EPA/530-SW-88-030
vvEPA
Office of
Solid Waste
Washington, D.C 20460
May 1988
Solid Waste
Background Document For
First Third Wastes To
Support 40 CFR Part 268
Land Disposal Restrictions
Proposed Rule
First Third Waste Volumes,
Characteristics, and Required and
Available Treatment Capacity - Part
-------
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
FOR
FIRST THIRD WASTES TO SUPPORT 40 CFR PART
268 LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
PROPOSED RULE
FIRST THIRD WASTE VOLUMES, CHARACTERISTICS,
AND REQUIRED AND AVAILABLE TREATMENT CAPACITY - PART II
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
May 1988
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Begion 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S. Dearborn Street, Room 167
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
2.0 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.1 Legal Background 2-1
2.2 Summary of Previous Land Disposal Restrictions 2-2
2.3 Introduction to Today's Proposal 2-9
3.0 OVERVIEW 3-1
3.1 General Methodology 3-1
3.1.1 Data Set Development 3-1
3.1.2 General Capacity Analysis Methodology 3-11
3.2 Results 3-16
3.2.1 All RCRA Wastes 3-16
3.2.2 Solvents 3-19
3.2.3 First Third Wastes 3-23
3.2.4 Waste Code Specific Capacity Analysis 3-31
3.2.5 Non-Solvent RCRA Wastes Containing
Halogenated Organic Compounds 3-81
3.2.6 Contaminated Soils 3-85
4.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY 4-1
4.1 Determination of Required Treatment Capacity 4-1
4.1.1 Affected Volumes 4-1
4.1.2 Treatability Analysis 4-7
4.2 Determination of Available Treatment Capacity 4-14
4.3 Capacity Analysis Methodology 4-46
5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 5-1
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
-------
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This background document discusses the quantity of land disposed
First Third wastes for which treatment standards are being proposed today
and assesses the required and available alternative treatment and
recovery capacity for these wastes. The document also includes a
re-analysis of waste volumes affected and of required and available
treatment capacity for solvent wastes, California List Halogenated
Organic Compound (HOC) wastes, and First Third wastes as previously
proposed, and solvent-, HOC-, and First Third waste-contaminated soils.
The data used to perform these analyses were obtained from a new data
set created from the results of 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 treatment, disposal, and recycling facilities. Facility responses
were reviewed for completeness and accuracy prior to inclusion in the
data set. The data set contains detailed information on the volume and
characteristics of wastes being land disposed and on the capacity of
hazardous waste treatment/recovery technologies. The data set does not
contain data on waste generation volumes.
Waste volumes affected by the restrictions were estimated and
aggregated by waste code and land disposal practice. Treatability
analyses were then performed on the affected wastes to determine the
amount of required alternative treatment/recovery capacity. A
facility-level capacity analysis was performed for each commercial
1-1
-------
treatment/recovery facility to determine estimates of the available
capacities of alternative technologies. These available capacities were
then aggregated to provide national estimates of commercially available
treatment/recovery capacity. The estimates of available capacity were
compared sequentially against the required capacity for the solvents,
First Thirds, HOCs, and contaminated soils, in that order, to determine
if adequate national capacity exists for the volume of waste being
restricted from land disposal. The results of the analysis are presented
below.
1.1 Solvent Wastes
Using the new TSDR Survey data set, it was estimated that 42 million
gallons per year of land disposed solvent wastes will require alternative
treatment/recovery capacity. The specific capacity requirements for
these solvent wastes are presented below:
Available capacity Required capacity
Technology (million qal/yr) (mill ion qal/yr)
Combustion of:
Liquids 247 1
Sludges/solids 47 38
Stabilization 429 2
Wastewater treatment:
Cyanide oxidation 164 <1
Steam stripping, ^
Carbon adsorption, (75 1
Biological, or (
Wet air oxidation
1-2
-------
The results of the analysis show that adequate capacity exists for
the volume of solvent wastes requiring alternative treatment/recovery
capacity.
1.2 First Third Wastes
Using the TSDR Survey data set, it was estimated that 431 million
gallons per year of land disposed First Third wastes affected by today's
proposed rule (i.e., those for which treatment standards will be
established by August 8, 1988) will require alternative
treatment/recovery capacity. First Third proposed 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. The
specific capacity requirements for these First Third wastes are presented
below:
Available capacity* Required capacity
Technology (mill ion gal/yr) (mill ion gal/yr)
Combustion of:
Liquids 246 <1
Sludges/solids 9 157
Stabilization 427 145
Metals recovery:
Mercury retorting 0 <1
High temperature metals 34 83
Wastewater treatment:
Cyanide oxidation " 164 <1
Chromium reduction 195 41
Carbon adsorption and
chromium reduction 12 1
Sludge treatment 0 4
* The estimates of available capacity for First Third wastes were
determined by subtracting the capacity required by solvent wastes from
the national estimates of available capacity.
1-3
-------
The results of the analysis show a shortfall in available capacity
for sludges/solids combustion, metals recovery, and sludge treatment.
The Agency is therefore proposing to grant a 2-year national capacity
variance to K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052 wastes requiring
sludges/solids combustion; K061 wastes requiring high temperature metals
recovery; K106 wastes requiring mercury retorting, and K071 wastes
requiring sludge treatment.
Presented below are the specific alternative capacity requirements
for the First Third wastes affected by today's proposed rule following
exclusion of the volumes of wastes for which the Agency is proposing to
grant national capacity variances (i.e., K048-K052, K061, K071, and K106)
Available capacity* Required capacity
Technology (million qal/yr) (mill ion qal/yr)
Combustion of:
Liquids 246 <1
Sludges/solids 9 5
Stabilization 427 128
Metals recovery:
Mercury retorting 0 0
High temperature metals 34 0
Wastewater treatment:
Cyanide oxidation 164 <1
Chromium reduction 195 41
Carbon adsorption and
chromium reduction 12 0
Sludge treatment 0 0
* The estimates of available capacity for First Third wastes were
determined by subtracting the capacity required by solvent wastes from
the national estimates of available capacity.
1-4
-------
The results of this analysis show that adequate capacity does exist
for the remaining First Third proposed wastes.
1.3 California List HOC Wastes
Using the TSDR Survey data set, it was estimated that approximately
4 million gallons per year of land disposed California List HOC wastes
will require alternative treatment/recovery capacity. HOC wastes that
also contain solvent wastes (F001-F005) or First Third wastes for which
treatment standards are being proposed today were included in the
analyses presented above and therefore are not included in the volume of
HOC wastes.
The specific capacity requirements for the HOC wastes are presented
below:
Available capacity* Required capacity
Technology (million gal/yr) (million qal/yr)
Combustion of:
Liquids 246 <1
Sludges/solids 4 2
Wastewater treatment for HOCs ,
(Steam stripping, carbon I 74 2
adsorption, biological or (
wet air oxidation) '
The Agency had previously granted a 2-year national capacity variance
to HOC wastes requiring incineration. However, it has determined that
adequate capacity does exist for the volume of HOC wastes requiring
* The estimates of available capacity for HOC wastes were determined by
subtracting the capacity required by solvent and First Third proposed
wastes from the national estimates of available capacity.
1-5
-------
combustion. Consequently, the Agency is today proposing to rescind the
capacity variance for HOC wastes requiring combustion.
The preamble to today's proposed rule presents available capacity
estimates after assigning capacity to solvents and California List HOCs.
This comparison is shown below:
Remaining
available Required
Required capacity for capacity for
capacity for First Third First Third
Available
capacity
(mill ion
qal/yr)
solvents
and HOCs
(mill ion
gal/.yr)
proposed
wastes
(mill ion
qal/vr)
proposed
wastes
(mill ion
qal/vr)
Technology
Combustion of:
Liquids
Sludges/sol ids
Stabilization
Metals recovery:
Mercury retorting
High temperature
metals
Wastewater treatment;
Cyanide oxidation
Chromium reduction
Carbon adsorption
and chromium
reduction
Steam stripping,
Carbon adsorption,
Biological, or
Wet air oxidation }
Sludge treatment 00 0 4 (0)-
*Remaining volume after dropping waste volumes for which a capacity
variance is being proposed.
247
47
429
0
34
164
195
12
75
1
40
2
0
0
0
0
3
246
7
427
0
34
164
195
12
72
157 (5)*
145
<1 (0)*
83 (0)*
41
1
0
1-6
-------
1.4 Contaminated Soils
Because of the unique regulatory and treatability issues associated
with contaminated soils, such wastes have been evaluated separately.
Using the TSDR Survey data set, it was estimated that 48 million gallons
per year of land disposed contaminated soils will require alternative
treatment/recovery capacity.
The estimates of available capacity for contaminated soils were
determined by first assigning the available national capacity to the
non-soil solvent, First Third proposed, and HOC wastes. The specific
capacity requirements for contaminated soils are presented below:
Technology/Regulatory Available capacity Required capacity
Group (million qal/.yr) (million qal/yr)
Combustion of soils
contaminated with:
- Solvents: ) 25
- First third proposed \ 2 11
- HOCs I _i
40
Stabilization of soils
contaminated with:
- Solvents I 253 <1
- First Third proposed ( 8
8
The analysis shows that adequate capacity exists for the volume of
soils requiring stabilization. However, adequate capacity does not exist
for the volume of soils requiring combustion.
1-7
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Today's proposed rule is the third segment of EPA's Land Disposal
Restrictions Program - those for the "First Third" of the scheduled
wastes. 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
those wastes analyzed for this proposed rule.
2.1 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 £R 40572), EPA promulgated a
technology-based approach to establishing treatment standards. These
treatment standards are generally based on the performance of the best
2-1
-------
demonstrated available technology (BOAT) identified for the hazardous
constituents in a particular waste. EPA may establish treatment
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 upon a lack of adequate alternative treatment,
recovery, or disposal 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 for treatment, recovery, or disposal that is protective of human
health and the environment will be available.
2.2 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
2-2
-------
affected considered the combination of waste code, physical/chemical
form, and management practice for determination of the amount of
alternative capacity required.
2.2.1 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 the 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
Applicable treatment and
recovery technologies
Wastewater treatment
2-3
-------
Applicable treatment and
Waste stream recovery technologies
Organic liquids Distillation
Fuel substitution
Incineration
Organic sludges Fuel substitution
Incineration
Inorganic sludges or solids Incineration
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 solvent-water mixtures, solvent-
.containing sludges, and solvent-contaminated soil containing less than
1 percent total F001-F005 solvent constituents (40 CFR 268.30 and Ref. 1),
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 proposed rule includes a re-analysis 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
2-4
-------
Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling Facilities (the TSDR
Survey). This data set is described in more detail in Sections 3 and 4.
2.2.2. 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
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. £R 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
2-5
-------
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
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 a treatment standard 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 proposed rule includes a re-analysis of required and
available treatment capacity for California List HOC wastes based on the
TSDR Survey data.
2.2.3 First Third Wastes
On April 8, 1988 (53 £R 11742), the Agency proposed its approach to
regulating the land disposal of the so-called "First Third" wastes. At
2-6
-------
that time, EPA proposed treatment standards for only some of the First
Third wastes, promising to continue analyses of additional First Third
wastes and to publish a supplementary proposal.
The data used at that time to quantify and characterize the first
group of First Third wastes was obtained from the 1981 RIA Mail Survey
(Ref. 2). Using these data, an estimate of the maximum total volume of
First Third wastes land disposed annually was made. The estimate
represented a maximum volume because some double-counting of waste
streams that were reported as being managed by more than one land
disposal practice could not be avoided.
The Agency proposed treatment standards for K061, K062, K016, K018,
K019, K020, K030, K024, K103, K104, K071, K048, K049, K050, K051, and
K052. For K004, K008, K036, K073, and K100 wastes, a standard of "No
Land Disposal" was proposed because the Agency believes that the wastes
are no longer generated and therefore are not currently land disposed.
EPA did not require the use of Best Demonstrated Available
Technologies (BOAT). Instead, the Agency established treatment standards
expressed as concentration limits in the waste (or an extraction from the
waste) and identified the BOAT technology on which these limitations are
based. These technologies can be broadly categorized as follows:
incineration, wastewater treatment, chemical treatment, wastewater
treatment and incineration, and high temperature metals recovery. To
determine the required treatment/recovery capacity, the Agency performed
2-7
-------
a treatability analysis of the First Third waste streams from the RIA
Mail Survey that were affected by the proposal. Based on this analysis,
EPA determined whether adequate available capacity existed for each waste
code (Ref. 4).
For previous rulemakings, the Agency had determined that commercial
rotary kiln and fluidized bed incineration capacity was insufficient for
the volume potentially requiring commercial incineration (Ref. 4).
Consequently, EPA proposed to grant a 2-year capacity variance to those
wastes requiring rotary kiln or fluidized bed incineration (K016, K018,
K019, K020, K024, K030, K037, K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052).
The Agency had previously demonstrated, however, that liquid
combustion capacity was available in liquid injection incinerators and
industrial kilns/furnaces (Ref. 4). As a result, EPA did not propose to
grant a variance to K015 wastes requiring liquid injection incineration.
The Agency believed that adequate onsite wastewater treatment
capacity for K062 existed at the time of proposal or would exist prior to
promulgation of the final rule. In addition, some available commercial
capacity had been identified (Ref. 4). Therefore, EPA did not propose to
grant a variance for K062 wastes requiring wastewater treatment capacity.
Although EPA determined that adequate liquid injection incineration
capacity was available for K103 and K104 wastes, the Agency believed that
there was insufficient wastewater treatment capacity for these wastes.
Therefore, EPA proposed to grant a 2-year national capacity variance to
K103 and K104 wastes.
2-8
-------
Similarly, EPA determined that adequate commercial high temperature
metals recovery capacity did not exist for K061 wastes, and therefore
proposed to grant a 2-year national capacity variance for K061 wastes.
The Agency also found that there was inadequate capacity for K071
wastes requiring chemical treatment, and proposed to grant a 2-year
variance for K071 wastes.
Today's proposed rule contains a re-analysis of required and
available treatment capacity for those First Third wastes previously
proposed, based on the new TSDR Survey data set.
2.3 Introduction to Today's Proposal
Using the results of the the TSDR Survey, the Agency has re-analyzed
the amount of required and available treatment/recovery capacity for
solvent wastes and California list HOC wastes. An overview of the
results of these re-analyses is contained in Section 3.2.2 for solvent
wastes and Section 3.2.4 for HOCs, and detailed capacity analyses for
solvent wastes and HOCs are contained in Appendices A and C, respectively.
Today, the Agency is also re-proposing the ban effective dates for
some of those First Third wastes previously proposed (53 £R 11742), based
on a re-analysis of the required and available treatment/recovery
capacity for those wastes using the new data from the TSDR Survey. In
addition, today's rule proposes treatment standards and ban effective
dates for some additional First Third wastes.
2-9
-------
Because of time constraints, EPA is proposing to establish treatment
standards for only some of the First Third wastes. The wastes for which
a treatment standard will be established by August 1988 are hereafter
referred to in this document as "First Third proposed wastes" and include
the waste codes identified in Table 2.3.1.
Those wastes for which a treatment standard is not being established
are covered by the "soft hammer" provision of the statute. Basically,
the soft hammer provision allows these wastes to be landfilled or
disposed in an impoundment if it can be certified that such disposal is
the only practical alternative to treatment currently available.
This document presents the results of the capacity analysis performed
for First Third proposed wastes. An overview of the results of this
analysis and a detailed code-by-code capacity analysis are contained in
Section 3.2.3.
For a number of reasons the Agency has not re-evaluated the amount of
required and available treatment capacity for California List wastes land
disposed in "surface" disposal units (i.e., waste piles, surface
impoundments, landfills, land treatment units, but not underground
injection wells). First, by definition these wastes are liquids, or
contain free liquids, therefore the vast majority of these wastes are
managed in surface impoundments which must meet certain minimum technical
(min-tech) standards by November of 1988 (or qualify for an exemption) to
remain open. Wastes managed in "min-tech" treatment impoundments are no
2-10
-------
longer considered land disposed. Consequently, the Agency believes that
by November of 1988 most of those wastes will either be treated on-site
in tanks or "min-tech" treatment impoundments.
Secondly, those wastes that are not treated on-site in tanks or
min-tech treatment impoundments need only be rendered non-liquid prior to
land disposal. Therefore, an analysis of non-HOC California List wastes
is not included in this document.
2-11
-------
5029s
Table 2 3.1 First Third Proposed Wastes
Waste code
Description
F006 " Wastewater treatment sludges from certain electroplating operations
K001 Bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of wastewater from wood
preserving processes that use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol
K004 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, K.018, Heavy ends or distillation residues from production of certain
K019, K020 halogenated organics
K021 Aqueous spent antimony catalyst waste from fluoromethanes production
K022 Distillation bottom tars from the production of phenol/acetone from
cumene
K024 Distillation bottoms from the production of phthalic anhydride from
naphthalene
K025 Distillation bottoms from the production of nitrobenzene by the
nitration of benzene
K030 Column bottoms or heavy ends from the combined production of
trichloroethylene 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
2-12
-------
5029s
Table 2.3.1 (continued)
Waste code Description
K060 Ammonia still lime sludge from coking operations
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
K073 Chlorinated hydrocarbon waste from the purification step of the
diaphragm cell process using graphite anodes in chlorine production
K086 Solvent washes and sludges, caustic washes and sludges, or water washes
and sludges 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 2,4-0
K100 Waste leaching solution from acid leaching of emission control dust/
sludge from secondary lead smelting
K101 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-
arsenic compounds
K103 Process residues from aniline extraction from the production of aniline
K104 Combined wastewater streams generated from nitrobenzene/aniline
production
K106 Wastewater treatment sludge from the mercury cell process in chlorine
production
The "First Third proposed" wastes are those wastes for which a treatment standard is
being proposed today and will be established by August 8, 1988
2-13'
-------
3.0 OVERVIEW
This section of the background document presents general discussions
of the source(s) of data and analytical methodology used for the capacity
analyses in support of this proposed rule. Also presented are the
results of the analyses of waste volumes affected by the land disposal
restrictions, the demand for alternative capacity, and available capacity.
3.1 General Methodology
3.1,1 Data Set Development
(1) National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal,
and Recycling Facilities.
Background. In order 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 April 11, 1988, were able to
be used to support the capacity analyses for this proposed rule. There
was extensive technical review and detailed analysis of the facility
responses. Certain-facility responses and derived data elements from the
3-1
-------
facility level analysis were incorporated into a specialized data set
developed (a series of PC-based data systems) for land disposal
facilities and commercial treatment and recovery facilities.
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, an additional 200
facilities that were either initially overlooked or are new, have been
identified and sent the TSDR Survey. Approximately 2,300 facilities had
returned their survey as of April 11, 1988, the deadline for review and
analysis of data for support of this proposed rule.
A total of 433 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 proposed rule.
Twenty-three facilities with land disposal have not returned their
surveys to date. However, 18 of these late facilities provided limited
information when contacted by phone. In total, these 18 facilities
account for 813 million gallons of land disposed waste (excluding
underground injection volumes), approximately less than two percent of
the total reported volume. This results in a two percent error factor in
the analysis. The Agency is assuming the wastes at these late facilities
3-2
-------
will reflect similar patterns to those of the wastes reported; therefore,
no problems are anticipated in not having all the data available for this
analysis.
A total of 310 facilities with commercial treatment/recovery
technologies have completed and returned surveys, accounting for a
maximum of 21 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), or
judged to be applicable, to the wastes covered by this proposal--solvents,
California List HOCs (halogenated organic compounds), and First Third
wastes, including contaminated soils.
Eighty-six facilities reported having commercial processes other than
conbustion, 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-three 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 435 million gallons of commercial
combustion capacity in 1988.
3-3
-------
A total of 124 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, and where available, other data sources were used.
Because of time constraints, not all of the information on commercial
capacity for stabilization is included in these analyses. Also, only
industrial kilns, not industrial boilers or other furnaces were
considered in the analysis of commercial combustion capacity. Therefore,
the available capacity reported for these technologies is an
underestimate. However, the analysis shows there is more than enough
capacity for the volume of wastes requiring these technologies.
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 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.
3-4
-------
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
- 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,
percentage 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 proposed rule.
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
3-5
-------
limited but adequate characterization data (refer to Section 4.1.2) 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
Residual information (was this waste 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
- Commercial status
- Operating status
- Closure plans
Key parameters - Liner type (plans for upgrading)
- Pollution controls
3-6
-------
Waste types - Waste types and quantities
managed in 1986
- Restrictions of 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 proposed rule.
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 proposed rule. A limited number of additional
data sources were used to compensate for late or incomplete facility
responses. These other data sources are discussed following the next
subsection.
Overview of Data Handling, Technical Review, and Quality Assurance.
Extensive technical review of TSDR Survey data was required to assure
completeness, consistency, and accuracy on a per facility basis. In
order 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
3-7
-------
consideration and analysis of the facility responses to essentially every
question in the survey (if applicable to that facility), and 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. 5), available in the Public Docket for this proposed rule.
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. 5
for details on the survey screening, distribution, and review procedures).
3-8
-------
Treatability assessments were then conducted of each land disposed
waste stream (described in Section 4.1.2) 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 4.2.1).
The last step in the review process consisted of complete or final
QC. Approximately 25 percent of the surveys underwent complete QC (see
Ref. 6 for detailed information on QC procedures). After QC, the
technical review/analysis was considered to be complete.
(2) Other Data Sources. 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 us in completing the responses.
Data from an earlier phone survey conducted for EPA on commercial
capacity for burning hazardous organic wastes in industrial kilns were
selectively used to supplement the survey data for several late or new
facilities (Ref. 6). The information used involved five additional
facilities operating cement kilns, providing both current and future
commercial capacity for burning primary liquid hazardous wastes by fuel
substitution (reuse as fuel).
3-9
-------
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 excessive efforts
required) to provide detailed waste code, waste description, and quantity
information for each land disposed waste stream. In order 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.
In order to identify alternative treatment/recovery technologies
(ATRs) applicable to the hazardous waste of concern, coordination was
required 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 proposed 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 treatabilty groups), various
sources of published literature were used (described in more detail in
3-10
-------
Section 4.1.2), and engineering judgment when necessary. Except for
these few unique waste streams, the information on ATRs used to assess
applicability to the wastes of concern and their ability to meet the
treatment standards was provided by the BOAT Program.
3.1.2 General 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 i.s
insufficient, it must then project the earliest date at which adequate
capacity will be available.
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 using treatability as the link between the volumes of
land disposed waste requiring alternative capacity and the appropriate
available treatment/recovery capacity (refer to Section 4.1.2 for a more
detailed discussion of treatability analysis).
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
3-11
-------
disposal under HSWA and include: treatment, storage, or disposal in a
surface impoundment; treatment or storage in a waste pile; land
treatment; and disposal in a landfill. Utilization of 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 (deepwell) 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.
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
3-12
-------
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 4.1.1.
In order 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, 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 wastes failing the Paint Filter Liquids Test.
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
which can treat all waste types in the group. A more detailed
description of the treatability analysis methodology, including treatment
train development, is contained in Section 4.1.2.
A number of the treatment technologies to which wastes have been
assigned create treatment residuals which 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
3-13
-------
be generated by treatment of the original volume of waste requiring
treatment and included these residuals in the volumes requiring treatment
capacity. A more detail description of the determination of residual
volumes is contained in Section 4.1.2(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.
Available Capacity. The analysis of available capacity 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 4.2.2.
3-14
-------
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 are
only considered 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
sequential and cumulative effects of previous land disposal restrictions
and for projected capacity changes after 1986 (the baseline year). The
required capacity for solvents and dioxin wastes were assigned to
available capacity first followed by First Third proposed wastes,
California list HOCs 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 underground
injected wastes which will be considered in another rule.) The Agency
believes that land disposal in surface units may represent a greater
3-15
-------
threat to human health and the environment than does the underground
injection of wastes. Furthermore, contaminated soils are generally from
clean-up operations which present an obvious threat.
3.2 Results
3.2.1 All RCRA Wastes
Table 3.2.1 presents estimates of the total volume of RCRA wastes
that is 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 3.2.1 were the 1986
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 density of water), to allow comparisons to available capacity in
a standard unit. These reported 1986 volumes were adjusted subtracting
volumes of waste managed in treatment surface impoundments that will
undergo closure and be replaced by tanks or that will be retrofitted in
order to meet minimum technology requirements by 1988.
In order 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 followed. In
tabulating volumes of waste managed in surface impoundments and waste
3-16
-------
5034s/1
Table Z 2 1 Overview of All RCRA Hazardous Waste
Volume land disposed
(million gallons/year)
Storage only
- Waste piles 95
- Surface impoundments 3,000
Treatment
- Waste pi les 63
- Surface impoundments 1,959
Disposal
- Landfills 674
- Land treatment 84
- Surface impoundments 203
Total 6,078
Baseline was TSOR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
April 11, 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.
3-17
-------
piles, any waste that underwent treatment in an impoundment or waste pile
was 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, waste that was disposed of in
surface impoundments but not also treated- in the impoundment was included
among "disposal" surface impoundment volumes.
The disposal volumes reported for each land disposal practice and
type included some waste streams that were treated or stored in one type
of land disposal unit and were then disposed of in another type. These
waste streams were counted twice when the waste volumes by management
practice were compiled. Double-counted volumes of this type accounting
for about 14 million gallons of waste. When waste volumes were assigned
to treatability groups this double counting was eliminated.
Not represented in the estimates presented in Table 3.2.1 are volumes
of land disposed waste from facilities that did not return their TSDR
Surveys before April 11, 1988. A telephone survey was conducted for
these late facilities, with those facilities that responded reporting
approximately 813 million gallons of land disposed waste in 1986. This
represents less than two 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.
3-18
-------
3.2.2 Solvents
Table 3.2.2 presents estimates of the that 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, was considered if it 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 4, the Agency has assumed that the 12 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 9 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
alternative commercial treatment capacity. Based on this, the Agency
estimates that 65 million gallons of 'solvent wastes will require
alternative treatment capacity on a commercial basis. This volume
includes 25 million gallons of soil, which are included in a separate
3-19
-------
5034s/2
Table 322 Overview of Solvents
Land disposed volume
(million gallons/year)
Storage only
- Waste piles 1
- Surface impoundments 11
Treatment
- Waste pi les - 3
- Surface impoundments <1
Disposal
- Landfills 70
- Land treatment <1
- Surface impoundments <-l
Total S5
Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
April 11, 19B8), adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or treatment impoundments
retrofit to meet minimum technology requirements.
3-20
-------
section of this document; therefore, it is estimated that only 40 million
gallons of non-soil solvent, wastes will require alternative commercial
treatment capacity. Finally, the Agency estimates that treatment of this
40 million gallons will generate 2 million gallons of waste residuals
that will also require additional alternative treatment capacity.
Table 3.2.3 presents the estimates of national commercial capacity
for the alternative technologies that are applicable to solvent wastes.
However, due to the time constraints, not all of the facilities with
commercial stabilization capacity have been included in the estimates of
available capacity. Although the actual amount of available
stabilization capacity facilities is therefore somewhat higher, there is
more than enough available stabilization capacity for the volume of
solvent wastes requiring stabilization.
Also presented are the estimates of annual land disposed waste
volumes that require alternative commercial capacity (not including
contaminated soils or underground injected wastes). 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 adjusts for
3-21
-------
5034s/3
Table 323 Solvent Capacity Analysis
Technology
Combustion
- Liquids
- Sludges/sol ids
Stabi 1 izat ion of
Ava i lable
capac ity
(mi 1 1 ion gal/yr)
247
47
--429
Requ ired
capacity
(mi 1 1 ion gal/yr)
i
38
2
incinerator ash
Wastewater treatment
- Cyanide oxidation, chemical 164
precipitation and
sett 1ing/fiItration
- Steam stripping, 75
Carbon adsorption,
Biological treatment, or
Wet a ir oxidation
3-22
-------
treatment impoundments that are being replaced by tanks or retrofit, the
Agency believes that adequate capacity does now exist for solvent
wastes. Also, there were significant increases in available commercial
incineration capacity since promulgation of the land disposal
restrictions rules for solvents.
3.2.3 First Third Wastes
(1) First Third Wastes. Table 3.2.4 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
are required to be evaluated by August 8, 1988. The same procedures
described for the analysis of all RCRA wastes (Section 3.2.1) 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 3.2.4 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) First Third Proposed Wastes. Table 3.2.5 presents estimates of
"First Third proposed wastes" land disposed annually, by management
practice and type of disposal unit. These are the First Third wastes for
which treatment standards are being proposed today and are to be
established by August 8, 1988. The same procedures described for the
analysis of all RCRA wastes were used for estimating First Third proposed
3-23
-------
5034s/4
Table 3 2.4 Overview of All First Third Wastes
Land disposed volume
(million gallons/year)
Storage only
- Waste piles 48
- Surface impoundments 6
Treatment
- Waste piles 29
- Surface impoundments 612
Disposal
- Landfi 11s 303
- Land treatment 77
- Surface impoundments 78
Total 1,153
Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
April 11, 19B8), adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or treatment impoundments
retrofit to meet minimum technology requirements
3-24
-------
5034S/5
Table 325 Overview of First Third Proposed Wastes
Land disposed volume
(million gal Ions/year)
Storage only
- Waste piles 40
- Surface impoundments 4
Treatment
- Waste pi les 27
- Surface impoundments 321
Disposal
- Landfills 286
- Land treatment 77
- Surface impoundments 78
Total 833
First Third Proposed wastes are those wastes for which treatment
standards are being proposed today and will be established by
August 8, 1988.
Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
April 11, 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.
3-25
-------
waste volumes. In the worst case analysis for First Third proposed
wastes, the total volume for each category in Table 3.2.5 represents the
sum of all single First Third proposed waste streams and all waste groups
containing at least one First Third proposed waste, but no solvents.
This prevents double-counting of multiple waste streams that contain
First Third proposed wastes and solvents.
Table 3.2.6 presents the estimates of national capacity for the
alternative technologies applicable to the First Third proposed wastes.
Also presented are the estimates of annual land disposed waste volumes
requiring alternative commercial capacity excluding First Third proposed
wastes that are underground injected or soils contaminated with First
Third proposed wastes. In most cases, there is adequate available
capacity to treat all of the First Third proposed wastes and mixed waste
groups containing a First Third proposed waste.
As Table 3.2.6 shows, there are three technologies that have required
capacity (demand) exceeding the available capacity (supply). They are
acid leaching of sludges, high temperature metals recovery, and
combustion of sludges/solids. Therefore, because BOAT for K061 is high
temperature metals recovery and BOAT for K071 is acid leaching of the
sludge, the Agency is proposing a two year national capacity variance for
these two waste codes. The required capacity for the combustion of
sludges/solids is divided into two numbers. They are the amount of
K048-K052 waste that requires sludge/solid combustion, 157 million
3-26
-------
5034s/7
Table 326 1988 Capacity Analysis for
First Third Proposed Wastes
Technology
Aval lable
capacity
(mi 11 ion ga 1/yr)
Required
commercial
capacity
(mi 11 ion ga 1/yr)
- Carbon adsorption and chromium
reduction, chemical
precipitation, and
settling/fiItration
Sludge Treatment
- Acid leaching, chemical
oxidation, and dewatering of
sludge and sulfide precipitation
of effluent
Combustion
- Liquids
- Sludges/solids
Solidification
Metals recovery
- Mercury retorting
- High temperature metals
recovery (not secondary
smelt ing)
Wastewater treatment
- Cyanide oxidation, chemical 164
precipitation and
sett 1 ing/f i Itrat ion
- Chromium reduction, chemical 195
precipitation, and
sett 1 ing/f i Itrat ion
9
>427
0
34
12
157 (5)1
145
83
<1
41
This volume is non K048-K052 First Third wastes
3-27
-------
gallons, and the amount of First Third proposed waste other than
K048-K052 waste that requires sludge/solids combustion, 5 million
gallons. Due to a shortfall of sludge/solids incineration capacity, the
Agency will is proposing a two year national capacity variance for
K048-K052 wastes.
The volume of land disposed First Third Proposed Wastes requiring
alternative commercial treatment capacity, however, will be somewhat
less. The Agency has assumed that 34 million gallons of the 44 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 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 be reported elsewhere as treated or
disposed (for more detail on storage only waste volumes see Section
4.1.1). Furthermore, the facility level waste treatability and
technology capacity analyses conducted on First Third wastes being land
disposed determined that 357 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.
In addition, 10 million gallons were reported as having been managd in
more than one type of land disposal unit, e.g., treated in a surface
impoundment and disposed in a landfill, impoundment or by land treatment
3-28
-------
and are "double-counted" in Table 3.2.5. These waste volumes have,
however, been counted only once in the volume requiring alternative
commercial treatment capacity.
Based on this analysis, the Agency estimates that 432 million gallons
of First Third Proposed wastes will require alternative commercial
treatment capacity. This volume includes 18 million gallons of soils
which are included in a separate section of this document; therefore, it
is estimated that 414 million gallons of non-soil First Third Proposed
wastes will require alternative commercial treatment capacity. Finally,
the Agency estimates that treatment of this 414 million gallons will
generate 17 million gallons of waste residuals that will require
additional alternative treatment capacity.
(3) First Third (Not Proposed) Hastes. Table 3.2.7 presents
estimates of annual land disposed volumes for those "not proposed" First
Third wastes, by management practice and type of disposal unit. These
are the First Third wastes for which no treatment standards will be
established by August 8, 1988. The same procedures described for the
analyses all RCRA wastes were used for estimating not proposed First
Third waste volumes. However, in the worst case analysis for First Third
proposed wastes, the total volume for each category in Table 3.2.7
represents the sum of all single, First Third not proposed waste streams
and all waste groups containing at least one First Third not proposed
waste, but no First Third proposed wastes or solvents. This prevents
3-29
-------
5034s/6
Table 327 Overview of First Third Not Being Proposed
2
Land disposed volume
(million gallons/year)
Storage only
- Waste pi les 8
- Surface impoundments 2
Treatment
- Waste pi les 2
- Surface impoundments 291
Disposal
- Landfills 17
- Land treatment <1
- Surface impoundments <1
Total 320
The First Third wastes other than those wastes for which treatment
standards are being proposed today and will be established by
August 8, 1988.
2
Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
April 11, 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
3-30
-------
double-counting of multiple waste streams that contain First Third not
proposed wastes, First Third proposed wastes, and solvents.
3.2.4 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
basis. The tables show both the total amount of required treatment
capacity for each of the First Third proposed waste codes and the amount
of required capacity for each technology. Tables 3.2.8 through 3.2.28
present waste code-by-waste code analysis of the treatment capacity
required by each First Third proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed treatment standard.
For a limited number of waste streams, it was not feasible to assign
them directly to the BOAT technology, and therefore, the waste was
assigned to an alternative technology. 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 4.1.2 explains
the methodology used to assign alternative technologies.)
3-31
-------
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). Table 3.2.8 shows the volume of F006
estimated to require alternate treatment based on the TSDR Survey
results. The table also identifies the alternative treatment
technologies assumed necessary for F006.
The Agency has identified the BOAT technology for F006 to be
stabilization. As shown in Table 3.2.8, most of the F006 requiring
alternate 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, chemical precipitation of the
scrubber water, and stabilization of the scrubber water treatment sludge
and the incinerator ash. Table 3.2.8 shows the volumes of F006 that will
require this treatment. The F006 that was assigned to chromium reduction
was a single waste stream reported by one facility. The waste stream was
described as a wastewater or aqueous mixture, which had already been
treated for cyanides at the facility and was being disposed of in a
surface impoundment. This waste stream would normally be discharged
under a NPDES permit; however, the Agency conservatively assumes the
3-32
-------
5033s/l
Table 3.2.8 Capacity Analysis For F0061
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
Stabi1ization
Wastewater treatment, cyanide oxidation
Wastewater treatment: chromium reduction
stabilization of waitewater
treatment sludge
253,920
50,784
2,539
125,543,954
223,605
551,920
226,838
Total
Baseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of April 11, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
3-3C
-------
wastewater will require further treatment. Therefore, the waste stream
was assigned to chromium reduction followed by chemical precipitation,
sludge dewatering, and stabilization of the wastewater treatment sludge.
The F006 waste assigned to cyanide oxidation are several waste
streams described as untreated plating sludge with cyanides and
metal-cyanide salts/chemicals. Based on the waste descriptions and other
information in the survey, the Agency assigned the waste to slurrying
followed by cyanide oxidation, chemical precipitation, sludge dewatering,
and stabilization of the wastewater treatment sludge. The estimated
volumes of wastewater treatment sludge from chromium reduction and
cyanide oxidation requiring stabilization are also presented in
Table 3.2.8.
Based on the information in the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes that
adequate wastewater treatment, incineration, and stabilization capacity
exists for F006. Therefore, the Agency is not proposing to grant a
capacity variance from the ban effective date for F006 waste requiring
alternate treatment.
3-34
-------
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 3.2.9, all of the K001
identified from the TSDR Survey as requiring alternate 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 and
for further treatment of the residuals. Therefore, the Agency does not
propose to grant a capacity variance from the ban effective date for K001
wastes requiring alternate treatment.
3-35
-------
5033s/2
Table 3 2.9 Capacity Analysis For KOCH1
1988 Volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (ga1 Ions/year)
Combust ion
Stabi lizat
Stabil izat
of
ion
ion
s ludges/sol ids
of incinerator ash
of scrubber water
2,176,
217,
21.
398
686
7fi4
treatment sludge
Total 2,415,850
Baseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of April 11, 1986). Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
3-36
-------
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 3.2.10, all of the K016 identified from the TSDR Survey as
requiring alternate 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
metals bearing wastes, the Agency assumed that these mixed waste streams
would require this additional treatment. Table 3.2.10 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 does not propose to grant a capacity variance from
the ban effective date for K016 wastes requiring alternate treatment.
3-37
-------
5033s/3
Table 3.2.10 Capacity Analysis For K0161
1988 Volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids 279,600
Stabilization of incinerator ash 53.B80
Stabilization of scrubber water 2,S92
treatment sludge
Total 336,072
Baseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of April 11, 1986). Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
3-38
-------
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 3.2.11, all of the K019 identified from
the TSDR Survey as requiring alternate 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 metals bearing wastes, the Agency assumed that these mixed waste
streams would require this additional treatment. Table 3.2.11 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 does not propose to grant a capacity variance from
the ban effective date for K019 waste requiring alternate treatment.
3-39
-------
5033S/4
Table 3 2 11 Capacity Analysis For K0191
1988 Volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids 75,240
Stabilization of incinerator ash 1,416
Stabilization of scrubber water 100
treatment sludge
Total 76,756
Baseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of April 11, 19a6) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
3-40
-------
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 3.2.12, all of the K020 identified from
the TSDR Survey as requiring alternate 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 metals bearing wastes, the Agency assumed that these mixed waste
streams would require this additional treatment. Table 3.2.12 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 does not propose to grant a capacity variance from
the ban effective date for K020 wastes requiring alternate treatment.
3-41
-------
5033S/5.
Table 3 2 12 Capacity Analysis For K0201
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
Baseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of April 11, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils.
2-42
-------
K022
RCRA hazardous waste K022 is described as distil lati-on 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 (polytyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons). The Agency has identified the BOAT technology
for K020 to be incineration stabilization of incinerator ash. As shown
in Table 3.2.13, all of the K022 identified from the TSDR Survey as
requiring alternate 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 K022.
Therefore, the Agency does not propose to grant a capacity variance from
the ban effective date for K022 wastes requiring alternate treatment.
3-43
-------
5033S/6
Table 3.2.13 Capacity Analysis For K0221
1988 Volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids
Stabilization of incinerator ash
Total
Baseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of April 11, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
3-44
-------
KQ24
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 3.2.14, all of the K024
identified from the TSDR Survey as requiring alternate 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 metals bearing wastes, the Agency assumed
that these mixed waste streams would require this additional treatment.
Tabld 3.2.14 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 does not propose to grant a capacity variance from
the ban effective date for K024 wastes requiring alternate treatment.
3-45
-------
5033s/7
Table 3.2.14 Capacity Analysis For K0241
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
Baseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of April 11, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils.
3-46
-------
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 3.2.15, all of
the K030 identified from the TSDR Survey as requiring alternate treatment
was assigned to this BOAT technology. K030 was not reported as being
mixed with any metals bearing wastes in the TSDR Survey; 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 does not propose to grant a capacity variance from the ban
effective date for K030 wastes requiring alternate treatment.
3-47
-------
S033S/8
Table 3 2.15 Capacity Analysis For K0301
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 April 11, 1986) Volumes do not include underground iniection
quantities or contaminated soils
3-48
-------
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 phosphorodithloic and
phosphorothioic acid esters. The Agency has identified the BOAT
technology for K037 to be incineration. The BOAT treatment of K030 does
not require treatment of scrubber water and incinerator ash. As shown in
Table 3.2.16, all of the K037 identified from the TSDR Survey as
requiring alternate treatment was assigned to this BOAT technology. K037
was not reported as being mixed with any metals 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 does not propose to grant a capacity variance from the ban
effective date for K037 wastes requiring alternate treatment.
3-49
-------
5033s/9
Table 3 2 16 Capacity Analysis For K0371
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 April 11, 19B6). Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
3-50
-------
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 burning. The TSDR
Survey identified two K044 waste streams requiring alternate treatment.
Both of these waste streams were reported as being mixed with K046. One
K044 and 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 assigned to K046. The other K044 and 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) and therefore the entire volume was also assigned to
K046.
Based on the information in the TSDR Survey, the Agency has
identified no waste streams showing the characteristic of K044 that will
require alternate treatment. Therefore, the Agency is not proposing to
grant a capacity variance from the ban effective date for K044 wastes.
3-51
-------
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. The Agency has identified the BOAT technology for K046
to be stabilization. As shown in Table 3.2.17, the largest volume of
K046 identified by the TSDR Survey as requiring alternate treatment was
assigned to this BOAT technology. The waste assigned to stabilization
was a single K044 and 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). Therefore, the waste stream was
assigned the BOAT technology for K046.
The K046 waste that was assigned cyanide oxidation was a single waste
stream reported in the TSDR Survey. The waste stream was described as
"dry" lime or metal hydroxide solids not "fixed." The K046 was reported
as being mixed with K044 and cyanide bearing wastes. 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 require slurrying followed
by cyanide oxidation, chemical precipitation, and sludge dewatering. The
estimated volume of wastewater treatment sludge requiring stabilization
is also presented in Table 3.2.17. The volume of wastewater treatment
3-52
-------
50333/10
Table 3 2 17 Capacity Analysis For K0461
1988 Volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Stabilization 1,581,160
Wastewater treatment- cyanide oxidation 1,600
Stabilization of wastewater
treatment sludge
Total
Baseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of April 11, 1986). Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
3-53
-------
sludge requiring solidification/stabilization is slightly inflated
because the waste was reported as a solid and is assumed to require
slurrying prior to treatment.
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency believes
that adequate cyanide oxidation and stabilization capacity exists for
K046. Therefore, the Agency is not proposing to grant a capacity
variance from the ban effective date to K046 wastes requiring alternate
treatment.
3-54
-------
K048 through K052
The petroleum refining industry generates five wastes listed in the
Code of Federal Regulations. They are 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 technology for K048-K052 waste streams to be incineration, chromium
reduction and chemical precipitation of the scrubber water, and
stabilization of the scrubber water treatment sludge and the incinerator
ash.
Table 3.2.18 shows the volumes of K048-52 wastes which, based on the
results of the TSDR Survey, require alternate treatment. Table 3.2.18
also shows the treatment technologies assigned to the K048-52 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.
3-55
-------
5033s/11
Table 3.2.18 Capacity Analysis for K048-K052
Waste
code
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 Volume needing
alternative capacity
(gal Ions/year)
K048 Combustion of sludges/solids
K048 Stabilization of incinerator ash
K048 Stabilization of scrubber water
treatment sludge
K049 Combustion of sludges/solids
K049 Stabilization of incinerator ash
K049 Stabilization of scrubber water
treatment sludge
K049 Wastewater treatment - carbon adsorption
and chromium reduction
K049 Stabilization of wastewater
treatment sludge
K050 Combustion of sludges/solids
K050 Stabilization of incinerator ash
K050 Stabilization of scrubber water
treatment sludge
K051 Combustion of sludges/solids
K051 Stabilization of incinerator ash
K051 Stabilization of scrubber water
treatment sludge
K052 Combustion of sludges/solids
K052 Stabilization of incinerator ash
incineration residues
K052 Stabilization of scrubber water
treatment sludge
Total
33,407,730
3,337,927
334,077
27,727,970
2,829,885
277,280
902,640
10,369,264
1,060,953
103,693
70,229,928
7,041,181
702,299
11,019,426
1,137,362
110,194
170,600,835
Baseline volumes data from TSOR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of April 11, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
3-56
-------
Most of the petroleum refining waste were reported in the TSDR Survey
as sludges (as described above), and therefore, are assigned to
combustion of sludges. However, there were some notable exceptions. One
facility described their 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 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. However, the Agency believes that these waste
description codes were mistakenly reported by the facility. In one case,
3-57
-------
the stream is an effluent from a dewatering tank that is sent to land
treatment. This type of treatment typically results in generation of a
sludge. This volume was therefore assigned to sludge/solid
incineration. In the other case, however, the organic liquid first
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 sludge incineration.
Those waste streams described as solids were assigned to solids
incineration. In addition to incineration, metals treatment (chromium
reduction and chemical precipitation) of the scrubber water followed by
stabilization of the resulting wastewater treatment sludge would be
required. The incinerator ash would also be stabilized.
At one facility, K048-52 was reported as entering surface
impoundments for dewatering (volume reduction). Rather than assuming
that the entire volume that enters the surface impoundments requires
sludge incineration, only the volume that settles out in the impoundments
was determined to require alternative treatment/recovery. The Agency
believes that dewatering, which presently occurs in surface impoundments,
can be done instead in existing onsite tanks.
3-58
-------
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency does not
believe that adequate alternate capacity exists for K048-52. Therefore,
the Agency is proposing to grant a two-year national capacity variance
from the ban effective date for K048-52 wastes requiring alternative
treatment.
3-59
-------
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. The Agency has identified the BOAT
technology for K061 to be high temperature metals recovery. As shown in
Table 3.2.19, all K061 waste identified by the TSDR Survey as requiring
alternate treatment was assigned to the BOAT technology.
One waste stream (67,920 gallons) in the TSDR Survey 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 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).
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency does not
believe that adequate alternative capacity exists for K061. Therefore,
the Agency is proposing to grant a two-year national capacity variance
from the ban effective date for K061 wastes requiring alternate treatment.
3-60
-------
5033s/12
Table 3 2 19 Capacity Analysis For K0611
1988 Volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
High temperature metals recovery 82,600,488
Baseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of April 11, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils.
3-61
-------
KQ62
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 3.2.20, all of the K062 identified
by the TSDR Survey as requiring alternate treatment was assigned to this
BOAT technology. The BOAT technology identified for K062 waste does not
require stabilization of the wastewater treatment sludge.
One waste stream (67,920 gallons) reported in the TSDR Survey 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. In order 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.
3-62
-------
5033S/13
Table 3 2 20 Capacity Analysis For K0621
1988 Volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (ga1 Ions/year)
Wastewater treatment chromium reduction 40,325,050
Baseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of April li, 19b6). Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
3-63
-------
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 does
not propose to grant a capacity variance from the effective date to K062
wastes requiring these technologies.
3-64
-------
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 K106. K106 is discussed later in this section. As
shown in Table 3.2.21, all of the K071 identified from the TSDR Survey as
requiring alternate 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. Therefore,
the Agency is proposing to grant a 2-year national capacity variance from
the ban effective date to K071 wastes requiring alternate treatment.
3-65
-------
5053S/14
Table 3.2 21 Capacity Analysis For K0711
1988 Volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Acid leaching, chemical oxidation 3,886,560
and dewatering of sludges and sulfide
precipitation of metals in effluent
Baseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of April 11, 1966) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils.
3-66
-------
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 has identified the BOAT technology for K083 to be
incineration. The BOAT treatment of K083 does not require treatment of
scrubber water and incinerator ash. As shown in Table 3.2.22, all of the
K083 identified from the TSDR Survey as requiring alternate treatment was
assigned to this BOAT technology. K083 was not reported as being mixed
with any metals 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
does not propose to grant a capacity variance from the ban effective date
for K083 wastes requiring alternate treatment.
3-67
-------
5033s/15
Table 3 2.22 Capacity Analysis For KOU31
198B Volume needing
Type of alternative. alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids 74,400
Baseline volumes data from TSOR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of April 11, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
3-68
-------
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 only been set for K086 solvent washes and sludges. The
BOAT treatment standards for K086 ink residues and wastewaters have been
deferred, and therefore, 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 3.2.23, 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 alternate capacity exists for incineration and
stabilization of K086 solvent washes and sludges. Therefore, the Agency
does not propose to grant a capacity variance from the ban effective date
for K086 wastes requiring alternate treatment.
3-69
-------
5033s/16
Table 3 2 23 Capacity Analysis For K0861
1988 Volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Combustion of
Combustion of
Stabi 1 izat ion
Stabi lization
1 iquids
sludges/solids
of incinerator ash
of scrubber water
Total
204,828
960
2,000
2.058
209,846
Baseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of April 11, 1986). Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
3-70
-------
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 3.2.24, 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.
Therefore, the Agency does not propose to grant a national capacity
variance from the ban effective date for K087 wastes requiring alternate
treatment.
3-71
-------
5033S/17
Table 3 2 24 Capacity Analysis For K0871
1988 Volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids 1,235,850
Stabilization of incinerator ash 123,585
Stabilization of scrubber water
treatment sludge
Total 1,371,794
Baseline volumes data from TSDR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of April 11, 1986). Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
3-72
-------
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 3.2.25
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 3.2.25, all of the
K101 and K102 waste 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 does not propose to
grant a capacity variance from the ban effective date for K101 and K102
wastes requiring alternate treatment.
3-73
-------
5033S/18
Table 3.2.25 Capacity Analysis For K101 and
1968 Volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids 95,000
Stabilization of incinerator ash 9,500
Stabilization of scrubber water 950
treatment sludge
Total
Baseline volumes data from the 1985 Biennial Report Data Base
Volumes do not include underground injection quantities or contaminated
soi Is
3-74
-------
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 3.2.26, 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 does not propose to grant a capacity variance from the ban
effective date for K103 wastes requiring alternate treatment.
3-75
-------
5033s/19
Table 3.2.26 Capacity Analysis For K1031
1988 Volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (ga 1 Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids 65,040
Baseline volumes data from TSOR Survey for 19a6 (facility responses as
of April 11, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
3-76
-------
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 3.2.27, 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 does not propose to grant a capacity variance from the ban
effective date for K104 wastes requiring alternate treatment.
3-77
-------
5033S/20
Table 3.2.27 Capacity Analysis For K1041
1988 Volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (ga 1 Ions/year)
Combustion of sludges/solids 16,320
Baseline volumes data from TSOR Survey for 19b6 (facility responses as
of April 11, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
3-78
-------
K106
RCRA hazardous waste K106 rs described as wastewater treatment sludge
from the mercury cell process in chlorine production. K106 is listed as
a hazardous waste because of the presence of mercury. The'Agency has
identified the BOAT technology for K106 to be mercury retorting. As
shown in Table 3.2.28, the K106 waste identified from the TSDR Survey as
requiring alternate treatment was assigned to this BOAT technology. K106
waste is also generated in the BOAT treatment of K071 waste. However,
the Agency assumes that additional K106 waste will not be generated
because adequate capacity does not exist for the BOAT treatment of K071.
Therefore, additional volumes of K106 waste which may have been generated
are not included in this analysis.
Based on the information from the TSDR Survey, the Agency does not
believe that adequate alternate capacity exists for mercury retorting of
K106. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to grant a two-year national
capacity variance from the ban effective date for K106 wastes requiring
alternate treatment.
3-79
-------
5033s/21
Table 3.2.28 Capacity Analysis for K1061
1988 Volume needing
Type of alternative alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gal Ions/year)
Metals recovery mercury retorting 377,520
Baseline volumes data from TSOR Survey for 1986 (facility responses as
of April 11, 1986) Volumes do not include underground injection
quantities or contaminated soils
3-80
-------
3.2.5 Non-Solvent RCRA Wastes Containing Halogenated Organic Compounds
Tables 3.2.29 through 3.2.31 present estimates of annual land
disposed volumes for non-solvent RCRA wastes which are potential
California List wastes containing halogenated organic compounds (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 proposed
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 3.2.29 through 3.2.31
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 (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 either were
lab pack wastes (approximately 48,000 gallons) or could be treated
onsite, and therefore, were not included in the volume requiring
alternative commercial treatment capacity. Based on this, the Agency
estimates that 9 million gallons of HOC wastes will require alternative
treatment capacity on a commercial basis. This volume includes 5 million
gallons of soil which are included in a separate section of this
document; therefore it is estimated that only 4 million gallons of
non-soil HOC wastes will require alternative commercial treatment
capacity.
3-81
-------
5034S/8
Table 3 2 29 Overview of Potential California List Wastes
Containing Halogenated Organic Compounds
Land disposed volume
(million gallons/year)
Storage only
- Waste piles <1
- Surface impoundments <1
Treatment
- Waste piles 7
- Surface impoundments 1
Disposal
- Landfi11s 18
- Land treatment <1
- Surface impoundments <1
Total 26
Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
April 11, 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.
3-82
-------
5034s/9
Table 3 2 30 Overview of Proposed First Third Wastes
Containing Halogenated Organic Compounds
Land disposed volume
(million gallons/year)
Storage only
- Waste pi les <1
- Surface impoundments <1
Treatment
- Waste pi les 7
- Surface impoundments <1
Disposal
- Landfi11s 7
- Land treatment . <1
- Surface impoundments = I
Total 14
Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
April 11, 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
3-83
-------
5034s/10
Table 3 2 31 Overview of All Other Wastes Containing.
Halogenated Organic Compounds
Land disposed volume
(million gallons/year)
Storage only
- Waste pi les <1
- Surface impoundments <1
Treatment
- Waste pi les
-------
Table 3.2.32 presents the results of capacity analysis for HOC
containing wastes (not including underground injection waste volumes).
Similarly, to eliminate double-counting, this table does not include
either wastes that are considered (or contain) First Third proposed
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.
3.2.5 Contaminated Soils
Due to the unique treatability and regulatory issues associated with
contaminated soils, they have been handled separately in this document.
Table 3.2.33 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 proposal. 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 soils generated, only
volumes land disposed. Furthermore, no data is available on the source
generating the waste volume being land disposed (e.g., corrective
actions, spill clean-ups, etc.)
Available capacity was first assigned to the non-soil land disposed
wastes analyzed in this document (i.e., solvent, First Third proposed,
3-85
-------
5034S/13
Table 3 2 32 Capacity Analysis for HOC Wastes
(excluding First Third Proposed HOCs)
Available Required
capacity capacity
Technology (million gal/yr) (million gal/yr)
Combustion
- Liquids 246 '1
- Sludges/solids 4 2
Wastewater treatment (for organics) -2-3 , 2
3-86
-------
50343/14
Table 3 2 33 Volume of Contaminated Soil
Waste Volumes Land Disposed
Regulatory group
Land disposed volume
(million gallons/year)
Solvents
First third (proposed) wastes
First third (not proposed) wastes
containing HOCs
All other HOC wastes
Other RCRA wastes
All RCRA wastes
25
18
2
4
_5
54
3-87
-------
and HOCs). The remaining capacity was then used as available for
contaminated soils. Table 3.2.34 presents the results of the capacity
analyses conducted for soils contaminated with solvents, First Third
proposed, and HOC wastes (excluding First Third proposed wastes
containing HOCs).
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
of soils requiring combustion (i.e., soils contaminated with organics).
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to grant a two-year national capacity
variance for contaminated soils requiring combustion.
In addition, approximately one million gallons of contaminated soils
was identified in the TSDR Survey as K061. This waste was therefore
assigned to high temperature metals recovery, the BOAT for K061. The
Agency does not believe however that high temperature metals recovery is
an appropriate technology for contaminated soils. However, as mentioned
in today's preamble, the Agency is investigating whether it is
appropriate to establish a separate treatability subcategorization for
these wastes. Furthermore', the rules contain a treatability variance
which allows a petitioner to demonstrate that his waste cannot be treated
to the specified level (see 40 CFR Part 268.44).
3-88
-------
5034S/15
Table 3 2 34 Contaminated Soils
Capacity Analysis
Technology
Ava i lable
capacity
(mi 11 ion gal/yr)
Required
capacity
(mi 11 ion gal/yr)
Combustion (sludges/solids)
of soils
- Solvents
- First Third proposed
- HOCs (excluding above)
Stabi1ization of soi Is
contaminated with-
- Solvents
- First Third proposed
(combustion residues)
- First Third proposed (other)
High temperature metals
contaminated with-
- First Third proposed
25
11
4
>282
3-89
-------
4.0 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 proposed rule.
Section 4.1, 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 4.1 presents a detailed discussion of the
methodology used for determination of required alternative capacity for
land disposed wastes (capacity demand). Section 4.2 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 4.3 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.
4.1 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 proposed rule.
4.1.1 Waste Volumes Affected
As mentioned previously, this document presents an analysis of
required and available treatment capacity for solvent wastes, HOC wastes,
4-1
-------
and First Third proposed 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 of Waste Volumes. Only solvent, First Third
proposed, and HOC wastes have been included in this document. These
wastes were identified on a waste code basis. For solvent or First Third
proposed wastes described by a single waste code, the volume was
allocated to the appropriate regulatory group (i.e., solvents or First
Third proposed).
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 proposed code, the entire waste volume was assigned to solvents
because they were restricted prior to First Third proposed wastes.
4-2
-------
The solvent wastes include the following spent solvent waste stream:
F001, F002, F003, F004, and F005.
The First Third proposed wastes include those wastes identified in
Table 2.2.1. However, not all First Third proposed wastes have been
included in the analysis of required treatment capacity. For some of the
First Third proposed wastes, a treatment standard of "No Land Disposal"
is being proposed because EPA has determined that these wastes are not
currently generated or that they can be totally recycled. A "No Land
Disposal" standard is being proposed for K004, K008, K021, K025, K036,
K060, K073, and K100 because EPA has determined that these wastes are no
longer generated. Similarly, the Agency is proposing a "No Land
Disposal" standard for K069 waste because it is totally recycled and
therefore no longer land disposed. EPA is also proposing 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.
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 proposed 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
4-3
-------
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 proposed wastes and HOC waste groups that also
contain a First Third Proposed waste have already been included under the
capacity analysis for First Third proposed 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
waste piles; disposal by land application; and treatment, storage, and
disposal in surface impoundments. Utilization of 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 (deepwell) injection,
another form of land disposal, will be covered under a separate
4-4
-------
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
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.
4-5
-------
HSWA requires that all surface impoundments must be in compliance
with certain minimum design and operating criteria (see RCRA Section
3005(j)(11)(A) and (B)) to continue operating 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 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 in Section 3.1.1, 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), 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
4-6
-------
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 proposed 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,
the volume that was settling for disposal in 1986 would still be
generated in the tank (clarifier) in 1988 and therefore 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 one percent of the volume entering was
settled), then it was assumed that there would be essentially no settling
when replaced by a tank.
4.1.2 Treatability Analysis
Those wastes that will require alternative treatment/recovery because
of the land disposal restrictions have been identified and must be
4-7
-------
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.
(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
hazardous constituents in the waste: inorganic liquids, sludge, solids
and gases and 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., was the waste a treatment residual) and the origin of
the waste (e.g., mixture ruled and derived from the rule wastes) and how
the waste was being land disposed.
4-8
-------
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. 7), 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.
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 clean-up 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 of solids and 1,000 gallons for
liquids, the waste was assumed to be a contaminated soil or aqueous waste
derived from clean-up 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.
4-9
-------
Characteristic, or D coded wastes 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.
(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 to specify the use of a
particular technology or can set a concentration standard based on the
performance of the best demonstrated available technology (BOAT). For
solvent and First Third proposed wastes, the Agency has generally
established concentration standards based on BOAT; however, EPA has
established that non-wastewater 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
into treatability groups. These treatability groups were then assigned
to BOAT treatment, or in some cases alternative treatment, that the
Agency believes are capable of meeting the BOAT treatment standard. For
example, if the BOAT technology was identified as rotary kiln
4-10
-------
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
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 in order 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 3.2.1(3). The TSDR
Survey does not contain data on the performance of treatment
technologies; therefore several alternatives sources (Refs. 8, 9, 10, 11,
12) and "best engineering judgment" were required to identify potential
alternatives to BOAT.
4-11
-------
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 which may
fall under more than one treatability group (e.g., organics and metals).
Such waste groups can generally not be assigned only to the BOAT
technology for one specific waste type. Instead, a treatment train must
be developed which is capable of treating each waste type in the group
sequentially. 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
which 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
4-12
-------
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
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 one 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
4-13
-------
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.
Such wastes would therefore not be prohibited from land disposal and were
consequently not included if 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.
4.2 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
4-14
-------
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.
4.2.1 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 entry data 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
4-15
-------
under the land disposal restrictions rule. Due to 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
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.
4-16
-------
The questionnaires pertaining to incineration and reuse as fuel in
the National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal and
Recycling Facilities (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. The
questionnaires were designed not only to provide actual utilization and
maximum capacity data by the facility, but also other design and
operational information to allow 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 make
facility contact by telephone to verify his or her findings, and, if
agreeable to the facility, adjust the data.
In addition, technical review of reported capacity, data included the
evaluation of incinerator or kiln support systems such as waste feed
4-17
-------
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
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
Questionnaire "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
4-18
-------
3. Unit No. - data was gathered on a unit basis since some
facilities have more than one incinerator or kiln
4. 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
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. Non-hazardous Waste Quantity - this is the quantity of
non-hazardous waste that was treated in the same unit, either
concurrently or separately, during 1986.
C. Hazardous Waste - Maximum Capacity Quantity - the maximum
capacity of hazardous waste that the treatment unit could
have treated during 1986.
D. All Waste - Maximum Capacity Quantity - the maximum capacity
of both hazardous and non-hazardous waste that could have
been treated in 1986.
4-19
-------
The above data were used to manually tabulate and develop the
combustion capacity data set, the results of which will be discussed in
Section 4.2.3, 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. 13).
In order to determine flexability in the proportion of waste capacity
by physical form, and whether early start-ups 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
to convert the original facility responses to one standard unit, that
being 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 consistant presentation of units.
4-20
-------
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.
Although the TSDR Survey has been in progress for about nine months,
there are some facilities (about 10 percent) that have not yet returned
their completed survey as of April 11, 1988. Among these, there could be
a few facilities which 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 the required and
the available capacity for sludges/solids from the late kilns is expected
to be smal1.
Since April 11, 1988, was the cutoff date for data for the analysis
to support this proposed rule, the data set may be an underestimate of
available combustion capacity at this time because of these late
4-21
-------
facilities. The Agency is making 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.
4.2.2 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 4.2.1 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 that had to be employed.
4-22
-------
Case I: Each unit process was reported separately. In such 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.
Case II: The same process was conducted in several different units
(tanks or surface impoundments) which 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 comprise the system and the units in which
they occur were identified and a flow diagram constructed;
The amount of hazardous and nonhazardous waste that enter and
leave the system was quantified such that a mass balance around
the system could be conducted;
The utilized and maximum capacities of each unit was 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
it may affect the maximum capacity of the unit and/or system.
4-23
-------
Figure 4.2.1
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
'I Rotary (or rocking) kiln
->I 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 Other industrial furnace
10RF Industrial boiler
11RF Utility boiler
12RF Process heater
13RF Other reuse as fuel unit
Fuel blending
1FB Fuel blending
Solidification
1S Cement or cement/silicate
processes
2S Pozzolanic processes
3S Asphaltic processes
4S Thermoplastic techniques
5S Organic polymer techniques
5S Jacketing (macro-
encapsulation)
7S Other solidification
Recovery of solvents and liquid
organics for reuse
1SR Fractionation
2SR Batch still distillation
3SR Solvent extraction
4SR Thin-film evaporation
5SR Filtration
5SR Phase separation
7SR Dessication
3SR Other solvent recovery
(including pretreatment)
Recovery of metals for reuse
IMR Electrolytic
'MR Ion exchange
3MR Reverse osmosis
JMR Solvent extraction
5MR Secondary smelting
6MR Liming
7MR Evaporation
8MR Filtration
9MR Sodium borohydride
10MR Other metals recovery (including
pretreatment)
Wastewater treatment
Equalization
1WT 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
18WT Other chromium reduction
Complexed 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
26WT Other adsorption
Stripping
27WT Air stripping
28VVT Steam stripping
29WT Other stripping
Evaporation
30VVT Thermal
31WT Solar
32WT Vapor recompression
33WT Other evaporation
Filtration
34WT Diatomaceous earth
35WT Sand
36WT Multimedia
37WT Other filtration
4-24
Sludge dewatenng
38WT Gravity thickening
39WT Vacuum filtration
40WT Pressure filtration (belt, plate and
frame, or leaf)
41WT Centrifuge
42WT Other sludge dewatenng
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 filmtrickling filter
54WT Fixed filmrotating contactor
55WT Lagoon or basin, aerated
56WT Lagoon, facultative
57WT Anaerobic
58VVT Other biological treatment
Other wastewater treatment
59WT Wet air oxidation
60WT Neutralization
61WT Nitrification
62WT Denitnfication
63WT Flocculation and/or coagulation
64WT Settling (clarification)
65WT 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
-------
(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
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 4.2.2 shows a simple hazardous wastewater treatment system.
Hazardous waste can only enter the three unit processes for treatment at
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 4.2.3 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
4-25
-------
NON-HAZARDOUS
WASTE (NHW)
HAZARDOUS
WASTE (HW)
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
CLARIFICATION/
SETTLING
DISCHARGE UNDER
NPDES PERMIT
ro
CTi
FILTER
PRESS
FILTER CAKE
TO SECURE
LANDFILL
FILTRATE RECYCLE
FIGURE 4.2.2 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 = 400 GAL
C UTIL .= 300 GAL
C AVAIL = 100 GAL
i
r\>
B MAX = 400 GAL
B UTIL = 100 GAL
B AVAIL = 300 GAL
CLARIFICATION/
SETTLING
240 GAL
DISCHARGE UNDER
NPDES PERMIT
D MAX = 400 GAL
D UTIL = 300 GAL
D AVAIL r 100 GAL
FILTRATE RECYCLE
FILTER
PRESS
(E)
FILTER CAKE
TO SECURE
LANDFILL
60 GAL
E MAX = 75 GAL
E UTIL = 60 GAL
E AVAIL = 15 GAL
FIGURE 4.2.3 FLOW DIAGRAM OF THREE SYSTEMS WITH UNIT PROCESS CAPACITIES
-------
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, 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
as linked systems.
At first glance, Figure 4.2.4 appears to show two systems because
there are two hazardous waste entry points. Upon close examination, one
discovers that the two waste streams feed into two different tanks which
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 4.2.4 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 4.2.3, all the unit processes' that make up each of the
potentially linked systems must be considered together for this portion
of the analysis.
4-28
-------
HW
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
HW
i
ro
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
CLARIFICATION/
SETTLING
DISCHARGE
UNDER NPDES
PERMIT
SLUDGE TO
SECURE
LANDFILL
FIGURE 4.2.4
FLOW DIAGRAM OF ONE SYSTEM WITH TWO UNITS
CONDUCTING THE SAME PROCESS
-------
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
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 report 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 system capacity is
based on the affect of the limiting unit.
The above methodology assumes a 1986 base line for hazardous and
nonhazardous wastes already being treated in the system and only uses
that portion of the system's remaining capacity which 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 he must treat using his system when reporting the
hazardous waste maximum capacity for the unit.
4-30
-------
The available capacity of a simple system is the available capacity
of the limiting unit. In Figure 4.2.5, B is the limiting unit because it
has the smallest available capacity. If one were to try to treat 50
gallons of additional hazardous waste using this system there would be a
bottleneck at unit process B because it only has room for an additional
25 gallons of waste. Therefore, the system only has 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 which affect a downstream unit are
considered. Referring to the unit capacities provided in Figure 4.2.3,
if the amount of waste being treated in units A and B were increased by
300 gallons in each unit (i.e., run them at their maximum capacities),
unit C would become a bottleneck because it only has 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 if it limits the maximum capacity of the
upstream units (Example: A , + B , = 600 gal and 600 gal > C
Avail Avail Avail).
4-31
-------
NHW
HW
I
Co
no
A MAX =
A UTIL =
100
50
A AVAIL = 50
B MAX = 100
B UTIL a 75
B AVAIL = 25
C MAX =
C UTIL =
130
75
C AVAIL = 55
FIGURE 4.2.5 FLOW DIAGRAM WITH UNIT CAPACITIES
-------
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 4.2.3,
the 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
which continues to the downstream unit is calculated. Under the
assumption that as the utilized capacities of these units are increased
the percentage of waste that is treated in both upstream and downstream
units remain constant, the calculated percentage is applied to the
reported available capacity of the upstream unit before comparing it with
to the available capacity of the downstream unit.
In Figure 4.2.3, fraction of waste (D ) going from the clarifier to
the filter press (Unit E) is calculated by:
D 0 2
Dp = - = - =0-2
30°
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:
eal
D = (D ) (D J = (0.2) (100) = 20 gallons
eal p avai I
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
4-33
-------
press. Comparing the effective available capacities, however, indicates
that the filter press limits the maximum capacity reported for the
clarifier:
E , < D n or 15 gallons < 20 gallons
avail eal
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:
n
-------
metals waste treatment is each 100 gallons. 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 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
each equals 175 gallons.
When waste treatment systems share a limiting unit, as exemplified by
the three systems shown in Figure 4.2.3, 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 only operate at its
maximum capacity 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 4.2.3 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
4-35
-------
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.
To avoid over estimating 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 4.2.3:
Fractional flow of chrome treatment system = CR
P
Fractional flow of cyanide treatment system = CN
P
Fractional flow of metals treatment system = M
P
CRuti] 100 100
CRD = = = = 0.333
CRutil + CNutil + 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.
4-36
-------
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:
p clC
CRpac = (CRp) (°nac) = (333) (75) = 25 9allons
CNpac = (CNp) (Dnac) = 25 gallons
Mpac = (Mp) (Dnac) = 25 9allons
Note that D , the previously calculated "new" available capacity of
nac
unit D, reflects the effect 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 4.2.3, the limiting unit for all three systems is the
shared filter press; therefore, no comparisons are necessary.
4-37
-------
The proportioned maximum system capacity equals the utilized system
capacity plus the proportioned available system capacity. The
proportioned maximum system capacity (PMC) for the systems displayed in
Figure 4.2.3 are:
CRPMC = CRutil + CRpac = 100 + 25 = 125 gallons
CNPMC = 125 gallons
= 125 gallons
(4) Projections of Available Capacity. The TSDR Survey obtained
capacity data for the base line year 1986 and for changes or new
operations planned through 1992. Only capacity data presented for the
years 1986, 1987, and 1988 were used in the to support the First Third '
proposed 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
4-38
-------
influenced the effect of a limiting unit on the system, then capacity
analysis was performed again, incorporating the capacity changes for that
year.
4.2.3 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 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 which may be found in the docket for this proposed
rule (Ref. 14). A detailed discussion of the PC data entry sheets may
also be found in the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 13).
The following discussion presents the results of the incineration/
reuse as fuel data set.
(1) Incineration/reuse as fuel data set results. Table 4.2.1
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, and all new
hazardous waste capacity from 1987 and beyond, will be available for
incineration of hazardous wastes.
4-39
-------
Table 4.2.1 Commercial Hazardous Waste Incineration Capacity (Million Gallons/Year)
i
4^
O
Physical form
of waste
Liquids
Sludges
Solids
Gases
TOTAL
1986 1987 1988 1989-1990
Utilized Maximum Available Maximum Available Maximum Available Maximum Available
capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity3 capacity capacity3 capacity capacity3
63 79 16 118 55 149 86 188 125
495 95 13 9 72 68
17 27 10 27 10 52 35 131 114
_0 __!_ _!_ !_ _!_ 2 2 3 3
84 116 32 155 71 216 132 394 310
Source: TSDR Survey results as of April 11, 1988. Data from 30 facilities, including 24 operational units in 1986 and a total of 42
projected units (current and planned) in 1989 and 50 units in 1990
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.
-------
Table 4.2.2 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
solids as fuel in 1986, and maximum and available capacity for 1987,
1988, and 1989-1990. Again, the analysis assumes that hazardous wastes
capacity not utilized in 1986, and all new hazardous wastes 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 forms were filled out for other treatment systems and the data were
entered into a PC data base. The data base was prepared to assist in the
capacity analysis using a software package called Jazz, manufactured by
the Lotus Development Corporation. 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. 14).
There are four major treatment system categories in the data base.
Each of the four major categories 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
4-41
-------
Table 4 2.2 Commercial Capacity of Industrial Kilns for "Reuse Fuel" of Hazardous Waste (Million Gallons/Year)
Physical form
of waste
Liquids
Sludges
Solids
1986
Ut i lized Maximum
capacity capacity
55 167
<1 1
<1 1
1987
Aval lable
capacity
112
1
1
Maximum
capacity
214
1
1
Aval lable
capacity3
159
1
1
1988
Maximum
capacity
216
2
1
Aval lable
capacity3
161
2
1
1989-1990
Maximum
capacity
288
4
2
Aval lable
capacity3
233
4
2
TOTAL
55
169
114
216
161
219
164
294
239
Sources (1) TSDR Survey results as of April 8, 1988. Data from 21 facilities, including 37 operational units in 1986 and 49 units projected
(current and planned) for 1989 to 1990.
NOTE: For cases where capacity was added to existing units or by new units, all facilities indicated new capacity would be available 100 percent
for hazardous, waste.
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 burning (reuse as fuel) of hazardous wastes being land disposed that may be affected by
the land disposal restrictions.
-------
I. Wastewater Treatment (continued)
Process Code
- 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
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
get double counted. The treatment systems were categorized by using the
4-43
-------
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
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 comprise the treatment capacity data set were
required by solvents, California List HOCs, and First Third proposed
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 4.2.3 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 was assumed to remain
constant for the subsequent years in making these projections. Where a
4-44
-------
Table 4.2.3 Commercial Treatment System Capacities {Million Gallons/Year)0
i
-c*
en
Technology
description Utilized
Stabilization ' >67
High temperature metals recovery 34
Cyanide oxidation and chemical
precipitation 29
Chromium reduction and chemical
precipitation 130
Carbon adsorption and chromium
reduction/chemical precipitation 4
Carbon adsorption and chemical
precipitation 6
Chemical precipitation 84
Sulfide precipitation 54
Neutralization 18
Steam stripping 1
Carbon adsorption 5
Biological treatment 106
Wet air oxidat ion 3
1986
Maximum Aval lable
capacity capacity
>787 >720
67 34
107 78
323 193
16 12
33 28
218 134
298 244
58 40
12 11
7 2
140 35
3 <1
1987
Maximum
capacity
>330
67
107
323
16
33
218
298
58
12
7
140
^
Aval lable
capacity
>263
34
78
193
12
28
134
244
40
11
2
35
«'
1988
Maximum
capac ity
>496
67
193
324
16
33
220
301
58
12
17
157
5
Avai lable
capacity
>429
34
164
195
12
28
136
247
40
11
11
51
2
1989-1990
Maximum
capacity
>979
67
217
324
16
33
233
302
58
12
28
173
5
Avai lable
capacity
>912
34
188
195
12
28
149
248
40
11
23
67
2
Numbers may not add because of rounding
-------
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
utilized capacity of the closed system in the analysis results in
reducing the available commercial capacity for that category. Available
capacity values presented in parentheses on Table 4.2.3 represent the
utilized capacities of systems which close or the amount of waste treated
in 1986 that can no longer be treated by a system because of a reduction
in its maximum capacity. When summing the available capacity columns,
the numbers in parentheses are treated as negative values. The data in
this table was summarized from a report on commercial treatment capacity
(Ref. 14).
Table 4.2.4 is a summary of the 1988 capacity data for all commercial
treatment systems of concern for this proposed 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.
4.3 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
4-46
-------
5036s
Table 4.2.4 Overview: 1988 Capacity for Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technologies
Technology description
Maximum capacity
(million gallons/year)
Uti1ized capacity
(million gallons/year)
Avai lable capacity
(million gallons/year)
Combustion
- Liquids
- Sludges
- Solids
365
15
53
118
4
17
247
11
36
Stabi lization
>496
>67
>429
Metals recovery
- Mercury retorting
- High temperature metals recovery
(not secondary smelting as identified
in the TSDR survey)
0
67
0
34
0
34
Wastewater treatment
- Cyanide oxidation, chemical precipitation, 193
and settling/filtration
- Chromium reduction, chemical precipitation, 324
and settling/filtration
- Carbon adsorption and chromium 16
reduction, chemical precipitation,
and settling/filtration
- Neutralization 58
- Steam stripping 12
- Carbon adsorption 17
- Biological treatment 157
- Wet air oxidation 5
29
130
4
18
1
5
106
3
164
195
12
40
11
11
51
2
Sludge treatment
- Acid leaching, chemical oxidation, and
dewatering of sludge and sulfide
precipitation of effluent
Numbers may not add because of rounding.
4-47
-------
available capacity. Available treatment capacity can be obtained from
the following sources:
Onsite (private capacity) - facilities that only manage waste
generated onsite.
Captive capacity - facilities that only manage 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.
Available capacity from these sources is contained in the TSDR Survey
data base. The data base contains information from base line 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 4.2.
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 4.1. The result of
treatability analysis was the assignment of waste volumes into
treatability subgroups.
The comparison of required and available capacity was performed on a
facility by facility basis. This was done in order to match treatability
subgroups with available capacity of applicable treatment/recovery
systems. Available onsite treatment capacity was only matched to volumes
4-48
-------
that were previously land disposed onsite and were determined to require
alternate 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
alternate 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 in order to match
treatability subgroups with appropriate treatment technologies. This
methodology was used by the Agency to make final determinations
concerning variances.
4-49
-------
5.0 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. V.ersar. 1988. Technical review procedures for the TSDR Survey.
Draft Report for the Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
6. Versar. 1988. Quality assurance plan. Draft Report for the Office
of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
5-1
-------
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. USEPA. 1986. Best demonstrated available technology (BOAT)
background document for FOOI-F005 spent solvents. Volumes 1-3.
EPA/530-SW-86-056. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
13. Versar. 1988. Procedures for completing PC data sheets for
priority TSDR facilities. Draft Report for the Office of Solid
Waste. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
14. Versar. 1988. The commercial treatment/recovery TSDR Survey data
set. Draft Report for the Office of Solid Waste. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
5-2
-------
APPENDIX A
Capacity Analysis for Solvent Wastes
-------
APPENDIX A
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 3 of this document.
-------
5035s/l
APPENDIX A
SOLVENTS
Technology: Combustion of liquids
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
F001 132,061
F002 380,688
F003 233,943
F004 19,765
F005 379.646
1,146,703
-------
5035s/2
APPENDIX A (continued)
SOLVENTS
Technology Comoustion of sludges/solids
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
F001 5,409,525
F002 11,255,064
F003 7,663,005
F004 3,537,657
F005 10,564,020
38,429,271
-------
503Ss/3
APPENDIX A (continued)
SOLVENTS
Technology Solidification/stabi1ization
Waste code
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
(gal Ions/year)
F 001
F002
F003
F004
F005
9,266
9,423
763,564
523,295
248,211
1,553,761
-------
5035s/4
APPENDIX A (continued)
SOLVENTS
Technology Wastewater treatment - cyanide oxidation
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
F002 42,214
F003 42,214
F005 42,214
126,642
-------
5035S/5
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 193,760
F002 280,736
F003 196,371
F005 207,526
878,393
-------
APPENDIX B
Capacity Analysis for California List
Halogenated Organic Compound Wastes
-------
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 3 of this document.
-------
5035s/6
APPENDIX B
Capacity Analysis by Technology per Waste Group/Code
Halogenated Organic Compounds (HOC) - First Third (Proposed)
Technology Combustion of sludges/solids
Waste code
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
(gal Ions/year)
K001
K019
K020
K016
K030
U077
2,176,398
72,000
26,400
513,120
10,560
3,840
2,802,313
-------
APPENDIX B (continued)
Capacity Analysis by Technology per Waste Group/Code
Halogenated Organic Compounds (HOC) - First Third (Not Proposed)
Technology Combustion of liquids
Required capacity I9»8
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
U036 960
U226 5,520
U228 ' 3,600
10,080
-------
5035S/8
APPENDIX B (continued)
Capacity Analysis by Technology per Waste Group/Code
Halogenated Organic Compounds (HOC) - First Third (Not Proposed)
Technology: Combustion of sludges/solids
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
F008
K085
P004
P037
P123
U036
U037
U044
U061
U129
U158
U209
U210
U211
U226
U228
U239
14,160
99,600
420
420
1,680
. 4,500
4,240
4,760
4,080
900
250,080
4,300
5,200
1,640
9,440
4,720
.1 , 680
412,320
-------
5035s/9
APPENDIX 6 (continued)
Capacity Analysts by Technology per Waste Group/Code
Halogenated Organic Compounds (HOC) - First Third (Not Proposed)
Technology: Wastewater treatment
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
U210 1,700
1,700
-------
APPENDIX B (continued)
Capacity Analysis by Technology per Waste Group/Code
Halogenated Organic Compounds (HOC) - Not First Third
Technology. Combustion of liquids
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
U030 240
U073 240
U156 1,440
1,920
-------
5035s/11
APPENDIX 8 (continued)
Capacity Analysis Dy Technology per Waste Group/Code
Ha logenaterl Organic Compounds (HOC) - Mot First Third
Technology: Wastewater treatment
Required capacity 1988
Without underground
injection wastes
Waste code (gallons/year)
0014 1,920,000
K105 4,560
1,924,560
-------
5035s/12
APPENDIX B (continued)
Capacity Analysis by Technology per Waste Group/Code
Halogenated Organic Compounds (HOC) - Not First Third
Technology: Combustion of solids
Waste code
0001
0012
0013
0014
D015
0016
P024
P02S
U070
U071
U072
U076
U080
U240
U142
Required capacity 1966
Without underground
injection wastes
(ga 1 Ions/year)
32,200
451,200
437,520
120
720
199,920
3,600
720
320
320
218,480
8,880
960
26,934
240
1,382,134
-------
APPENDIX C
Capacity Analysis for Contaminated Soil Wastes
-------
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.
The original TSDR survey data were sorted by waste description code
(i.e., those de-scribed as soils) and by 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
contaminated soils contained in Section 3 of this document.
-------
5035s/13
APPENDIX C
Technology. Combustion of soils
Required Capacity 1988
Solvents
First Third Proposed
F006
K001
K019
K020
K022
K048
K049
K050
K051
K052
K104
K106
HOCs (First Third not proposed
and not First Third)
Total
25,131,748
15,360
1,680,240
4,080
4,080
610,320
176,281
7,307,130
12,872
876,333
17,490
84,960
y.eoo
3,931,347
39,861,841
-------
5035S/14
APPENDIX C (continued)
Technology Solidification/stabilization of soils
Required Capacity 1988
Solvents
First Third Proposed
F006
K048
K049
K050
K051
K062
HOCs (First Third not proposed
and not First Third)
27
5,599
35
1,469
2
175
218
,632
,973
,255
,426
,574
,219
,«dO
0
Total 7,528,959
-------
APPENDIX D
Treatability Groups
-------
4787s-!
Waste Groups
TRD
Group Waste Code/A-B Codes
K022.-A06.A09; K035:A06.A09; K036.A06,A09; K037 :A06,A09;
K045:A06,A07,A09; K047:A06.A09; K101A06,A07,A09;
K102:A06,A07,A09; K106:A09, F020:A06,A09; F021:A06,A09;
F022:A06,A09; F023:A06.A09; F026:A06,A09; F027:A06,A09;
F028.-A09; F001:A09; F002:AQ9; F003.A09; F004:A09; F005:A09;
F024:A06,A09; K001:A09; K009.-A06,A09; K01Q-A06,A09;
K015:A06,A09; K016:A06,A09; K017-A06,A09; K018:A06,A09;
K019:A06,A09; K020:A06,A09; K021.-A09; K028: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:AQ6,A09, K095:A05,A09; K096:A06,A09; K097:A06.A09,
K098:A06,A09; K099:A06.A09; K10S:A06,A09, K116 A06.A09;
F007:A09; F008:A09; F009.A09; F011 A09; KOOS.A09, K007:A09;
K011:A06,A09; K013:A06,A09; K014.A06,A09; K060.A06,AQ9;
K023:A06,A09; K024:A06.A09; K048:A09; K049-A09; K05Q-.A09;
K051:A09; K052.A09; K103:A09; K104:A09, D012:B36; 0013:636;
D014:B36; D015:B36, D016:B36; D017:B36; U072:AEB; U036:A06;
U066:A06; U08Q-.A06; U226:A06; (D015.P123.B36),
(F002,F005:836); (F001,F003,F005:B36);
(P044,P050,P071,P089:B36); (U220,U159:836);
(U226,U080,P054,F002-B36), (U240.P094.B36), U051.A06;
U073;A06; U122 A06; (0016.D017.B36); (F003,F005:836);
(F003,F005,U019,U154 B36), U051 A06; U122 A06(S), U188 A06(S),
U223:A06(S); U226:A06(S); U228.A06(S); (D001,F002.836);
(0001,F001,F002,F003,BOOS.B36); (0001,F002.B36);
(D001,F002,F003,F005:B36); (0001,F002,F005 B36),
(F001,F002,F003:836); (F001,F002,F003,F004,F005:836);
(F002,F003:B36); (F002.F003.F005 836); (F002,F005:836);
(F002,U019,U037,U070,U071.U072:B36); U009:A06;
(F001,F002,F003,F005.B36), (K011,K013:B36); P063 A06;
U108:A06(S); (F002:A06(S)); K001 A06(S); U036-A06;
(F001,F002,F003,F004,F005:A09); U223'A06(S); 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);
(0001,0002,U019,U211,U188:B36); (U051,K001-B36);
(D001,D002,U037,U077,U067 B36), (0001,0002,F002,U226 841);
(U105.U106.B36); (U002.U154,U159.U161,U239:B36),
(U147,U182,U219-B85); (U188.U122.AEI), P037 A08, P081:A09;
U208:A06; P063:A06, F001 A06, 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 842), (F002:B82; F003-B42;
F005-B42); (F024,K019,K020,U077 B36), (K022,U188,U055'B36),
(P123,U061:B36); (U022.-B45, U080, U226. B36), (K104 A06);
(U031,U220,U239:B36); (U003.A06); (U188,U052:B52);
(U051,U165:B36)(U081,U188-B36)(U083,U140,U226.B36); U221:A06,
U239-A06; U248:A06
-------
4787s-2
Waste Groups (Continued)
TRD
Group Waste Code/A-B Codes
2 0012.880,881,686,889; D013.880,681,686,889;
0014.B80,881,B86,689; 0015B80,881,B86,B89;
D016:B80,881,686,689; 0017:B80,881,B86,B89; K034-A07,
K043',K118:A07; U067.A06, U240.K061 A08;
(P063:BID,BXA,U009:BID,8XA,K011:BID,K013.BID),
(F001,FQ02,F004,F005-B89), U122;A07(S), (U019.U165,1)220:890) ;
(U051,U052:B90); U072'A08(S), (U122 ,U159,U188,11220:890);
(U220,U226:B90); 0001,0002,0003:864; U188,U223,U051:A08;
U221.A07(S), (F003,F005,P063-B11(S)); U069 A08, U080:A08;
U158-A13; U18S-A08,A09,A13; U210:A08, U228-A13,
U188,U223,U051 A08; D012-B80; 0016 880; (P071,P123,U239.B81);
U061;A08; (F002.,F002:B84, F003,F004,F005.B90);
(F002:689,F004 690), (K022,K083,U012,U055,U188 645); U210 ACS,
U211.A08; U220-A08; (D001,F003,F004 B89) (0001,0002.682)
(0001,0002,0003.682) (0002,F003,F005'B89) (0001,0014:880)
(D001,F003:B89) (0001,U122 689) (0002,P089:B90)
(D001,F003,F005:B89) (0002,F001,F005:B89); (U24Q,U192:B81)
(F003,F004,F005:B89) (F004,0001-B89) (D001,F002,F003,F005'B89)
(K001,U051:B89) (0001,0014,U240,U093'880) (K022,K083:B90)
(U012,U221:B90) (0014,U036,U093,P020:680) (U070.U071,U072:B89)
(U159,U220:B90) (D001.F001,F002,F003,F004:889)
(U180,U170,U226:B90) (U211,U044,U080'B89) (U213,U159:B90)
(U220,U209.B89) (U239,U220 B90); (F001,F002,F003,F005:B89)
(F001,F002,F003,F004,FOOS.B89) [F001,F002,F003,F005,D001 689)
(F002,F005,U165,U239,U107 890) (F024,U077,K019,K020.B89)
(K022,K083,UQ12,U055,U188 B90) (U036,U129,U247,P004,P037'B89)
(U044,U080,U208,U211,U226:B89) (U070.U071,U072,U211 889)
(U037,U080,U210,U220,U228:889) (K022,KOS5,U012,U055,U188:B90)
3 K009,K017,K029,K042,K095,K096,K116 A07; KQ14:A05.A07,
D001-B69; D002-B59; 0012,0013,0014,0015,0016,0017:664;
(0001:862, 0002:605); (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; U227:A08, (F001,F002,F003,F004:A08); U180.A08;
U169.A11; U030:A11; U073.A08; U122 All, U156 All
4 F001,F002,F003,F004,F005 A04, (F001.F002.F003 B71)
5 K047-A05.A07, (P071,P059,P050 814), 0003 B64, (0001,0002:664);
(0001,0002:604); U122 A05
-------
4787S-3
Waste Groups (Continued)
TRD
Group Waste Code/A-B Codes
5 0004-666,668,673,674,877; 0005-666,868,673,674,677;
0006:B66,B68,B73,B74,B77; 0007.666,868,373,674,877,
D008:B66.B68,B73,B74,B77; 0009:666,868,673,674,877;
D010:666,B68,873,674,677, 0011:666,668,673,874,677;
(0007,P008:674); (0004,0006,0007,0008-630); 0007:630;
(K027,0007,0008:675); F019:A04; (0007,0008:874);
(F001,F002,F003,F005,D007.840), (F003,F005,F006,K048:B40;
K049-.6); (K086:A04)
7 K010:A07; U154.A08
8 K106.-A07; (K106.D009 B51)
9 F001:A01,A02; F002-A01,A02; F004:A01,A02; F005:A01,A02;
U070:A08(L); (D001,U054,F001,F003,F005.B58); (U210.F001.659),
(F002,F003,FOQ5:B61), (F002,U226:B59); (0001,0002:661);
(D001,F002,F003,F005:661), (F003,F005:661);
(D001,F003,F008:B61)
10 F007-.A05.A07; F009. A05, A07 , F011. A05, A07 ; F008 ,F010. A05,
0003:B07,B14,816; 0004,0005,0006,D008,0009,0010, DQ11:607 ,
(F006:B04,F007-B07,F008'F09), (F007:B07,F008:B09); P063.A08;
(0002,F009:607); (0002.0003,D008,0009.609),
(F002,F003,F005,D007,D008:B38)
11 F008:A07,A08; D003-B24, 0004:624,825; 0005-824,825;
0006.824,625, 0008:624,825; 0009:624,825, 0010 824,625;
0011:624,825; F008,F009:B24; 0007,F006.824; (FQ06.F008.831);
(F006:B47; F007-.B51) (F006,F008:647); (F008,F009:B42)
12 0004:814, 0005:603,606,810,814,816; 0006:803.806,BIO,814,816;
0008:803,805,806,810,813,814,815,816,
0009:603,806,810,814,816,817;
0010:802,803,606,810,813,814,816, 0011 603,806,810,B14,616;
K046.-A05; (0002,0008,0009:603), P122-A05, (0009:605);
0008:RECODE; (0002,0008:814), (0006,0008:814);
(0002,0005,0006,0008:803); (0002,0004.803); (D006,0008:603);
(D002,D004,0006:803); (0006,0008.0010.814)
13 0005:623,631,832, 0006.623,831,832, 0010:823,631,632;
0011-623,631,832; 0009:823,831,632,834; (0005,0006,0008-831);
0002,0004.823, POlO.POll,P012A05,A08
-------
4787s-4
Waste Groups (Continued)
TRD
Group Waste Code/A-B Codes
14 0007:803,806,BIO,B13,814,816, (0002,0007 803); 0002:803,810;
D007:BAC; (0006,0007,F007,F009:805),
(0002,0007,0008,0009:BOS), (K048.B01,K049:802),
(0002,0007,0009:805); (0002,0007 BOS); JD002:B05, 0007.813,
F019:803, F001:B01); (0007:813, F019-B03); (0002:805,
0007:806); (0005,0007,0008,0011:802); (0002,0007,0008:806);
(0002,0006,0007,0008,F007.F009 805); F006.A06;
(P011,U032.814); (0002,0005,0006,0007,0008:613);
(0002,0006,0007,0008:B03); (0002,0003,0007:809);
(0002,0003,0006,0008:803); (0002,0004,0006,0007,0009:814);
(0002,0007,0010:814), (0002:805, 0007.806), K.051.A05
15 0007.823,831,832,835; K062:AEA,
(0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,0010,0011-823); (K069:A06);
(K062:A06); (0004,0006,0007,0008,0010:620)
16 0003:808; P030:A05; (0002,0003:809)
17 0003:875, P030:A06,A07,A08
18 0004:820,822; 0005:820,822, D006:B20,B22, 0007:620,822,830;
D008:BEA; 0009:820,822; 0010:820,822; 0011:820,822;
F006:A06,A07,A10,A11,A05S,AAB, F019:A06,A07,A10;
K002:A06,A07,A10,B20; K003.A06,A07,A10,820; KQ04:A06,A07,A10,
K005:A06,A07,A10,B20, KOQ6:A06,A07,AID,820;
K007 A06,A07,A10,820; K008:A06,A07,A10, K044:A07,A10;
K046:A06,A07,A10; K048:A10; K049:A10; K050:A10, K051:A10;
<052:A10; K062 A06,A10,AAB; (F019,0007:822) ; U032-.A06;
(K061,K062:BID);(0007,0008,K061.F006:BIO); 0002,0008:819,
(0002,0008:820); F006:BAB; XASH.B39; K061:A10;
(K061,0008:637); (0008:636); (K044.A07); (D002,0004,0010:620);
(F006,0007,0008:837), P012,P110:A06; P015:AAF, P120:A06;
(0005,0006,0007,F006-841); (F006.F019-B41); (D008,F006:B51);
(K044,K046:841); (F005,0008:838); (F006,0005,0006,0007:851);
(K031,0006:837), (P015:A08); (U144-A08)
19 K097:A05,A07; K098:A05,A07; K099-A05,A07, K073:A05,A07(L);
K033-A05.A07; 0012:802,816; 0013:802.616; 0014.601,B02,B16;
0015:802,816; 0016:802,815, 0017 802,616
-------
478/s-S
Waste Groups (Continued)
TRD
Group Waste Code/A-B Codes
20 K028:A06,A07; K044.K049,K050,K051,K052 A05;
(D007,D008,F002,F003,F005:B82), (D008,F003,F005:B36),
(D008,F003:B36); (D001,0002,0003,0004,
0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,0010,F003,F004,F006,F019:B56);
(0001,0002,0003,0004,D005,0006,0007,0008,0009,F001,F002,F003,
F004,F005, F006,K061,K062:BIK), (0001,0002,D003,D004,DOOS,
0006,0007,0008,0009,F001,F002,F006:B36); (0001,D002,0003,
D004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0010,D011,F001,F002,F006:B36);
(D001,0006,F002,F003,F005 836); (0001,0006,0007,DOOS,F001.F002,
F003,F004,F006:BIK), (D001,0007,0008,F002 B36);
(0001,0008,F002,F003.836), (D001,0008,F002,F005B36);
(D001,F006:B36); 0002,F006,F007,F009.K062:BIK);
(0002, D003,D004,0005,D006,0007,0008,0010,0011,F001,F003,F006,
F007,F008,F009:BIK); K048:A06{S), P120.A13(S);
(0004,0008,0009,11061-636); KOSl.All(S), (0007 ,F002 :B82);
(D007,F005:B82); (F001,F002,F003,F004,F005:B89;
0004,0005,0006,0007,DOOS,0009,0010,0011,0012,0013,0014,0015,
0016,0017.640; KQ86:B90;
F006,F007,F008,F009,F010,FQ11,F012-B40); (F005,F006,D007:B36);
(U188,U158:B42; 0006,0007,0008-B43); (0008,U221:B90)
(D001,F003,F008:B89) (0002,F003 B89) (F003,0008:689)
(F003,D009.B89); (0005,0006,0008,U028,U190'B90)
(F003,F004,0008:689) (K.016.K.031 ,F006,U101,11183 .690)
(F006.K016,K031-B47) (FOQ3.F019 B51) (K011,K013,F008:B90)
(K027,0007:890) (D004.K016,K031,U188-B52)
21 K105.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; KQ20:A07; K030-A07
-------
4787S-6
Waste Groups (Continued)
TRO
Group Waste Code/A-B Codes
27 K048 A07.A11, K049 A07, K050:A07; K051.A07; K052-A07;
K086.A07(M), (K048,K049,K051 B73), ((C050.K051-873),
(K048,K049,K050,K051 873); P12Q-A08,
(K048,K049,K050,K051,K052B90); (K048,K049,K051:890);
K049:A11; K050:Ali; K051:A11; (K048,K049,K050,K051-873);
K049:AAC; K049-AAD; (K048.K051.873), (K048,K049,K051:BQB);
(D003,K051:B26), (0002.K049-873);
(K048,K049,K050,K051,K052-B73); (K049.K051 B62(S));
(K049,K051:B22), (K048.K049-873), (K049.K051.890),
(K048.K051.B90); (K048.K051:873)
28 K071-A05.A07; (K071,K106:B52); (K071,K106,0002,D009-851)
29 K103.A05,A07, K104-A05,A07; (K083.U012.802)
30 K061.A07.AEA; U151-A08; 0008:820,822
31 K062:A05,A07; (K062,0002603)
32 K015:A07
33 F003 A01.A02
34 K031.A06.A07
35 0002:804,605,814,835; (1C062 :B04, 0002.805), D002:BMB,B52,
(K062-604,0002:805); F006:804; U134 ACS; 0009 B30; F005:B20(M^
36 K011:A07; K013:A07; (K011,K013,P063,U009:B64); P069 A08;
U009:A08; 0008:869; (0002,0003,U012,U037,U015.864);
(U012.U070-864)
37 F020.A07(M), F021.A07; F022.A07, F023-A07; F026.A07; F027:A07;
KQ73:A07, K060-A07 (sludges)
38 F020:A05,A07(L), F021:A05,A07; F022:A05.A07, F023-A05,A07,
F026:A05,A07; F027 A05.A07; K060-A05 (liquids)
-------
4787s-7
Waste Groups (Continued)
IRQ
Group Waste Code/A-B Codes
39 K.001,K022,K035.K036,F024,KQ32,K041,KOfi3,K.Otf5,K087 A07,
D012.B22,B30,B71,879, 0013:822,830,671,679,
0014:622.B30,B71,B79; 0015 822,830,871,679;
D016:B22,B30,671,679, 0017 622,630,671,679; F001.A03;
F002:A03; F003:A03,B74; F004:A03.B74, F005.A03.B74;
P024,P089,P094,P123:A08; (F003,F005:677); (K027,D002'B75);
(F001:B61, F002:B71. F003:B72, F005:B63, XOIL.B63);
K083:A07(M), (F001,F002:B71)
40 F001:A05,601,B05, (U188.U031,U037.601); F002:A05; F003 A05;
F004.A05; F005:A05; P020:A05, U210 A05; U177'A05, U211 A05;
U244:A05; (F003,F004,U008:B05);
(U159.U041,1)077,U083,U084.801), (F001.U162 605),
(F001,F004,F005-B01), (F001,F002,F003,F004:B01) ,
(F001,F003,F004,F005:B01); (Ul54,U239,F003,F005.B14);
(K019,K030:B02); (U034,U044,U045,U220'B02);
(D001,F002,F003,F005:B01); 0001:601
41 K073:A06
42 U031:A05; U154:B05; K016-AEE
43 P005-606
44 0004:666,668,663, 0005 666,868,863, 0006.866,668,663,
0007:666,668,862,663; 0008.866,868,663, 0009.866,668,863;
0010:866,868,663, 0011:866,868,663, (D001 B62, K086.B66);
K086.-B66; (P005;B06, 0001:669); K086.A02;
(0001,0002,0007:663), (K048,K050:B62); (K048,K049:A05)
45 (K022,U188,U055,U002,0007-B02), (P056,0007:814),
(D001,D007,F002,F003,F005801)
46 (K022,U188,U055,U002 802); U188 A05
47 U147:A05; U170-A05
48' (K082,0002,F003,F004,U008,U009-B05); (0006,0007 ,F001.809)
-------
4787S-8
Waste Groups (Continued)
TRD
Group Waste Code/A-B Codes
49 K011,K013:A05; U009:A05,605, (K011,K013:A05);
(KOI1,K013,K014:602); (KOI1,K013,K014B02,D002:805);
(K011,K013,U009,U154,U162,U192,U008,U007,P069,P063,F001:805);
(KOI 1,K013,U009, U192, U008, U007, P069, P063:805);
(K022,K013,P003:B02. P063:B08); (U009:A06(L);
(K011,K013,K014:BQ2, 0002:805); (D002:BAG)
50 K015:A05
51 0004:806,803,810,816,618; (0002,0004:610)
52 D004:B23,B31,B32
53 0004:807
54 F010,F011:A07; F012.A05
55 K024-.A07
56 K045,F001:A10; K062.P120:All; (F003,F005:838);
(0006,0008,F001,F002,F003,F005,F006,K048,K049,K051:840);
57 Lab packs
58 (K011,K013,K014:B30); K011:AED
59 (D008,F001:651)
60 Soil/debris
61 K069-A07
62 F008.-A04; (D004,D006,D008.B30); K084:A07(M)
63 None assigned
64 None assigned
55 (0007,0008,0001,K061,FOG6:B1D), (0007,0008:882),
(0001,0005,0006,0007,0008.0010-682), (0001,0006,0007-882);
(D008:B82); (0001,0007,K017:882); (0001,0008.882);
(0001,0009-632), K049.K050:A06(S); (K051.D008 890);
(0001,F001:682); (F001,F005'882)
-------
4787s-9
Waste Groups (Continued)
TRD
Group Waste Code/A-B Codes
66 ;F006,P029,P074,P121 847), (FQ07,F008.F01G,F011.F012 BID),
F007.F008 A06; (F007.FC09.B46), (F006,FC12,K044,
-------
APPENDIX E
Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technology Groups
-------
4787s-10
Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technologies (AT/RT)
for Each Waste Group
TRD
group
1
2
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
34
35
36
37
38
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,
7,12,13,49
5,22,24,25
26,la,2a
26,lb,2b
26,la,2a,3,
27,7a,41a
28
29
30,31
32,17
34,lb,2b
8
4
lb,2b,3,4,ll
10,35
38
lb,2b,5,21.
la
Ib
la,2a
5,21,22,24,
52
6,21,22
44
22
6
-------
4787S-11
Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technologies (AT/RT)
for Each Waste Group
(continuedj
TRD
group
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
73A
74
75
77
78
79
31
82
33
84
85
AT/
7b,
36,
5,6
6
42,
RT codes
41b
40
,21,22
43
5,21,22,67
34,
45
46
47,
39
26,
51
53
la,
56,
54
55
56a
56b
56c
lb,2b
48
1,2
2a,21,22
41
,41a
,41b
,41c
7,41
14,
57
58
62
63,
10,
13
59,
65,
59,
48,
7b,
13,
36,
21,
69
7
/d
70
50
64
16,30,31
60
66
60,61
59
36,41b,43
68
42,43
22,70
1,71,21,22
-------
APPENDIX F
Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technologies
-------
4812s
Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technologies
Alternative
Treatment/Recovery
Technology Codes
Description
1
la
Ib
Ic
2
2a
2b
3
4
5
6
7
7a
7b
10
11
12
13
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
Fractlonation or batch still distillation
Carbon adsorption
Biological treatment
Incineration of solids followed by
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 fi1m evaporation
Cyanide oxidation followed by chemical
precipitation, sludge dewatering, 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
-------
4812s
Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technologies (continued)
Alternative
Treatment/Recovery
Technology Codes
Description
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Chemical precipitation, sludge dewatering,
and stabilization of the sludge
Slurrying followed by chemical precipitation,
sludge dewatering, and stabilization of the
sludge
Chrome reduction followed by chemical
precipitation, sludge dewatering, and
stafai1ization
Slurrying followed by chrome reduction,
chemical precipitation, sludge dewatering,
and stabi 1 ization
Cyanide oxidation
Slurrying followed by cyanide oxidation
Wet air oxidation followed by carbon adsorption
Wet a IT oxidation followed by biological
treatment
Solvent extraction followed by steam stripping
Steam or air stripping followed by carbon
adsorption
Fractlonation, batch still distillation, or
solvent extraction followed by incineration
of the organic stream
Rotary kiln or fluidized bed incineration
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
Chlorination followed by vacuum filtration,
followed by sulfide precipitation,
filtration, and sludge dewatering of the
filtrate from the vacuum filter
Solvent extraction followed by incineration
or reuse as fuel of the extract and steam
stripping and carbon adsorption of the
wastewater
Secondary smelting
Secondary smelting followed by stabilization
of the slag
Chromium reduction followed by chemical
precipitation and vacuum filtration
Chromium reduction followed by chemical
precipitation and sludge dewatering
Liquid injection incineration or reuse as fuel
-------
4812s
Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technologies (continued)
Alternative
Treatment/Recovery
Technology Codes
Description
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
41a
41b
42
43
44
45
46
47
Incineration followed by dissolving of the ash,
sulfide precipitation, sludge dewatering,
and stabilization
Carbon adsorption followed by chromium
reduction, chemical precipitation, sludge
dewatering and stabilization
Solids blending
Neutral nation
Electrochemical cyanide oxidation followed by
alkaline chlonnation, chemical
precipitation, sludge dewatering, and
stabi1ization
Wet air oxidation, followed by carbon
adsorption, chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation, sludge dewatering, and
stabi 1ization
Reuse as fuel of solids followed by stabiliza-
tion of the ash from boilers and process
heaters
Reuse as fuel of sludges followed by stabiliza-
tion of the ash from boilers and process
heaters
Reuse as fuel of liquids followed by stabiliza-
tion of the ash from boilers and process
heaters
Stripping followed by carbon adsorption,
chromium reduction, chemical precipitation,
sludge dewatering, and stabilization
Wet air oxidation followed by carbon adsorption,
chromium reduction, chemical precipitation,
sludge dewatering, and stabilization
Steam stripping followed by chemical
precipitation, sludge dewatering, and
stabi 1 ization
Sulfide precipitation followed by sludge
dewatering and stabilization
Slurrying followed by sulfide precipitation,
sludge dewatering, and stabilization
Cyanide oxidation followed by sulfide
precipitation, sludge dewatering, and
stabi1ization
-------
4812s
Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technologies (continued)
Alternative
Treatment/Recovery
Technology Codes
Description
48
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
stabilization
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
-------
4812s
Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technologies (continued)
Alternative
Treatment/Recovery
Technology Codes
Description
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
Biological treatment followed by sulfide
precipitation, sludge dewatering and
stabi1ization
Incineration of liquids followed by
stabilization of the ash and chromium
reduction, sulfide precipitation of the
scrubber water followed by sludge dewatering
and stabi1ization
Slurrying followed by general oxidation, sulfide
precipitation, sludge dewatering, and
stabi1ization
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
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
Cyanide oxidation followed by chromium
reduction, chemical precipitation, sludge
dewatering, and stabilization
Wet air oxidation followed by chromium
reduction, chemical precipitation, sludge
dewatering, and stabilization
General oxidation with hydrogen peroxide or
potassium permanganate
Carbon adsorption followed by chemical
precipitation sludge dewatering and
stabi1ization
Steam stripping followed by chromium reduction,
chemical precipitation, sludge dewatering and
stabi1ization
Mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes
Thermal regeneration of carbon
------- |