,UQ92,UlQl,U107,un2,U113,U!15,U117,Ullb,UJ20,U122,
U123,U133,U134,U140,U144,U15J,U154,U159,U161,U165.U167.U188,
U190,U196,U201,U209,U211,U219,U220,U226,U239 B01)
73A (0003,0006,0007,0008,0010.614)
74 (D007,D008,D009,K049:B73)
75 (D002,0005,0009.0011,0014:BOS)
77 (0002,0007-B64); 0007-B64
78 K.031:A05, D008.B02, 0005.B64
79 0007:602
81 P105.A05
82 kQ86 A07(L),A05
83 (0001,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,D008,D009,DOI 0,0011,0012,
0013,0014,D015.D016.B70)
64 Mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes
85 K104-AAE
No longer generated: H004, MX>8, K021, K036, k060, K073, K100. K025
D-iO
-------
APPENDIX E
Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technology Groups
E-l
-------
5354s/JO
APPENDIX L
Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technologies (AT/RT)
for Each Waste Group
TRD
group
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
o4
35
36
37
36
39
40
41
42
43
AT/RT codes
1
1,2
lb,2b
la,2a,3,4
5,21,22
7a,41a
lb.2b,8
9,10
4,ll,lb,2b
12,13,49
14,13,50
15
16,10
17
18
19
20
10
5,21,22,3,4
7
23,5,21,22,6
7,12,13,49
5,22,24,25
26,la,2a
26,lb,2b
26, la, 2a, 3, 4
27,7a,41a
28
29
30,31
32,17
34,lb,2b
lb,2b,3,4,ll
10,35
38
lb,2b,5,21,22
la
Ib
la,2a
5,21,22,24,6
52
6,21,22
44
E-2
-------
5254s/11
APPENDIX E (continued)
TRD
group
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
56
59
60
6!
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
73A
74
75
77
78
79
bl
82
83
84
85
AT/
7b,
36,
5,6
6
42,
5,2
34,
45
46
47,
39
26,
51
53
la,
56,
54
55
56a
RT codes
41b
40
,21,22
43
1,22,67
lb,2b
48
1,2
2a,21.22
41
,41a
56b,41b
56c
,41c
7,41
14,
57
58
62
63,
10,
13
59,
65.
59,
48,
7b,
13,
36,
11,
69
7a
70
50
64
16,30,31
60
66
60,61
59
36,41b,43
68
42,43
U.1Q
1,71,21,22
E-3
-------
APPENDIX F
Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technologies
F-i
-------
5254s/ie
APPENDIX F
Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technologies
Alternat we
Treatment/Recovery
Technology Codes
Description
la
Ib
Ic
2b
7a
7b
10
11
1?
14
Incineration of solids
Incineration of sludges
Incineration of liquids
Incineration of gases
Reuse as fuel of solids
Reuse as fuel of sludges
Reuse as fuel of liquids
Solvent extraction
Fractional ion or batch still distillation
Carbon adsorption
Biological treatment
Incineration of solids followed b>
stabilization of the ash and chromium
reduction followed by metals precipitation
of scrubber water with stabilization of
treatment sludge
Incineration of sludges followed by
stabilization of the ash and chromium
reduction followed by metals precipitation
of scrubber water with stabilization of
treatment sludge
Incineration of liquids followed by
stabilization of the ash and chromium
reduction followed by metals precipitation
of scrubber water with stabilization of
treatment sludge
Solvent extraction followed by steam
stripping and carbon adsorption
Retorting followed by stabilization
of the ash
Cement based or pozzolanic stabilization
Thin film evaporation
Cyanide oxidation followed by chemical
precipitation, sludge dewaterinq, and
stabilization of the sludge
Wet air oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption, chemical precipitation, sludge
dewatering, and stabilization of the sludge
Slurrying followed by cyanide oxidation,
chemical precipitation, sludge dewatering,
and stabilization of the sludge
F-2
-------
5254S/13
APPENDIX F (continued)
Alternat we
Treatment 'Recovery
technology Code^ Description
15 Chemical precipitation, sludge aewaterinq,
and stabilization of the sludge
16 Slurrying followed by chemical precipitation,
sludge dewatering, and stabilization of the
sludge
1? Chrome reduction followed by chemical
precipitation, sludge dewatering, and
stabi1ization
18 Slurrying followed by chrome reduction,
chemical precipitation, sludge aewaterma,
and stabi1ization
19 Cyanide oxidation
CO Slurrying followed by cyanide o> 'flat ion
Jl Wet air oxidation followed by carbon aJsorption
22 Wet air oxidation followed Dy biological
treatment
23 Solvent extraction followed by steam stripping
24 Steam or air stripping followed by carbon
adsorption
25 Fractlonation, batch still distillation, or
solvent extraction followed by incineration
of the organic stream
26 Rotary kiln or fluidized bed incineration
27 Rotary kiln or fluidized bed incineration of
sludges followed by stabilization of the ash
and metals precipitation of scrubber water
with stabilization of treatment sludge
28 Chlorination followed by vacuum filtration,
followed by sulfide precipitation,
filtration, and sludge dewatenng of the
filtrate from the vacuum filter
29 Solvent extraction followed by incineration
or reuse as fuel of the extract and steam
stripping and carbon adsorption of the
wastewater
30 Secondary smelting
31 Secondary smelting followed by stabilization
of the slag
3? Chromium reduction followed by chemical
precipitation and vacuum filtration
33 Chromium reduction followed by chemical
precipitation and sludge dewatering
34 Liquid injection incineration or reuse as fuel
F-3
-------
APPENDIX F (continued)
Alternative
I redtment/Recovery
Technology Codes Description
35 Incineration followed by dissolving of the as>h,
sulfide precipitation, sludge dewatermg,
and stabi1ization
3G Carbon adsorption followed by chromium
reduction, chemical precipitation, sludge
dewatering and stabilization
37 Solids blending
3B Neutralization
39 Electrochemical cyanide oxidation followed by
alkaline chlor mat ion, chemical
precipitation, sludge dewatering, and
stabi1ization
40 Wet air oxidation, followed by carbon
adsorption, chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation, sludge dewatering, and
stabi1ization
41 Reuse as fuel of solids followed by stabiliza-
tion of the ash from boilers and process
heaters
41a Reuse as fuel of sludges followed by stabiliza-
tion of the ash from boilers and process
heaters
41b Reuse as fuel of liquids followed by stabiliza-
tion of the ash from boilers and process
heaters
42 Stripping followed by carbon adsorption,
chromium reduction, chemical precipitation,
sludge dewatering, and stabilization
43 Wet air oxidation followed by carbon adsorption,
chromium reduction, chemical precipitation,
sludge dewatering, and stabilization
44 Steam stripping followed by chemical
precipitation, sludge dewatering, and
stabi 1 ization
45 Sulfide precipitation followed by sludge
dewatering and stabilization
46 Slurrying followed by sulfide prei. ipitat ion,
sludge dewatering, and stabilization
47 Cyanide oxidation followed by sulfide
precipitation, sludge dewatering. and
stabilization
F-4
-------
5254s/15
APPENDIX F (continued)
Alternative
Treatment'Recovery
Technology Codes
Description
46
49
50
51
53
55
56
56a
56b
56c
58
59
Wet air oxidation, followed by carbon
adsorption, sulfide precipitation, sludge
dewatering, and stabilization
Cyanide oxidation followed by chemical
precipitation, sludge dewatering and
stabi lization
Slurrying followed by cyanide oxidation,
chemical precipitation, sludge dewatering,
and stabi1ization
The waste already meets BOAT treatment
standard
Lab pack waste
Total recycle of k069
Incineration of solids followed by
stabilization of the ash and chemical
precipitation of the scrubber water followed
by sludge dewatering and stabilization
Incineration of sludges followed by
stabilization of the ash and chemical
precipitation of the scrubber water followed
by sludge dewatering and stabilization
Incineration of liquids followed by
stabilization of the ash and chemical
precipitation of the scrubber water followed
by sludge dewatering and stabilization
Incineration of gases followed by
stabilization of the ash and chemical
precipitation of the scrubber water followed
by sludge dewatering and stabilization
Sludge dewatering followed by incineration
of the solids with stabilization of the ash
Chromium reduction and chemical precipitation
of the scrubber water followed by sludge
dewatering and stabilization and oil skimming
followed by chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation, and sludge dewatering and
stabilization, of the liquid effluent from
the original dewatering
Carbon adsorption followed by sulfide
precipitation sludge dewatering and
stabi 1 ization
F-5
-------
5254S/16
APPENDIX F (continued)
A It ern.it ive
Treatment ''Recovery
Technology Codes Description
60 Biological treatment followed by sulfide
precipitation, sludge dewatering and
stabi1ization
61 Incineration of liquids followed by
stabilization of the ash and chromium
reduction, sulfide precipitation of the
scrubber water followed by sludge dewatenng
and stabi1ization
62 Slurrying followed by general oxidation, sulfide
precipitation, sludge dewatering, ana
stabi1ization
63 Oil skimming followed by incineration of the
sludge with stabilization of the ash
Chromium reduction, chemical precipitation of
the scrubber water followed by sludge
dewatering and stabilization, and chromium
reduction followed by chemical precipitation,
sludge dewatering, and stabilization of the
1 iquid effluent.
64 Oil skimming followed by chromium reduction,
chemical precipitation, sludge dewatering,
and stabilization of the liquid effluent
Reuse as fuel of the sludges followed by
stabilization of the ash from boilers and
process heaters
65 Cyanide oxidation followed by chromium
reduction, chemical precipitation, sludge
dewatering, and stabilization
66 Wet air oxidation followed by chromium
reduction, chemical precipitation, sludge
dewatering, and stabilization
67 General oxidation with hydrogen peroxide or
potassium permanganate
6ti Carbon adsorption followed by chemical
precipitation sludge dewatering and
stabi1ization
69 Steam stripping followed by chromium reduction,
chemical precipitation, sludge dewatering and
stabi1ization
70 Mixed RCRA/rariioact we wastes
71 Thermal regeneration of carbon
F-6
------- |